The Political Cartel (operated by a group of Harding University students) posted a piece on California’s recent decision regarding gay marriage. The last time I blogged about this topic, I took a great deal of heat. So, since this is not an anonymous blog, I will let you read what others have to say about this topic:
A family relationship is interpreted by the California State Supreme Court to include same-sex marriage. The court has effectively overturned (bar a constitutional amendment) the interpretation of a marriage to exist exclusively between a man and woman. According to the court, the definition of the family can be extended to mean between a man and man or a woman and a woman. This ruling done in spite of the 2000 voter referendum (Proposition 22) that banned same-sex marriages.
Thanks for the link love, Carson, always appreciated.
Responses to this court ruling will be interesting to observe. The response from the “religious community” will be particularly fascinating (to me, anyway).
I wish this ruling would have been handed down during the Spring semester, since we have more readers then.
You’ll get no heat from me. As a matter of fact, I (a straight, married woman) have been celebrating this decision all weekend long. It’s high time we started understanding – REALLY understanding – that separate does NOT mean equal. Separate but equal didn’t work for skin color, it doesn’t work for gender, and it doesn’t work for sexual orientation.
Gay marriage does not bring about the apocalypse, as some would claim. Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004, and there have been no reports of people trying to marry their pets or their toasters. The Earth has not opened up to swallow the state whole (I know – I was just there last week), no straight marriages (at least, as best as I can tell) have been threatened by the legality of same-sex marriage, and the economy of the state is not lying in smoking ruins. In fact, it’s practically a non-issue there now, which is exactly as it should be.
I say “two down, forty-eight to go!!”
So, I am guessing that you do not want to discuss this because you teach at a very conservative and a very religious school — correct? If that is the case, and people are so anti-gay marriage, why is it not against the law to be gay? Good for california. The rest of the country is waiting to follow.
It’s about time. When will the Christians out there realize that you can’t legislate morality that you do not have? Crazy! The time of Bible-based virtues for our government is past; it’s all relativistic… like President Slick says… it all comes down to how to define the terms. I’m all for gay marriage: I think married people should be happy. So what is marriage? I mean, our Presidents don’t even know what sex is, so this one’s a tuffy. Besides, moral outrage belongs on the side of… well, me. Because you don’t matter. Seriously. I don’t like what you do (prayer in schools? using crack cocaine? erecting a Nativity scene? displaying an erection in an art museum?) so I protest and boycott and create a stink, because that is not what I like or what I’m about! So it’s about me, not you. And you can just FORGET about community… that’s way out of date. No, you just need to tolerate me, because that is tolerance…Me? Tolerate you? you missed the point… it’s not about you. I don’t have to– I’m not intolerant, YOU are.
The “you cannot legislate morality” is an interesting case study in the theory of legal positivism. The theory that laws are rules made, whether deliberately or unintentionally, by human beings. There is no inherent connection between the validity conditions of law and ethnics or morality. Laws are simply laws. A law is valid if posited by a recognized authority.
I have an issue with positivist legal theory; it disregards social ethics, norms, or, in some cases, morals. I like to think that morality is legislated and institutionalized (but in a very different matter than, say, the religious right would like it to be). I see the ruling by the California court as an act of virtue. Not legislated morality, per se, because the court can’t “technically” do that, but a moral ruling. The court acknowledged homosexuals right to form what is a legal family. To prohibit the principle of a family based on sexual preference is, to me, contrary to just principle and indicative of bad character — thus immoral.
Per the linked blog: “As society advances and as morality evolves, the rights of human beings must be recognized and upheld. In this case, a right to equal protection under law, regardless of sexual preference.”
___
Bottom line: If morality comes from a Creator, then it is timeless. If morality comes from humans, then “…let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die”. Either our morals come from God, or they are made up as we go.
Trying to defend traditional marriage without including God in the discussion is pretty difficult. The “equal protection” issue seems kind of weak if civil unions are in place, but if I were a relative moralist I would find little difference between the two.
If morality evolves, and we are talking about individual freedoms and people being “happy”… why not allow polygamy between consenting adults? Defenders of gay marriage say there will not be a slippery slope toward other sexual unions, but I don’t see the logic of allowing one and not the other.
A vote for a constitutional amendment in 3…2…1…
Side Note: Another California “gift” to the nation: the Family Law Act of 1970. Governor Ronald Reagan signed the no-fault divorce reform, which quickly spread to the other states. While the intent was to lessen messy, hurtful divorces (which Reagan experienced), it also had the effect of weakening the commitment required to a marriage and a family.
I don’t support gay marriage, but i don’t understand why some people are against it and hate it so much. Some people will do anything to make this illegal, and i believe that instead of fighting for this we should be focused on more important things in our country. Many people in our country seem to be homophobic in a way, as though simply being around someone who is gay will hurt or change us forever. I believe we should just let them do what they want because they don’t do anything to others and they don’t bash others about their personal beliefs.
“Either our morals come from God, or they are made up as we go.”
Morals come from society, as they are in a constant state of change. To presuppose that morals come from God would imply an absolute standard. History teaches us that it is quite the contrary.
“If morality evolves, and we are talking about individual freedoms and people being “happy”… why not allow polygamy between consenting adults? Defenders of gay marriage say there will not be a slippery slope toward other sexual unions, but I don’t see the logic of allowing one and not the other.”
The logic? The logic is that to take the slippery slope side of the argument is a logical fallacy. First off, we’re talking about “equality,” although correlated with “happiness,” it isn’t the issue at hand. We’re talking about marriage. Marriage defined as a relationship between two consenting adults, regardless of sexuality, and marriage between one adult and several (consenting) have no connection other than the freedom to engage in a legally recognized relationship. Obviously the line has to be drawn somewhere when talking of legally recognized relationships. Don’t misconstrue the evolution of morality to fit snug-tight with a logical fallacy. We’re talking about the expansion of the family to include those other than heterosexuals not about expanding the definition of the family to include polygamy. It’s avoiding the merits of the issues in favor of emphasizing “what ifs” (typical “doomsday” scenario).
If we’re to talk about a slippery slope, then what’s to stop the expansion of marriage to include animals? Same logic, same fallacy.
Perhaps one day polygamous will have enough political and social support to make a push for legal recognition. But they don’t and it isn’t the issue at hand. To shift the debate towards a hypothetical is avoiding the debate itself.
I completely agree with Patrick. Our country has to get it’s priorities straight if we’re so concerned with who people love and marry. We have much bigger issues that could possibly occur and have the potential to do so if we don’t focus on what really matters most. Especially being Christian, we shouldn’t judge people, and we should unconditionally love others, no matter what. Our country needs to focus on more important things than this.
History teaches us that the morals of humans do change. Sometimes for better, sometimes for the worse. Not exactly a sterling track record.
If morals come from society… and a constitutional amendment is passed by the majority of that society to limit marriage between one man and one woman… then that should be the end of it until the majority changes… correct?
The slippery slope is not a logical fallacy. Part of the rationale of the California Supreme Court’s ruling was that other, smaller legislation had passed that seemed to support homosexual unions. They go on to say those laws didn’t have any effect on this ruling, but it’s telling that they were included anyway.
You say “marriage defined as a relationship between two consenting adults, regardless of sexuality”… but why is your definition now locked-in and immune from assault? The definition cannot be set in stone if it is being changed to include two men or two women. If a minority can draw a line in the sand (and yes, the pro-gay marriage camp is in the minority), why can’t another minority (polygamists) draw their own line further down the beach? Fifty years ago the idea of gay marriages would have been laughably hypothetical, so discussing polygamy is hardly avoiding the debate—it is engaging it head-on.
While some would try to include animals or under-age marriages to the slippery slope, I would concede (at least at this point in society’s evolving morals!) that the vast majority would hardly call those consensual unions.
Exit question 1: If the vast majority of humans found murder acceptable, would murder be considered moral? (Just trying to figure out how un-absolute the human moral standard is).
Exit question 2: Is there such a thing as an absolute truth? Ah, tricky! If you say no, then you’ve just declared an absolute truth. If there are absolute truths, then we should all be working to find out what they are.
Christ-like folks don’t hate gay people. They just see homosexuality as a sin and feel uncomfortable codifying a sin. Christians also understand they are sinners too and need redemption just as much as anyone else.
Defending traditional marriage is not a personal attack on gays. Should those that support gay marriage be called bigoted toward Christians, Jews, or Muslims? I’d like to think there could be a good-faith debate about the issue without assuming all the participants are twirling their mustaches.
Is it OK NOT to have a strong opinion on this??
There are a number of people who hare your thoughts Jim. This commnet here is very Interesting:
“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said in a statement that he respected the ruling and did not support a constitutional amendment to overturn it.”
Carson, I believe you will find that my stance on this issue is quite different from the majority of my classmates. From a purely religious stand-point, same-sex marriage is wrong, it’s an abomination, it ruins the sanctity of marriage blah blah blah. From a religious stand-point I have the same feelings towards the issue as everyone else. However, I make it a point not to mix religion with politics. From a political stand-point I believe that gays should receive the same treatment as heterosexuals. I believe that if two men or two women love each other then they should receive the same economic benefits that straight people receive through marriage. People get their thoughts mixed up about politics. They begin to believe that this is a country that is driven by Christianity. To believe such a thing is to no longer believe in America, because isn’t America supposed to accept everyone regardless of race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation?
Matt, how do you defend that our morals come from God? (I’m not trying to trap you; I would really like to know your take). I sense that you feel uncomfortable (and see many inconsistencies) in the notion that society determines morals (and ethics for that matter).
“History teaches us that the morals of humans do change. Sometimes for better, sometimes for the worse. Not exactly a sterling track record.”
I won’t argue with this statement, because you’re right. The overt and covert subjugation of women, slavery, racism, eugenics, segregation, etc … are immoral despite the fact that many of them were accepted facets of civilized life (some still are).
In the postmodern society of the 21st century, society more than ever shapes one’s perception of humanity. Many today hold the pervading viewpoint that there is no real absolute, only relative perception. As uncomfortable as that statement makes some people, this relative perception doesn’t have to be a derisive human axiom. Over the progression of time humanity has proven its reliability to correct itself. Through the facet of liberalism and human rights, society has hastened an environment free of slavery, governments where women wield power, equal opportunity provided regardless of race, and a free flow of education and information. Morality is evolving, times are getting better, and people are becoming freer. This evolution has been adopted and implemented by society, regardless of religious affiliation, and will continue to advance with or without the auspice of religion on its side.
Let me add, before I sound too deist/atheist, that I definitely believe that religion has immense influence upon society and therefore upon individuals. But even religion is in a constant state of change. Religious doctrine changes with time, as does societies acceptance or negligence of religion.
To address the slippery slope argumentation, you’re right in saying that perhaps one day the definition of marriage could be extended (but that’s not the issue at hand). You’re employing a logical fallacy as a argumentative tool to discredit the issue at hand. Name me a law or policy that doesn’t have the potential to lead to something else?
I can easily turn the slippery slope in the opposite direction: Should we ban interracial marriages? What about interfaith marriages? What about marriages in which one person is more than 5 years older than the other? Or I could say I support a ban on gay marriage if it is coupled with a ban on divorce. Of course I’m not really employing these arguments, because they’re absurd — with all due respect, much like yours.
Exit A #1: Developed society has typically gone to great legal lengths to prevent the unjustified taking of life. However, to answer your question: The majority isn’t always consummate with what is right, so, no.
Exit A #2: What is truth? Sort of perceived isn’t it?
Here’s a few questions I have:
What is moral? If you’re able to answer that: Is it possible for something to be morally relative?
A mathematical truth: 2 + 2 = 4
If a social fiat were made to declare 2 + 2 = 5, it would not change the fact that 2 + 2 = 4.
You say it is absurd to suggest society might also “perceive” that 2 + 2 = 6 since its only intention (right now) is to resolve 2 + 2 = 5. Yes, absurd indeed!
If the group Truth for Four were to keep declaring 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong, would that now be considered a form of discrimination, slander, or even a hate crime?
Mathematics is beautiful because it is logical and constant. Every man or woman must decide whether they are purely a biological construct or a spiritual being in a physical body. For me, the universe it too organized to be a chance occurrence. Why would a Creator go all Erector Set infusing laws of physics and math but not include a moral DNA?
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” – Isaiah 5:20
Do I have all the answers to what is moral in every instance? Nah…just like everybody else I’m trying to put as much of the puzzle together as I can. Leaving God out of the discussion could be leaving a significant part of the picture in the box.
Good discussion.
Matt, your argument is based on a science that cannot measure love or affection. That is cold. Emotions are what drives human interactions. Sure, it gets us in trouble at times, but that is the risk of emotion. Plus, not all people believe in a god. Those who do not have the right (as the court stated) to equality under the law. We are not governed my religious norms that define morality.
I agree with S.C. Denny in that how can one use religion to define marriage and relationships. What about the ole days when people used religion to argue against interracial marriage?
Ah, Gloria brings forth the immutable (and unmeasurable) aspect romanticism in marriage, family, and life.
Gloria, science can’t measure love and affection. That’s not its job. And, quite frankly, if we all (myself included) used a little less emotion in a lot of our human interactions, things might go more smoothly. I for one could with less anger in my interactions and more logic, which is not an emotion at all.
I am definitely for gay marriage although i do believe that this will upset lots of people. I have a few gay friends whom i respect and believe that just because they feel differently about love than i do doesn’t mean i must disapprove of their ideas. I don’t think gay marriage will ever come to law in Texas and if it does there will be lots of criticism and damage towards the gay community.
I understand your concern, Gloria. Here’s my take:
- God set the rules. (2 + 2 = 4)
- Man broke the rules, as God knew he would. (2 + 2 = 5)
- God payed the penalty on man’s behalf with His own Son. (2 + 2 = 5 – 1)
Not cold at all! It’s brilliant.
I am not suggesting man-made religions define marriage (which is all over the map). I’m suggesting God may have defined marriage from the start.
If God does not exist, then marriage is just a word of convenience.
Matt: I am still confused here. I do not believe in god but have been a part of a wonderful marriage. Is that not real? I see marriages as being contractual for political and legal reasons and not religious. It is a decision people make.
Daniel: I agree.
Kristi: sounds cold but you are right.
Steve: I am sure you agree.
Seriously; whether one believes in God or not is not relevant. It’s not about you or your feelings; it really is about truth, and yes, there are absolutes… like Love.
Matt, keep adding it up.
Gloria, God loves you and will reveal himself to you.
SC, interesting constructs… have you ever read CS Lewis’ “The Great Divorce? You seem to have great insight yet struggle with your core..? Maybe not. I don’t know you.
For the record, I can think of no law that was legislated (not to be confused with how this political court did an end run) that does not have at some root a moral basis. We legislate morality every day in our capital buildings.
Patrick and Jake, way to stand up for your ideals.
Carson, grade your papers.
reading my own post, it seems way harsher than I was trying to communicate. My intent was pragmatic. apologies.
wildscienceboy: I did not take it that way. Thanks for the contribution. I found it to be pragmatic too.
wildscienceboy, C.S. Lewis is great for his simplicity, but incomplete and theologically shallow for the same reason. The presupposition behind Christianity is what I struggle with (the core, as you seem to suggest). Something that Lewis seems to simplify for many. Lewis’s “moral law” theory is interesting, but hard to accept as the ultimate explanation for discerning good and evil or right and wrong.