Monday, March 03, 2008
|
|
A Theological Underpinning for Same Sex Unions?
|
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
12:06 PM
|
|
Barack Obama has used the Sermon on the Mount as theological justification for same sex unions, saying that "for [his] faith," its message is "more central than an obscure passage in Romans."
As the author of the linked piece, Terrence Jeffrey of CNS, points out, Barack didn't specify which part of Sermon on the Mount he believes would support his views. But he does include a link to a letter setting forth Obama's views on LGTB matters, which includes the following language:
As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) . . .
That's pretty radical. It's important to make sure that Barack's views on topics like this get out there, as his views are way left of the American mainstream. It goes without saying that even as cultural conservatives critique those views, it will be important to do so with a tone and in terms that cannot be construed (or misconstrued) as anything other than civil and respectful. Too often, lefties avoid debating on the merits by throwing out accusations of bigotry and hatred -- charges that are amplified and repeated by a media that for the most part understands far too little about social conservatives.
|
|
This is the only issue I have found where I actually agree with Obama. On every other issue, I find his views to be 100% wrong, but this is an exception.
In this case, he is actually advocating a conservative position. It is a conservative principle that decisions be made as close to the electorate as possible. Obama correctly observes that decisions regarding marriage belong at the state and not the national level. Interfering in the definition of marriage at the Federal level is violation of state's rights.
He is also correct that the bully pulpit should be used to try to influence others rather than using the force of law to impose one's personal beliefs. This is a truly conservative point of view, and one seldom exhibited by the Left.
The only area where I disagree Obama in this one matter is when he indicates his position arises from his faith and his interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. His faith and his interpretations of scripture are personal and they have no place in the discussion of public policy.
The power of the government arises from the people as documented in the Constitution. It is on that basis alone that policy should be debated and decided. Not on the faith of one person, one group or one religion. |
|
The Sermon on the Mount "raised the bar" for followers of Jesus. Instead of don't kill He said don't even get angry. Don't commit adultery was uped to not even looking lustfully at a woman. While we are commanded not to judge others (because we all sin and all need the redeeming blood of Christ), the standard of righteousness was increased not reduced to some relativistic idea of accepting and endorsing deviant lifestyles.
JJ - Oposition to the DOMA is not Conservative. Maybe in an ideal world it would be, but activist courts have made acts like this important. The danger is that a court will declare a MA "marriage" valid in TX when a couple moves, inspite of the feelings of the voters in the other state. DOMA is pro states rights in that it protects the rights of states to define marriage without being bound by decisions of others. |
|
|
You can always tell when it's election time: the GOP rolls out gay marriage. Funny, you right wingers never mention it any other time. |
|
Theologically, I don’t think Obama has much to stand on. The Sermon on the Mount does not say anything about gay marriage or anything in general regarding homosexuality. Christ wasn’t exactly detailing political policy decisions for a 21st century America, he was laying out personal principles for his disciples to live by.
That being said, I think the proper question to ask is why should the government be involved in marriage at all? Yes, there is a legal aspect for marriage as it does involve a contract that stipulates certain rights and responsibilities for each party, gives power of attorney and establishes kinship/succession rights. But I fail to see why the state could not make that contract (and rights) available to everyone without forcing religious or church recognition.
There would, of course, remain questions to be settled. I don’t see why corporations should be beholden to offer benefits to spouses at all, to illustrate one matter. Or to choose whom they wish to offer benefits to. “benefits” does not imply that they should be required or mandatory.
But I fail to see how that would change the church which is more concerned with the spiritual aspect of marriage: the union of a man and woman becoming one or demean my commitment to my wife.
So, I think the proper response is to: let anyone settle the legal questions via a partnership agreement (call it something other than marriage and apply the label to everyone), let couples that want to marry in the eyes of God and the church find a church that will do so, and let businesses determine their own benefits policy.
|
|
"...activist courts have made acts like this important"
This is exactly the problem with most so-called conservatives today. You willingly abandon conservative principles whenever you don't get the result you want. Principles are just that. They are the foundation. They aren't just there for when you win. The true test of a conservative is whether he will stick to his principles even when he loses. As you and so many so-called conservatives have demonstrated, your allegiance to conservative principles is one of convenience.
DOMA is an end run around the Constitution. The Constitution is the one document that, politically, conservatives should value above all others. The judiciary is the branch of government with the power to decide whether a law violates the rights of the individual. You don't have to agree with the decision, but as a conservative, you do have to respect it.
You want to wave a magic wand and utter the magic words "activist judges" and absolve yourself of the need to follow your own principles. You have every right to do that, but don't pretend you are a conservative. A conservative doesn't abandon principle for the sake of expediency. |
|
It's radical to say that states should have jurisdiction over marriage laws? Sorry, seems mainstream to me.
Can someone please explain to me how DOMA is Constitutional? Where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the power to regulate marriage? |
|
To Eileen in Ireland, it wasn't the 'right' that rolled out gay marriage as a issue...it was senator Barrak Hussein Obama himself that has made it an issue.
And his 'theological' interpretation of Paul in Romans is ludicrous! Paul condemns 'men having sex with other men' what is obscure about that - it is unmistakeable - he is condemning homosexuality! |
|
|
I can not agree with what Barack Obama stated in his Letter where he talks about his LGTB matters. In Barack Obama letter he states, "As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws." I disagree with Barack obama because it goes against my christian views. In the Christian religion same sex marriages is not aloud. I could even state it in a easier phase, "God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve." |
|
Great post. Try asking most conservatives to even define 'activist judge' anymore. In conspeak, it's meaning is basically 'a judge who makes a decision I don't like.' It has no bearing anymore on the content or justification for a decision.
What conservatives really want is activist conservatives, which is what Thomas and Scalia clearly are when you examine their records of overturning laws passed by Congress. |
|
"The Constitution is the one document that, politically, conservatives should value above all others."
You've been in a coma the last seven years, right? :)
"In the Christian religion same sex marriages is not aloud."
Yes, but this does not apply to the law. There are many things in life that may be sinful, but are (and should be) legal, if you believe that we as individuals have a right to pursue happiness and government exists to protect that right.
I'm fine with letting the government offer legal contracts to couples, so long as they do not force churches to perform ceremonies or recognize marriages. |
|
Let me see here:
"1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state."
So Massachusetts can't force a marriage that isn't legal under the laws of Texas on the state of Texas. That's as it should be.
"2. The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states."
So Massachusetts can't dictate to the Federal Government what the definition of "marriage" is. Again, this is how it should be. Massachusetts has authority over Massachusetts - nowhere else. Massachusetts gets to do what it wants within its own borders - not impose its terrible judiciary practice on the other 49 States and our territories.
Opposition to the D.O.M.A. on the grounds of Conservative Principle is a farce, nothing more than a vehicle of disinformation. Anti-marriage activists are trying to end-around the sovereignty of States to try and impose their uniform dogma on everyone by way of their jackbooted lawyers. D.O.M.A. puts an additional obstacle in their way, so they attack it tooth-and-nail.
|
|
"In the Christian religion same sex marriages is not aloud."
No one is suggesting that Christian churches have to recognize same-sex marriages. We are talking about the law and where it should be decided. Obama puts that responsibility at the state level where it has been historically and where it should stay. |
|
Are actually quite easy to define. They are judges that make up rights and create law instead of interpreting it. The right to abortion and right to gay marriage that courts are finding in the US and state constitutions are prime examples.
DOMA does not "regulate marriage", it allows for a state that does not recognize gay marriage to continue to not recognize gay marriage when a gay "married" couple moves from a state that performs those marriages. The Constitution has a clause that generally requires states to respect acts performed in other states. Without something like DOMA Texas could be required to accept "marriages" ordered by a VT judge. DOMA is pro-states rights! |
|
"Where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the power to regulate marriage?"
It isn't.
"What conservatives really want is activist conservatives, which is what Thomas and Scalia clearly are"
I think once a DOMA challenge is finally heard by the SCOTUS, you will find Thomas and Scalia agreeing it is unconstitutional. |
|
"The Constitution has a clause that generally requires states to respect acts performed in other states."
Exactly. It is called the Full Faith and Credit Clause. DOMA violates it. States have the right to have their contracts respected by other states whether those states agree or not. How would you react if your marriage was deemed invalid because you moved to a different state? I think you would expect MA to respect your marriage contract. Why shouldn't a couple from MA expect TX to respect theirs? |
|
"The right to abortion and right to gay marriage that courts are finding in the US and state constitutions are prime examples."
See a strict constructionist view of the 9th amendment. The absence of a right in the Bill of Rights does not mean we do not have it. There should be a presumption of liberty unless the state can make a legal argument for why they have jurisdiction.
Now you can take a principled stand against abortion despite that, if you base your argument on the 14th amendment.
"the sovereignty of States"
Marriage shouldn't be a State or Federal issue at all. It should be a Church issue. The Church should define marriage.
As to legal aspects like responsibility of parties for child care, power of attorney, etc, that is a state issue. |
|
Hoggie, just about every word in your posting was wrong.
First of all, "Ireland" is a country and a last name. I'm 100% Texan (unlike our current Looser-In-Chief).
Secondly, it is the right that always makes a point to bring up the issue and make it front and center in order to distract from this endless string of hideous failures of this Administration.
Finally: Marriage is a state issue. The President of the United States have little to no power in such matters.
|
|
cite please? Cite? Cite? Hello?
Moron. |
|
|
Moron. Seriously, how do you not fall down more? Does your hate of all things unlike yourself keep you warm at night? |
|
I am always amused when liberals get all worked up about conservatives "ignoring the Constitution", when liberal activist legislatures and courts have been ignoring the Constitution for the past 45 years to the detriment of our country.
I suspect that only a small fraction of Congress has ever read the Constitution, and fewer still feel constrained by it. |
|
|
Constitutional Amendments are NOT Unconstitutional. That is why they are called amendments, they are a change to the Constitution. A flag burning or defense of marriage amendment is one way (although a very difficult one) of establishing a principle in law. |
|
"A flag burning or defense of marriage amendment is one way (although a very difficult one) of establishing a principle in law."
What Reagan understood when opposed such amendments is that the amendment process is Constitutional, but these proposed amendments violate the intent and the spirit of the document. The Constitution establishes and places constraints on the government. It was never intended to place constraints on citizens. Using the amendment process to overrule the judicial process is a misuse of that process. |
|
"The fact is that gays are becoming increasingly marginalized and considered outside of the mainstream."
Polls suggest otherwise with a growing majority of young people expressing a 'live and let live' attitude toward gays and lesbians and a growing acceptance of the idea of gay marriage.
But again, this is a moot point to this debate. The debate is about the law, theology and the constitution, not about whether society dislikes teh gay. |
|
Amending the constitution to, say, allow unreasonable search and seizure, is "allowable." But it is clearly against the preceeding amendments. You have to repeal a prior amendment to allow the new one to be constitutional. Passing a flag burning amendment is still unconstiutional until you repeal the first amendment.
Try to get cowardly conservatives to understand that!
Conservatives are pussies. |
|
|
If we're going to refer to the bible, the Tenth Commandment clearly states that thou shall not covet thy neighbor's a$$... |
|
This debate took a decidedly sour turn when ReadABook jumped in the fray. Do you really think you represent liberals in a positive way?
The problem with conservatives sitting on their haunches and adopting the "its a state's rights issue" is that they will end up allowing the judiciary to decide the issue for them. Abortion was a state's rights issue also, until the Supreme Court chose to resolve the issue for the entire country, and conservatives have been gnashing their teeth ever since. The same could easily happen with regards to marriage.
Plus, the "its a state's rights issue" approach is inherently flawed because, as noted above, state's lose the right to define marriage within their boundaries as they are forced to accept marriages from other states that conflict with their own laws.
DOMA is probably bad law because it does seem to conflict with the Constitution, and a constitutional amendment, though difficult, is probably the most appropriate approach. |
|
|
So Barack Obama has taken upon himself to impute consent by Jesus for homosexuality, ignoring the fact that Jesus was a Torah observant Jew whose scriptures refer to homosexuality as an abomination. In continuing to prove his scriptural illiteracy, Mr. Obama presumes to refer to a passage in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans as "obscure". In truth, it does seem to be obscure to him, but certainly not to someone who actually reads the Bible.Allow me to quote the "obscure" passage, in part, to which the pretender to the Democrat throne refers: "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:32 I suppose that given the force of this Biblical condemnation of homosexuality, that the issue isn't that obscure to God. Mr. Obama, in your desperate effort to be elected President, at least please leave our scriptures alone. |
|
First of all if you are going to accuse the 'right' of rolling out gay marriage, I guess the left rolls out the name calling and lack of argument.
I didn't say that a Pres had a 'right' to determine anything about marriage. What I DID SAY was that it was a Scriptural issue and Sen. Barrack Hussein Obama is wrong when he said Paul was obscure in Romans.
Get your facts straight and stop name calling before you attempt to argue about an issue. |
|
|
|