Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James Robertson on February 7, 2012 at 10:39am

'Tis not an "either-or", but a "both-and". The Constitution for the united States of America was ratified to actualize the Declaration of Independence. Nothing contrary to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" can be "constitutional". But the law is now what the courts say it is. The world has been "turned upside down". Moral relativism rules!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Robertson on February 7, 2012 at 11:52am

SAN FRANCISCO: Ninth Circuit Prop 8 Decision No Surprise

Christian Newswire
February 7, 2012

"The decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold Judge Walker's radical decision overturning Prop 8 comes as no surprise," said Catholics for the Common Good President William B. May.

"We always knew this case would be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Now that the Ninth Circuit has rendered its decision, the case can finally move to the U.S. Supreme Court where it will be decided on sound legal arguments rather than the emotional appeals by those trying to obliterate the only institution that unites children with their moms and dads."

"The author of the decision, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, is one of the most overturned judges in the most overturned court in the U.S."

According to Prop 8 Legal Defense General Counsel Andy Pugno, this decision "is completely out of step with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision in American history on the subject of marriage." ProtectMarriage.com will immediately file its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"It is outrageous that judges continue to disregard the will of 7 million voters who voted to protect the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society," May said.

Federal District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker presided over a show trial about marriage in which plaintiff's counsel trotted out witness after witness with emotional arguments in a PR attempt to re-argue Proposition 8.

"Failing to disclose that the judge himself was similarly situated as the plaintiffs (in a long-term committed relationship with a same-sex partner), Walker could find no rational reason for the voters to define marriage between a man and a woman and concluded they were bigoted and discriminatory," said May.

"To reach his judgment about the voters and his decision to strike down Prop 8, he created a new definition of marriage as merely the public recognition of a committed relationship for the benefit of adults. However, the voters of California know that marriage is much more than that. It is the reality that unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union. This is what marriage is; that is what it does. It is a reality that can only be recognized by law and never changed."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave Gosse on February 7, 2012 at 12:59pm

Hi John

 

When insanity rules the culture the courts will reflect that culture.  Any sane society will recognize the inherent absurdity of so-called "same sex marriage" and reject it out of hand.  Our culture is reaching the culmination of a long, slow, descent into madness.  "Same sex marriage" is merely the current battlefield of an ongoing (100+ year) conflict. 

 

Refusing "government" (the quotes indicate that government may only disburse monies it has taken from citizens by force) money is always good policy.  Whether we refuse "goverment" money as individuals or as corporate entities is immaterial, "government" money is tainted money and always comes with strings attached.  There is an ancient saying, "He who pays the piper calls the tune."  Loosely translated this means, "When I pay for something I choose what I get."  If I take money from government I am tacitly surrendering my freedom to choose what I get.

 

The argument that, as taxpayers, we are "paying the piper" falls apart when we understand that taxation is not voluntary payment for services or products chosen.  Just ask anyone who withholds their assessment.  They will be visited with a particularly relentless ard ruthless coercion, up to and including violent assault and / or death.  Throughout history governments, with rare exception, are the incarnation and repository of physical force.  It is only through constant vigilance and clear vision that we may restrain the temptation of government to exercise those powers which we have entrusted to it.  When Thomas Jefferson wrote the oft-quoted phrase, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." it was this natural tendency of government to which he referred.

 

The Christian religion is, if not the only, one of the few sources of clear vision and ontological justification for the opposition of tyranny.  Most belief systems are, at best, silent on tyrany or, at worst, idealize tyrany as the epitomy of vitality and strength.  If we obtain a clear understanding of the Bible, particularly in light of the New Testament, we will understand the inherent corruptability of all persons and institutions and realize the we must remain vigilant against all incursions by corruption.  It is this open-eyed attitude toward this tendency of men and their institutions coupled with our sure and certain hope of redemption and resurrection which provides the Christian with the strength to face exclusion, mockery, persecution, and death without fear.  For it is not liberty which is watered with the blood of martyrs, it is the source of liberty, the Christian church.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Robertson on February 7, 2012 at 1:18pm

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death(moral relativism), I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Psalm 23: 4

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave Gosse on February 7, 2012 at 8:14pm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave Gosse on February 7, 2012 at 9:46pm

Why This Lutheran Defends Catholics’ Conscience Rights
By Robert Morrison

February 7, 2012 1:42 P.M.

My twin granddaughters were born in a Catholic hospital last December. On Christmas Eve, they were rushed back into that same hospital, fighting for their lives. For nine days, we prayed without ceasing for their recovery. Protestants don’t usually do Novenas. This one did. Happily, the twins were released earlier this month.

Our family trusted a Catholic hospital with the lives of those most precious to us. Catholic hospitals have the latest technology in their pediatric intensive care units (PICU). But they have something more: They have an unwavering commitment to the sanctity of human life.

The night the twins were born, the holiday lights came on at their hospital. When the girls get older, we’ll tell them the lights were really lit for Jesus. But for now, we believe those lights were burning for our stricken newborns, and for all the dear children who spent their Christmas in the PICU.

The Obama administration is threatening the very life of Catholic hospitals. This administration wants to compel these hospitals to join the culture of death by forcing them to provide insurance coverage for their employees for sterilization and drugs that cause abortions. In so doing, the Obama administration violates not only the conscience rights of practicing Catholics, but also the conscience rights of millions of “separated brethren,” protestants like us, who rely on Catholic health care to uphold the sanctity of life.
[...]
 Read more

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Robertson on February 8, 2012 at 1:25pm

February 8, 2012 - AmericanThinker
How to Win the Marriage Debate
By Selwyn Duke

The big news on the culture-war front is a federal court's striking down of Proposition 8, California's constitutional amendment protecting marriage. In a two-to-one ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrote, "The people may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry."

Now, I'm not sure why the judges mention a "disfavored group," as if singling out a "favored" one for unequal treatment would be okay. As far as I know, the 14th Amendment, on which the court based its ruling, doesn't offer equal protection to only those the current fashions deem "disfavored." Thus, I think this is an example of emotionalism influencing a ruling and its language, sort of as if a judge sentenced a defendant and, adding an adjective, announced him as "stupid" Mr. Smith. Calling a group "disfavored" is similarly a subjective judgment. This is not the only thing the judges were subjective about, however.

Speaking to bias, some may point out here that the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned court in the nation and that the two judges who ruled against Prop. 8 were appointed by Democrats. Yet the reality is that they're hardly alone: virtually everyone -- including conservatives -- misses the 800-pound gorilla with the pink tutu and rainbow flag in the middle of the marriage debate.

The court's reasoning is that a state cannot deny homosexuals the right to "marry" if that right has already been established for others. This certainly seems to accord with the 14th Amendment, which reads, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." So, by the judges' lights, since Prop. 8 abridges for one group a privilege afforded everyone else, it is unconstitutional.

But what really is the central issue here? It isn't whether marriage is a right or a privilege; it isn't whether it is covered under the Constitution. It isn't even whether or not homosexuals have a right to "marry." The crux of the matter is this: what is this right or privilege?

If the court rules that there is a right to a certain thing, it must know what that thing is. Yet if the court accepted that the thing called "marriage" is the union between a man and woman, there would be no debate. The judges would simply state that, just like anyone else, homosexuals have a right to marry -- to form that time-honored union between themselves and a member of the opposite sex.

Now, some will say the court accepts that there has been a redefinition of marriage. If so, they had best tell us what it is. Because, you see, our leftist marriage engineers have not redefined marriage.

They have undefined it.

They have not said that marriage is the union between any two people. If they did, they'd render themselves just as "exclusionary" and "discriminatory" as those they decry and relinquish a hammer with which they bludgeon tradition. They have not offered any alternative parameters for marriage. They've simply implied that the correct definition -- the one accepted for millennia in Western civilization -- is wrong.

Yet if these leftists cannot say what marriage is, how can they be so sure about what it isn't? If they cannot offer a definition they're certain is right, how can they be so confident that the right definition is wrong?

But the point is this: the court obviously doesn't accept the definition of marriage embraced by most people worldwide today. If it did, it would have ruled as indicated earlier. Yet there also is no noted alternative definition by which to go. Thus, it seems that before the judges could rule on the right to this thing called marriage, they'd have to rule on what this thing is in the first place. So have they ruled that there is a right to they-know-not-what.

Of course, the judges certainly understand marriage to be some kind of legally sanctioned union between or among different parties. But this takes in a lot of territory. If this is all it is and everyone has a right to it, how can we deny it to polygamists (and their conception of marriage has infinitely more historical precedent than does faux marriage)?

This is where some roll their eyes and say that these things will never happen. But while such scoffing is rhetorically effective, it's not very intellectual. I'll first point out that people in the 1950s would have likewise laughed off the notion that granting homosexuals the right to "marry" would be a major social and legal movement 50 years later. More significantly, however, ideas matter. The precedents we set matter. And when you undefine something, nothing is excluded. No boundaries means no limits.

This is why the left's actions do, in fact, threaten marriage. To fail to respect the institution's time-honored definition and also refuse to offer any alternative definition is to seek to destroy the edifice without a plan for what will take its place. It is to imply that marriage can mean anything. And if something can mean anything, it means nothing.

As for conservatives, they have been suckered again. Without even realizing it, they have allowed the left to frame the debate -- as a matter of rights -- when it is first and foremost a matter of definitions. To argue it as a matter of rights is to lose the debate; to control the definitions can render that debate irrelevant.

This is why, mind you, I would not have written Prop. 8 as its framers did: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Instead, it should have been, "Marriage is hereby legally defined as a union between a man and a woman." The actual text gives the courts wiggle room to find in favor of currently invalid or unrecognized "marriages"; the suggested text makes it so that there is nothing else to find in favor of. (Of course, ambitious judges can find a way around anything, but they'd have to do a bit more creative constitutional trampling.)

Yet controlling the definitions starts with controlling the vocabulary. For a definition won't take hold in society unless the word it defines first does. This is why conservatives should never use the term "gay marriage," as this is an explicit acknowledgement that such an institution exists. Nor should they use "heterosexual marriage," for what is the other side of that coin?

What is most readily accepted is that which is assumed. From the get-go, conservatives should have insisted that marriage is marriage, a union between a man and woman and nothing else. This would have put odd alien fantasies about marriage, whatever they may be, in perspective. Because you cannot have a right to that which doesn't exist.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Robertson on February 8, 2012 at 2:04pm

February 8, 2012 - Townhall
Extremism in Defense of Equality
By Mike Adams
2/8/2012

The more often liberals speak on the topic of same-sex marriage, the more illogical their arguments become. Of course, the worst arguments come from liberal professors because they talk about the subject to the point of obsession. And the worst of the worst come from English professors steeped in postmodern orthodoxy. A recent letter to the editor by North Carolina English professor Dick Veit is illustrative. Dick writes the following (in italics). I respond intermittently. Students considering a major in English at a secular university should read his words carefully:

If you can’t claim that your own marriage would be hurt by a gay couple getting married (and you can’t), and if you can’t point to anyone at all whose marriage would be harmed (and you can’t), then you can’t claim that marriage would be harmed.

Dick Veit shows the narrow-mindedness of same-sex marriage proponents in three ways. First, he falsely asserts that there are only two arguments against same-sex marriage. Next, he asserts that the burden of proof is on his opponents. Finally, he asserts that the arguments he selects cannot possibly be proved. He omits the best arguments against same-sex marriage. Fortunately, in the next line of his letter, he opens the door for one of those arguments:

If you would deny a right to others that you claim for yourself, you cannot say that you believe in liberty.

I hope this means that Dick will now support a man’s right to determine whether his child will be aborted. But that is not what he means. He means that proponents of traditional marriage must extend marriage rights to same-sex couples or, alternately, forfeit their right to say they believe in liberty. The argument is problematic because it knows no limitations. It falsely equates liberty with absolute liberty. Consider some extensions of Veit’s argument:

*If you support marriage between a man and another man, you must also support marriage between a man and another man and a woman or, alternately, forfeit the right to say you believe in liberty.

*If you support marriage between a man and another man and a woman, you must also support marriage between a man and another man and two women or, alternately, forfeit the right to say you believe in liberty.

The possibilities are endless. Eventually, one ends up supporting a marital union between two twin sisters, a dog, and a four-year old – just so he can say “I believe in liberty!”

The trouble all begins with Veit making the obvious error of asking “Is it free?” without asking the follow-up question “Is it good?” That is precisely how he winds up in the untenable position of promoting equality among unequal entities. In the final analysis, Veit is left with the dubious honor of joining a very small club I call the We Can Say We Believe in Equality So We Must Be Morally Superior Society.

Unfortunately, Dick has left the rest of society with an all-encompassing definition of family that simply does not work. For example, there can be no workable body of family law if there are no restrictions on what we call “family.” That it is unworkable is not an issue for Dick. He lives in a world of ideas, not in a world of reality. All ideas have consequences. But the worst ideas usually have consequences for someone else. That is why the worst ideas usually come from tenured professors who are shielded from consequences altogether. Keep reading:

If you would insist that others must be bound by the precepts of your religion, then you do not believe in religious freedom.

Christianity does not mandate marriage among its own adherents. It certainly does not mandate the practice among non-Christians. Of course, under the current definition of marriage, no one is forced to follow a religious practice. But some are choosing to follow a secular practice and call it a religious practice. They are also trying to force followers of a religious practice to call a secular practice a religious practice against their will.

The government seizure and redefinition of a religious practice – one that actually predates the government - cannot be seen as a step towards religious freedom. But that is Dick’s position. He thinks the government – by judicial fiat - can redefine a religious institution that predates its existence. If you disagree, “then you do not believe in religious freedom.” Does any of this make sense? Read on:

If you say that you oppose Sharia law because it forces religious rules on nonbelievers, then why are you doing the very same thing?

Translation: If you think the voters of North Carolina can retain the traditional definition of marriage by a vote you are wrong. This would block the judiciary from imposing same-sex marriage on the general population against its will. And that would destroy religious freedom.

Marriage is an institution that predates every constitution, every judicial body, and every legislative body in the world. Nonetheless, Veit thinks the government has a right to seize and redefine religious institutions such as marriage at will. If you disagree with Dick then he claims that you are just like Muslim extremists who want to set up a theocracy in America.

That is how the tenured Dick thinks. That is why the people of North Carolina must vote to preserve traditional marriage via constitutional amendment. Otherwise, we really will start looking like a Muslim theocracy. And prophets will be marrying six year olds in the name of sexual equality.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Robertson on February 13, 2012 at 9:14am

February 13, 2012 - Gary DeMar - AmericanVision
Another Liberal Argument Bites the Dust

I’m glad that God was brought into the equation because it gives us a starting point. First, God created male and female to be joined as one flesh, not male and male or female and female. The Bible makes this clear without any equivocation (e.g., Gen. 1:27–28; 2:18–25; Matt. 19:1–12).

Second, the way God made males and females is empirical evidence that they were made for each other sexually. The sexual equipment is a “natural” fit unlike that of homosexual relationships (Rom. 1:26–27).

If we follow the logic of “If God didn’t make gays, there wouldn’t be any,” we end up having to account for all types of behaviors and justify their morality because such people with these behaviors exist.

Let’s apply the logic to some other behaviors:

“If God didn’t make thieves, there wouldn’t be any thieves.”
“If God didn’t make adulterers, there wouldn’t be any adulterers.”
“If God didn’t make murderers, there wouldn’t be any murderers.”
“If God didn’t make child molesters, there wouldn’t be any child molesters.”
“If God didn’t make _____________, there wouldn’t be any ____________.”

This type of illogic claims that what is natural is inherently good or right. It’s called deriving an “ought” from an “is”: Since there are people who engage in homosexual behavior, therefore homosexual behavior is good and morally right.

The fallacy is what gives legitimacy to the caste system in India where heredity determines social classification. Support for slavery was based on the same type of logic.

Once we go down the road of claiming that because there is a behavior that many people engage in, thus making it morally legitimate, there is no way to stop the process.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr. George C. Adams on April 15, 2012 at 12:19pm

John:

Any church that accepts federal money is forfeiting its moral position. Federal money carries with it federal control, which can be expanded to any activity of the organization receiving the money at the whim of the government. We have seen this all too often. The current assaults on Christianity by the Obama administration, the Hosanna-Tabor and the blatant attack on freedom of belief and conscience by HHS are sternly contested by LCMS and the latter in conjunction with other church bodies. Thankfully, there is no federal money involved, at all, to give the administration the claim of authority.

Where any law would seek to force Christians to do that which God forbids, we must firmly say NO! In the case of same-sex "marriage" we must rely upon the clear Word of God and stand against any such perversion of God's and nature's law; the latter being subservient to the Word of nature's creator. Already, in some countries, Canada I believe, it is considered "hate speech" to call homosexuality a sin, even from the pulpit. We must resist, with all our might, government attempts to substitute the perverted will of sinful men for the pure, righteous Word and will of God.

SDG

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by john mac on April 28, 2012 at 7:36pm

Dr. Adams:

It is good to hear from you-I had thought you no longer were at the Trail-I am pleased to see that you are! I can always count on you for an unabashed-complete description of Confessional Lutheranism and Scriptural points! I got here a little late-on this reply-I apologize. I agree fully-taking federal monies comes with it a price-one our moral churches should not submit too. If it takes holding services under the "old oak tree" in the pasture-then let it be so! The Church are the members "the body" so to speak...-the building,the suppers,the potlucks,etc are nice-to be sure. The fact is though-it is the Word which saves us-and which we must cling to in it's pure form! Good to hear from you again!

                                                                                                                                      John Mac 

Dr. George C. Adams said:

John:

Any church that accepts federal money is forfeiting its moral position. Federal money carries with it federal control, which can be expanded to any activity of the organization receiving the money at the whim of the government. We have seen this all too often. The current assaults on Christianity by the Obama administration, the Hosanna-Tabor and the blatant attack on freedom of belief and conscience by HHS are sternly contested by LCMS and the latter in conjunction with other church bodies. Thankfully, there is no federal money involved, at all, to give the administration the claim of authority.

Where any law would seek to force Christians to do that which God forbids, we must firmly say NO! In the case of same-sex "marriage" we must rely upon the clear Word of God and stand against any such perversion of God's and nature's law; the latter being subservient to the Word of nature's creator. Already, in some countries, Canada I believe, it is considered "hate speech" to call homosexuality a sin, even from the pulpit. We must resist, with all our might, government attempts to substitute the perverted will of sinful men for the pure, righteous Word and will of God.

SDG

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion