Tag: Philosophy

Posted on

Perspective on Same-Sex Marriage

JUSTIN TAYLOR|9:46 PM CT

Voters in North Carolina Did Not Vote Today on Banning Gay Marriage

According to reports, North Carolina voters today decided to ban gay marriage.

But Ryan T. Anderson objects to how this is being framed:

How we talk about an issue affects how we think about it. . . . Today’s vote in North Carolina is not about banning anything. Nothing will be made illegal as a result. In all fifty states across the nation two people of the same sex can live together, have their religious community bless their union, and have their workplace offer them various joint benefits—if the religious communities and workplaces in question so desire. Many liberal houses of worship and progressive businesses have voluntarily decided to do so. There’s nothing illegal about this. There’s no ban on it.

What’s at issue is whether the government will recognize such unions as marriages—and then force every citizen and business to do so as well. This isn’t the legalization of something, this is the coercion and compulsion ofothers to recognize and affirm same-sex unions as marriages. . . .

The same-sex marriage debate is so frequently framed in terms of granting gays and lesbians the freedom to do what they wish that few people realize that they already have that freedom—the question is whether the rest of society will have the freedom to choose which type of relationship to honor as marriage. Public discourse needs to more carefully reflect the issues at stake. . . .

Voters in North Carolina today are not voting to ban anything. They are voting to define what marriage is. They are voting to protect the union of a man and woman as something unique and irreplaceably important.

You can read the whole thing here, including interaction with Vice President Biden’s defense of gay marriage.

Posted on

An Idea from Justin Taylor at the Gospel Coalition.

JUSTIN TAYLOR|5:52 PM CT

A Proposed Compromise on the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

This proposal—a rapprochement of sorts between the revisionists and the traditionalists—was first offered in 2009 by Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis. It is unlikely to happen, but I think it’s an interesting idea to have on the table. An excerpt:

The revisionists would agree to oppose the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), thus ensuring that federal law retains the traditional definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife, and states retain the right to preserve that definition in their law.

In return, traditionalists would agree to support federal civil unions offering most or all marital benefits.

But, as Princeton’s Robert P. George once proposed for New Jersey civil unions, unions recognized by the federal government would be available to any two adults who commit to sharing domestic responsibilities, whether or not their relationship is sexual. Available only to people otherwise ineligible to marry each other (say, because of consanguinity), these unions would neither introduce a rival “marriage-lite” option nor treat same-sex unions as marriages. Their purpose would be to protect adult domestic partners who have pledged themselves to a mutually binding relationship of care. What (if anything) goes on in the bedroom would have nothing to do with these unions’ goals or, thus, eligibility requirements.

This proposal will, no doubt, meet with resistance on both sides of the marriage divide.

Traditionalists will regret any move that appears to capitulate on the distinctiveness of marital relationships by granting same-sex couplings similar status, even if we would make recognition available to presumptively non-sexual relationships to avoid equating gay unions with marriage. (We ourselves do not favor civil-union schemes of any type, but we are prepared to accept them as part of an honorable compromise among reasonable people of goodwill.)

At the same time, revisionists will have to compromise by supporting DOMA, the current Clinton-era federal law that retains a traditional definition of marriage for federal purposes while leaving each state free to define marriage as it sees fit, regardless of what other states do.

But we believe that for both sides, the benefits could outweigh the drawbacks.

First, this approach would avoid the hornet’s nest of church-state issues engaged by the Rauch-Blankenhorn proposal. Since neither the presumption nor the legal possibility of sex would be a condition for recognition, homosexual activity would not be incentivized or institutionally normalized. Thus, traditional religious communities would not have to rule out support for our proposal as an implicit endorsement of homosexual activity. And with renewed support for DOMA, they would be free not to promote or treat same-sex unions as marriages. As a result, no special religious-conscience protections would be necessary.

For traditionalists, though, there is another worry. Two state courts have already used existing state civil-union laws as part of their rationale for insisting that the legislature enact same-sex ‘marriage,’ on the ground that “separate but equal” institutions are unjust. If, under the Rauch-Blankenhorn proposal, we enacted same-sex civil unions identical in their structure and purposes to marriage, courts could again use these as a steppingstone to same-sex ‘marriage.’ The benefit of our proposal is that it avoids this possible breach of the compromise by reaffirming DOMA and establishing civil unions that differ in substance, not only in name, from marriages.

Our proposal would still meet the needs of same-sex partners—based not on sex (which is irrelevant to their relationship’s social value), but on shared domestic responsibilities, which really can ground mutual obligations. It would provide a practical compromise that need not offend either side’s nonnegotiable principles. And it would lower the emotional temperature without chilling debate, which would continue at the state level, perhaps now more fruitfully.

Posted on

Mitt Romney: Two Evangelical Views (Part 1)

I am posting two views on the upcoming US election. Both have to do with Mitt Romney and his Mormonism, and whether that disqualifies him from receiving a vote from Christians concerned about the Gospel as expressed in Christian Scripture.

The first view (first only because I read it before the other view) is from Douglas Groothuis, a well-known apologist and theologian who is a professor of philosophy at Denver Seminary. His books include, Christianity That Counts, Confronting the New Age, Deceived by the Light, On Jesus, On Pascal, Revealing the New Age Jesus, The Soul in Cyberspace, Truth Decay, Unmasking the New Age, In Defense of Natural Theology: A Post-Humean Assessment, (co-edited with James F. Sennett), Jesus in an Age of Controversy, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith:

Why a Principled Conservative (Reaganite), Bible-Believing Evangelical, Counter-cult Expert Will Vote and Support Mitt Romney for President.

Many conservatives (Christian or otherwise), me included, are disappointed that Mitt Romney will be the Republican candidate for President. They lament that a more principled conservative (such as Michele Bachmann, or, to a lesser degree, Rick Santorum) was not selected. Perhaps they stand for the libertarian principles of Ron Paul. Whatever the case, many will be tempted to not vote at all or to make a protest vote. This is a deep mistake, based on faulty ideas about politics and the meaning of a political vote. In this short essay, I will labor to convince fellow conservatives, whether Christians or not, to vote and support for Mitt Romney for President. I have waited to endorse Romney until all the other competitors have been eliminated, since I did not support Romney from the beginning. I do not expect to convert political liberals to this cause, which would require much more argumentation. (For starters, see Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Leftism and William F. Buckely, Up From Liberalism.)

1. Many demur from voting for Romney because of his less-than-stellar conservative bona fides. I agree. RomneyCare influenced ObamaCare, however much Romney not opposes ObamaCare. He has not always been pro-life, but now seems to be. One could go on. But we should remember that politics is not the church. It is the art of the possible. Often we must choose the lesser of two evils, which is also the evil of two lessers. It is a fallen world. Get over it. We should be romantic and optimistic in the primaries (as I supported Michele Bachmann, read her book; contributed to her campaign); then get realistic when things narrow down. You are not appointing a pastor, but voting for a President. A vote is not a letter of reference; nor is it an unqualified endorsement; nor is it worship. A vote is the exercise of the franchise, one part you play in our Republican form of government. It is a right, a responsibility, and a privilege that should not be squandered.

2. Protest votes are pointless. Many say, “If my candidate is not the one, I opt out. I am above all that.” This is wrongheaded. Protest votes send no message, except that you have robbed the better of the two candidates of a vote. Like it or not, we are stuck with a two-party system for the long haul. (On this, see Michael Medved’s chapter on the failure of third parties in Ten Lies About America.) If you are a conservative, you vote for the more conservative candidate who can win, as William F. Buckley said. Writing in Michelle Bachmann or Ron Paul does no good whatsoever—except to aid the Obama campaign.

3. The essential principles between the two parties are sharply divided, however each candidate may vary from them.

A. Democrats support big government, heavy taxation and regulation, viewing the Constitution as a wax nose they twist any way they want (progressivism), pitting corporations and “the wealthy” and against “the common man” (call it class warfare, a holdover from Marxism), a weakened national defense (the only area of the federal government Obama is trying to cut). They do not support religious liberty, and they are pro-abortion with a vengeance. Under ObamaCare, every American would be subsidizing the killing of innocent human beings with their very own tax dollars. Ponder that, for God’s sake. It denies the First Amendment (by requiring many religious people to violate their religious principles) and sets a dangerous precedent for state intrusion into matters of religious conscience.

B. Republicans support smaller government, lighter taxation and regulation, a higher view of The Constitution as a body of objective truths to be applied rightly today, and the opportunities allowed by a basically free market, a strong national defense (or “Peace through strength,”—Ronald Wilson Reagan), and are much more pro-life. This means a Republican President is far more likely to:

(1) Appoint Supreme Court justices who honor the Constitution and see it as opposing Roe- v. Wade.

(2) Appoint dozens of federal judges with great power, all of whom are likely to have a high and proper view of the Constitution.

(3) Use Executive Orders (whether they are constitutional or not is another issue; they probably are not) in the pro-life cause, such as not giving foreign aid to support abortions abroad and not funding abortions in the military.

C. There are significant weaknesses in Mitt Romney as a candidate. Yes, he is:

(1) Not a principled conservative. Look at his very mixed track record.

(2) Not particularly charismatic or a good speaker.

(3) A Mormon.

I have been involved in counter-cult apologetics and evangelism for 35 years. Mormonism is a deviation from Christian orthodoxy on titanic theological issues such as the nature of God (or gods, in the case of Mormonism), the identity of Christ, and salvation, to name a few crucial issues. Yes, there has been some movement back to the Bible among some Mormons in the last twenty years. However, Mormonism as Mormonism is heretical. No one should be a Mormon. It is “another gospel” (see Galatians 1:6-11). I learned this in 1977, when, as a young Christian, I read Walter Martin’s modern classic, Kingdom of the Cults. Nothing since has convinced me to the contrary.

If Romney is elected President, it would give Mormonism a platform as it has never had before. That is bad, very bad. However, the President is not Theologian-in-Chief nor Pastor-in-Chief. He is Commander-in-Chief. More soberly, the alternative to Romney is, truly, the end of America as it was founded and as we know it. It is a state modeled after European democratic socialism: massive taxation, cradle-to-grave statist “security,” and a more secularized culture. This is not the America envisioned by our founders. This is not the city set on a hill.

In Romney’s favor, he has been a very decent man, who has given much of his income to charity. Further, he is an accomplished businessman who knows how to address problems (unlike Obama). For example, in 1999, he volunteered to save the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City. He did what he intended to do. He understands and respects the vital role of business to create jobs and create new products, unlike Obama, whose idea of job creation is endless “stimulus packages” packed with pork and barren of economic hope.

Obama, while not a Mormon, has no credible Christian testimony. Consider his twenty-year membership in Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s racist, ultra-liberal, Nation-of-Islam-supporting church. Ponder his stance on abortion. He was one of only a few politicians not to oppose partial-birth abortions, which are cases of infanticide: a form of murder. (See David Fredosso, The Case Against Barak Obama for the documentation.) He took this outrageous stand because he was afraid it would chip away at Roe v. Wade, which he supports completely. Obama is far more sympathetic to Islam than he is to Christianity. I did not Obama was a Muslim, but that he respects Islam and seems oblivious (or indifferent) to the dangers of sharia law (which allows wife-beating, polygamy, and more). This is urgent, since shari’a law is already being implemented on American soil. (On this menace, see Robert Spencer, Stealth Jihad.)

4. Under another four-years of Obama, we would experience more “historic” changes:

A. The federal takeover of health care, leading to rationing, inefficiency, and a loss of personal freedom. You will be paying for abortions. Some would rather go to jail than submit to this. I imagine that Catholic priests would lead the way.

B. A growing and perhaps insurmountable debt, mortgaging our future, and making us like Greece.

C. Further evisceration of our military and cut backs in military benefits.

D. The further deconstruction of the Constitution, thus removing us from the Rule of Law and putting us under the Rule of Man: One man, the man who would be King: Barack Obama. He might well abolish term limits if given another term.

For these reasons and many more, I, Douglas Richard Groothuis, will vote for, support, and pray that Mitt Romney becomes the next President of these United States. I hope you will join me. So much is at stake.