1

Have you given any thought as to what this would do to a participant in these sinful relationships who sees the error of his ways, comes to repentance, is born again, and turns away from his sin? Also, please explain to me how two blatant sinners who are proud of their sin can restore the sanctity of marital commitment? It is impossible to compromise on this issue. What you are calling compromise is surrender. It would constitute public acknowledgement of sin as a virtue worthy of protection. You can't separate morality from politics. Where in the bible do you see an example of acceptance of sin as a virtue because it is seen as political?

2

Joe,

It appears your "covenant marriage" is simply a civil (read contract) marriage, but with terms and conditions that make it harder to divorce (read breach). But it doesn't make it any less of a contract. Sure, it may encourage people to think harder about whether marriage is right for them. But once you define it as "lifelong commitment to one partner", what happens when there is no longer a lifelong committment? Practically speaking, what effect with "the law" have?

The bottom line is marriage is a stabalizing institution not because the spouses have a piece of paper in their hands that bind them to marriage counseling if things start to turn ugly. Rather, it's a combination of 1) the expectations of the man and woman that EVEN IF things turn really, really ugly, (save for physical abuse) they will stay committed; and 2) a woman is the domesticating force in the relationship. Men, by nature, are prowlers. We are biologically designed to 'get around'. The role of the woman is to mature the man and break him of these insticts. A successful marriage is one where the husband understands that his devotion to a monogamous relationship promotes self-growth and respect. A civil marriage between men will never promote stability b/c a woman is absent.

I think you're right that civil marriage started its downfall as a "stabalizing institution" when divorce became so common. To some extent, this is a chicken or the egg issue. While I think the availability of a legally-sanctioned divorce "teaches" our culture that divorce is acceptable, because it's promulgated by our leaders and representatives, I think some segments of culture have begun to take an even more liberal approach to marriage that the law is now trying to catch up with. The issue is whether you can put the cat back into the bag.

3

I understand the sentiment that our society has damaged marriage so much that we might as well let homosexuals have at it. But that perspective is deeply flawed.

If you are interested in reading about why granting homosexuals the same or similar legal privileges as married couples would be disasterous for our civil society, please read Chuck Colson's BreakPoint article (http://www.unioncitychristian.com/look_before_we_leap_scandinavia.htm) and the first link below this article to Stanley Kurtz' article, "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia."

It is true that marriage has been badly damaged in America over the past fifty years. But homosexual civil unions or "marriage" would only worsen these trends and cement them into our law.

I agree that Christians need to work hard in society to encourage a more healty approach to marriage across the board. But that will be made immeasurably more difficult if the trends in MA courts and in San Fran. are allowed to continue.

4

I'm surprised that you entertain the idea that homosexual "marriage" could "save" marriage.

Couple of reasons:

1. As one of your previous posts demonstrates, the interest in homosexual marriage by its advocates is not mutual fidelity ("heterosexist construct of marriage", as one GM advocate put it). The main point of marriage as a civil or religious institution is mutual fidelity of the participants. Monogamy is the Western preference, but other cultures exhibited a preference for polygamy. Either way, fidelity is the issue. For GM supporters, it is only one of many ways to be "married".

2. The intellectual roots of GM rose from the bitter soil of people advocating abolishment of marriage entirely. While individual supporters of GM may only be interested in their "wedded" bliss, the movement as a whole is hostile to marriage, and is using this movement as an opportunity to further their goal of eliminating marriage as a social norm altogether.

3. The issue here is not actually monetary benefits or what is good for society. The issue here is that gay people want marriage for its veneer of social acceptance - of making gay-ness to be more "mainstream" (most gay folks I know object to the term "normal" when talking about sexual preference). The whole issue is about how gay people seem themselves, and how they feel society views them. It is not about freedom, it is not about spousal benefits, it is all about social acceptance.

5

Sorry Joe, but if you follow the movement towards gay marriage, you'll find it started taking traction when AIDS wards started filling up with uninsured gay men. "Marriage of convenience" to a man with group insurance coverage was advocated as the solution. This is echoed in the current debate by activists that insist that marriage has nothing to do with monogamy or fidelity.

Whatever is said about the topic, the one thing about which you can be most certain is that it is not about personal responsibility.

6

Random Pat:
Whatever is said about the topic, the one thing about which you can be most certain is that it is not about personal responsibility.

And this differs from heterosexual marriage exactly how?

I've personally known several people for whom getting married was the most irresponsible thing they've ever done. (Twice, in one case...)

7

This cartoon says it all

http://www.reason.com/hod/cartoon.hp.022704.gif

8

So let me get this straight: if a "married" homosexual were to have sex with a single person of the opposite sex, only then would they be committing adultery???

9

I agree 100% with your premise -- that swearing "til Death us part" in front of God and The Court is taken Waaaaaay too lightly these days.

But compromise? Not a chance! The sodomites are right when they ask "well why isn't anyone banning divorce?"

Well why AREN'T we banning no-fault divorce?

Certainly letting gays "marry" is no solution, but if there IS a solution, why aren't we working for it?

I'm lucky. I've never been divorced, and neither have my parents, grandparents, nor my great grantparents.

That used to be called "normal", not lucky...

10

I think Steve is on to something here. But I don't think gays want to just be accepted. I think most people, including Christians, are tolerant of homosexuals, even if we are repulsed by the idea of the sexual act. Matthew Shepard was an anomoly and the media would have us believe it happens all the time.

Gay marriage not only provides a "veneer" of social acceptance of homosexuals, it reinforces the idea that homosexuality is socially acceptable. It serves to establish the principle that gay sex, because it's between married persons, is somehow reasonable and mature. Gays like Andrew Sullivan are trying to spin a new liberty as if it were a new responsibility--a socially imposed obligation that they are willing to endure because they are so devoted and "in love".

Of course, nobody needs a marriage license to be committed to somebody else's needs. I don't need to be married to my grandmother to make sure she is well cared for when she is terminally ill. I don't need to be married to my neice to be sure her needs for a good education are met.

Gay "marriage" is simply a securarly-imposed farce that gains traction among three groups: 1) people who say rhetorically "why not" and don't bother to try and think of an answer (tend to be young and naive); 2) the liberal elite; and 3) gays themselves.

The sad thing is when a Christian falls for such specious arguments that purportedly show marriage is good for gays.

11

I get the feeling that Joe doesn't expect same-sex marriage advocates to take him up on this offer. That they aren't willing to go whole-hog on commitment suggests that their criticisms of the heterosexual divorce culture are merely a tactic rather than the product of a sincere concern for marriage.

12

Ed,

Someone finally gets it. You're right. While lesbians may be interested in long term commitments I think that a very small percentage of gay men would be willing to take that leap. If they are truly interested in real marriage (life-long, monogamous) then there should be no reason that they wouldn't want to support such a measure.

13

Ed: I get the feeling that Joe doesn't expect same-sex marriage advocates to take him up on this offer. That they aren't willing to go whole-hog on commitment suggests that their criticisms of the heterosexual divorce culture are merely a tactic rather than the product of a sincere concern for marriage.

Joe: Someone finally gets it. You're right. . . . If they are truly interested in real marriage (life-long, monogamous) then there should be no reason that they wouldn't want to support such a measure.

References to heterosexual divorce and adultery that have come up in the debate over gay marriage are not a claim that gays won't get divorced, or that gay marriage is intended to be some form of "convenant marriage". That's simply a misunderstanding of the argument. They're intended to point out the hypocrisy of the "sanctity of marriage / end of civilization as we know it" hysteria of gay-marriage opponents. Heterosexual marriage is itself no guarantee of the stability or health of relationships, the emotional maturity or moral probity of the people involved, or the stability of the society that they contribute to. The argument that gay marriage threatens something that society values is specious. At worst, gay marriages might not work out - but that would make them no different from a large percentage of straight marriages. The few percent of marriages that would be gay could hardly threaten the overwhelming percentage of marriages that would be straight, especially given the rather shaky nature of those marriages to begin with. Straights don't need gays to ruin their marriages - they're doing just fine by themselves. So it is obvious that it is straight opposition to gay marriage that is hypocritical - not the call for gay marriage itself.

Gays simply want exactly what they say they want - there is no need to seek a hidden motive or secret agenda. Conservatives who oppose them on the grounds that gay marriages wouldn't live up to some mythical ideal that they propound are hypocritical in not also opposing straight marriage, which almost never lives up that ideal. Conservatives may rue the divorce rate and natter about "real, life-long, monogamous" marriages - but they're not seeking a Constitutional amendment to prohibit straights from marrying who may not live up to that standard. It is clear enough that conservative opposition to gays is not really grounded on some concern for marital stability or the definition of "real" marriage. Since conservatives do not prohibit straight marriages that are unlikely to meet such a standard, or declare that straights who do not live up to that standard thus have "invalid" marriages, their opposition to gay marriage on those (putative) grounds is obviously disingenuous.

Gays are just asking to be allowed to marry on the same terms as straights. It is hypocritical for straights to insist gays can marry only if they agree to a coercive standard that gays (undoubtedly) don't support, which most straights also don't support and virtually none actually live up to.

As for whether such a standard actually defines "real" marriage, it does so only on your terms. Marriage has an entirely different meaning to almost every one else. You can encourage people to agree with you if you like, but to insist that anyone who does not is wrong, that anyone who does not live the way you propose is not "really" married, or that some people are simply prohibited from marrying because their marriages don't fit within your definition, is not just grandiose but mean.

14

What disturbs me about this post is the continued reliance of Christians on the state for the definition of and enforcement of marriage. I agree that it is one of the most fundamental and sacred institutions in our society, and that is precisely why I propose we get the government out. The divorce rate is the problem of the church, not the state. Homosexual marriage is a problem of the church, not the state. Morality can only ever be "restored" if we stop relying on coercion and start relying on our families, churches, and (gasp) deities. If I will stop cluttering this page and link to an article I wrote on the subject if you would like to check it out: Privatizing Marriage and St. Valentine

15

It seems as though the same people whose values (or lack thereof) screwed up heterosexual marriage to a certain extent are the very same people advocating homosexual "marriage." Thus, I really don't think it possible for homosexuals to "save marriage."