RSM sez:
"Men and women are different. They were created different, designed with a natural complementarity, to fulfill specific life functions. There is a natural order to human life, and marriage between man and woman is part of that order. The legal status of marriage did not create marriage, but is rather a recognition of a pre-existing natural order -- an order that was not created by human agency, but by the Creator."
I'm sorry, but childbearing/rearing is incidental to the state's legal interest in the marriage contract. From the science I've read, the "pre-existing natural order" was an at first unformalized, but increasingly formal, polygamy. According to David P. Barash, an evolutionary biologist and professor of psychology at the University of Washington, "...before the homogenization of cultures that resulted from Western colonialism, more than 85% of human societies unabashedly favored polygamy." He also believes the instinct toward it is still there, though as humans, most of us have the ability--and these days (post Western colonialism), the desire--to control it.
And then we come to God...
RSM:
"The gay-rights movement would like you to believe that sexual behavior can be divided into two categories: Gay and straight. But according to the Creator, this is a false distinction. God divides sexual behavior into two categories: Righteousness and sin.
Righteous sex is the love between man and wife that creates human life, and which through that God-ordained intimacy knits together the couple in a permanent and exclusive union: "One flesh."
Everything else -- everything else -- is sin. And this was once recognized by Anglo-American jurisprudence, which in one way or another imposed sanctions against every type of sexual behavior except between man and wife. But in the decades after World War II, in the name of "modernizing" the legal code, these sanctions were gradually repealed. "Sexual liberation" was the name of the game, divorce skyrocketed and the lawyers cheerfully liberated wives from husbands, liberated husbands from wives, and liberated fees from clients."
...
"To cite the most authoritative source -- the Word of God -- is to be accused of superstition, or of seeking to "impose your values" on others. But my values (or Dr. Douglas's values, or anyone else's values) are irrelevant. What counts is God's values, and these are not subject to amendment or public opinion polls."
Here's the thing. According to US law, God and the Bible have no place in US law. That is the very reason that Judge Roy Moore (mentioned approvingly by RSM elsewhere in his post) is no longer a judge. That isn't to say that RSM is incorrect in saying that all forms of sexual congress deemed sinful by Christianity once were unlawful, but it's also worth noting that all of those laws that could not be justified by secular reasoning rather than Biblical teachings have been repealed. Religious freedom necessitates that we do not enshrine the tenets of any faith into our laws strictly on the basis of their being religious tenets. Whatever your "Good Book," it belongs in your church and your home, but not in our legislative halls or at our judge's benches. Those who do not worship your God, or do not worship your God in the same way that you do, have as much right to protection under law as do you. Even though Judeo-Christians currently have the numbers here in the US--and in fact, because Judeo-Christians have the numbers here in the US--it doesn't mean they get to write Biblical teachings into law. As conservatives are so fond of pointing out in other circumstances, we are a republic rather than a democracy. We're designed to protect the minority from mob rule.
So yes... In citing what you believe to be the most authoritative source -- the Word of God -- and more specifically, trying to enshrine the Word of God into the Laws of Man, you are seeking to "impose your values" on others. The fact that you believe your values are in line with God's values is what's irrelevant; God isn't the one imposing them on those who do not share them, by virtue of being non-believers, skeptics, or believers in other faiths. (If He were, this whole conversation would be a lot easier for all involved.) Freedom of religion means that no one need live under the laws prescribed by anyone else's faith. There are probably relatively few Americans who believe that God, Allah, Goddess Mother Nature, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are equal. But under US law, they are.
RSM:
"The prophetic nature of the Bible is evidence of its authority, and if anyone wants to tell me that the successive disasters that have fallen on our nation in recent years aren't just a wee bit apocalyptic in appearance, the Bible can answer that, too: Let him that has eyes, see."
Maybe... But people alot like Mr McCain have been expressing thoughts a whole lot like this for a L-O-N-G - T-I-M-E...
A Brief History of the Apocalypse, 2800 BC - 1700 AD
Doomsday: 1701 - 1970
Doomsday: 1971 - 1997
Doomsday: 1998 - 1999
Doomsday: 2000 - Now (2005)
Doomsday: The Future (2004 ... ???)
But it's possible that RSM's got something on all those other folks... Right?
As for gay marriage, I think it's more a question of semantics and word choice.
Marriage is a religious rite. The state is free to recognize it, but not to regulate it.
Civil Union is a legal right. No God or church has any legal dominion over it, nor should they.
I think a good solution would be (& I'd like to see) the state give "Marriage" back to the church, and have all laws regulate "Civil Unions," instead. The state would be free to (& should) recognize the religious rite of Marriage as a particular kind of Civil Union, but it's special status would derive from the church and from God, rather than from the state. The church would be free to recognize or reject other kinds of Civil Unions as Marriages, according to the Word of God and the particular church's doctrine. In my view, having the state regulating a religious rite was the cause of the problem, and stopping the state from regulating a religious rite will be the solution.
Previous conversations & posts on the subject:
Wingnuts & Moonbats: My thoughts on Homosexual Marriage
Wingnuts & Moonbats: Is there a right to marry whomever one wishes?
Wingnuts & Moonbats: Special Comment on Gay Marriage
Wingnuts & Moonbats: Protect Marriage. Prohibit Divorce.
Wingnuts & Moonbats: Oppose Gay Marriage, but Approve Civil Unions?
Wingnuts & Moonbats: Take Government out of the Marriage Business: A better reconciliation on Gay Marriage
