I’m making a list, and checking it when the spirit so moves me. It’s a list of unanswered questions I and others have posed to NoVA Townhall contributor Sophrosyne, who appears to be the more or less “official” spokesperson for the Marshall/Newman amendment on that blog.
There’s getting to be quite a backlog of unanswered questions, some of them asked four or five times now. These are not difficult questions that should require hours of research, just simple ones that a knowledgeable advocate of the amendment should be able to answer. I don’t think I’m asking for anything unreasonable.
For instance, I and others have asked for a definitive list of the “rights, benefits, obligations, qualities or effects of marriage,” since the proposed amendment would prohibit the recognition of a “legal status” to which these things are “assigned.” What, exactly, are they? If Virginians are being asked to permanently prohibit themselves from accessing these things, they certainly have the right to know what they are, I would think. And yet, requests for this information are met with silence.
I have also asked, numerous times, for an explanation of the curious and frequently used phrase “the two complementary parts of the human organism.” This, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, sounds suspiciously like the Victorian idea that individual men and women are incomplete, and each must be sexually united with a person of the “opposite” sex in order to become fully human.
This belief is otherwise (meaning when the pretense of a secular argument is not needed) known as “God’s design.” It is a purely religious argument about sex, namely that people should only engage in sexual activity within marriage and for the purpose of procreation.
The “incomplete organism” idea goes quite a bit beyond opposition to same sex marriage. It strongly suggests the belief that unmarried people of any sexual orientation are substandard and leading inferior lives. Logically, such incomplete non-people should not be entitled to the same rights and privileges as The Favored Ones – which, lo and behold, would be the result of the Marshall/Newman amendment. The very broad wording of this amendment is not an accident.
Sophrosyne also likes to talk about a “slippery slope.” Fair enough. There is, in fact, a very slippery slope involved here. Given that the above belief is the underlying impetus for the amendment, it’s fair to ask: What’s next?
What other rights that unmarried people currently have will be challenged, using the amendment language as justification, or perhaps even by future amendments? We’ve already seen attempts by Delegate Marshall to prohibit unmarried women from using assistive reproductive technology. If, as Sophrosyne and her friends like to say, “every child deserves a mother and a father,” what’s to stop the next amendment from prohibiting divorce if a couple has children together? Why not mandate that any woman who gives birth be forced to marry the father?
How about passing a law that prohibits unmarried couples from living together? (That was a trick question. There are already places where this is illegal, such as here, and formerly, here. Not coincidentally, the court that overturned the North Carolina law cited the finding in Lawrence v Texas that “the government has no business regulating relationships between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home.” It is a slippery slope, indeed.)
And why stop with unmarried people, since the objective is to ensure that every single one of us has been adequately conformed to God’s Design for the Parts of the Human Organism? Mandatory Viagra!
A new curious phrase has been introduced to the conversation: “The grounding foundation of marriage–the unique psychosomatic unity possible only between one man and one woman in conjugal sex.”
If this is the grounding foundation of marriage (as opposed to the usual one of a promise to care for each other, for better or for worse, until death do you part), then we need to be having bedroom checks to make sure this is actually what’s going on. Apparently, there are married men and women who are having sex for purposes other than procreation, and are having sex in ways that I’m guessing do not embody a “unique psychosomatic unity.” I know this because Virginia still maintains laws prohibiting these things, despite such laws’ evident unconstitutionality.
I have the feeling that Sophrosyne and Co. are reading much of what I’ve suggested as the next steps down this slope, and are nodding their heads in agreement that these are wonderful ideas for “defending the family.”
But darn, those pesky facts are getting in the way again. The fact is that people are not interchangeable widgets who can be shoehorned into what is essentially a theocratic, one-size-fits-all model of family. Any attempt to do so will inevitably harm real people and real families. There is no way of getting around that reality.
There is one more question, from a commenter (although I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for an answer):
You never answer my question – why we can’t all co-exist with equal protection. Why must it be man-woman marriage with children or nothing?? That leaves no room for compromise, something many of us have always been willing and eager to pursue. Why must we risk our lives, homes, benefits, etc. to make your marriages safe?? Why should we trust the same activist judges you are worried about to protect our rights in a lawsuit from a distant, hostile family member. Especially since you don’t hate us…
It’s simple. We aren’t fully human to them.
“I and others have asked for a definitive list of the ‘rights, benefits, obligations, qualities or effects of marriage.'”
It is impossible to make a definitive (i.e., complete) list. However, I will list what I can, and some work-arounds:
1) Obtaining a legal birth certificate for a spouse.
—– No work-around.
2) Right of inheritance without a will.
—– Write a will.
3) The invalidation of a will that does not provide for the spouse.
—– Write your will to provide for your partner.
4) Requirement of spouse to consent to NOT being a 401(k) or life insurance beneficiary.
—– Make your partner the beneficiary.
5) Tax breaks.
—– Probably a non-issue because of the marriage penalty. I think most gay couples are DINKs (Dual-Income, No Kids).
6) Social Security benefits to spouses.
—– Also a non-issue, for the same reason.
7) Hospital Visitation rights.
—– Claim to be siblings. I’ve done this, and gotten in.
8) Health care decisions.
—– Tough one. I think the Marriage Amendment may make such powers of attourney challengable by the patient’s parents, siblings, and adult children. Even for married people, I think it’s best to work with the rest of the family, and make the decision as a family.
9) Rental Housing.
—– I do not think this will be an issue, but it may. Denying two people of the same sex the ability to rent an apartment together would make a shambles of the college apartment market.
10) Housing purchases.
—– Form a company. Buy the house as a company, and have the company rent it to you.
That’s what I can come up with off-hand. I’m sure there are others that you are concerned about that I have not mentioned.
“If, as Sophrosyne and her friends like to say, ‘every child deserves a mother and a father,’ what’s to stop the next amendment from prohibiting divorce if a couple has children together?”
Nothing, save that the couple can get a divorce in another state. However, VA may refuse to recognize that divorce, and treat the couple as still married under VA law.
“Why not mandate that any woman who gives birth be forced to marry the father?”
This should be the case before welfare payments are made.
AS for the last question, I answered it on the blog from which you got the question.
“How about passing a law that prohibits unmarried couples from living together?”
Actually, we had something like that. It was illegal in Virginia to rent to an unmarried couple.
“And why stop with unmarried people, since the objective is to ensure that every single one of us has been adequately conformed to God’s Design for the Parts of the Human Organism? Mandatory Viagra!”
If one is impotent or infertile, is that not also God’s will?
If one is impotent or infertile, is that not also God’s will?
Quite possibly. Which is why I marvel at the idea that multiple births as the result of fertility treatments are regarded as a “miracle,” or that people would consent to allowing their intersex infants to be surgically mutilated to satisfy their cultural/cosmetic desires.
It’s all rather arbitrary, isn’t it, what we decide needs to be “fixed,” and what is God’s will?
It’s quite clear to me that the presence of GLBT people in this world is also God’s will. Presumably, you disagree.
The curious idea that things which occur with great regularity in nature are somehow not “natural” raises another question to which I would like an answer.
Thank you for taking a stab at answering the first question. At least you are willing to admit that basic contractual rights would be vulnerable to challenge by hostile family members, which is the primary concern about the language of the amendment. I appreciate your honesty about that, but don’t see how anyone can possibly justify that outcome. Also interesting that you suggest lying as a solution to the possibility of hospital visitation rights being challenged. Is encouraging people to lie really a good public policy?
(By the way, access to rental housing isn’t really one of the main concerns with regard to the amendment, and the reason is that in Virginia we don’t even have protection from discrimination in basic areas like housing, employment and public access. It’s already perfectly legal to deny a person housing simply because they’re gay. I’m going to assume that you are one of those people who isn’t aware of this because it seems too ludicrous to be true.)
You think that one state should be able to refuse to recognize a divorce granted by another state? That’s a new twist. We already are looking at a situation in which an angry parent can get around the federal Uniform Child Custody law by running to Virginia to shop for a sympathetic judge, and possibly, if this amendment passes, one where spouses can flee to Virginia to have their common law marriages dissolved. I’m having a hard time understanding how becoming a magnet for outlaws from other states is good for Virginia or good for families.
In summation, what is being promoted with this amendment is the willful exposure of people, gay and straight, to interfamily legal conflict, and a number of situations in which people are encouraged to 1) lie and 2) devise various “work-arounds” in order to outmaneuver the law.
Could there be a better illustration of a bad law? The more this gets discussed, the harder it is for anyone to justify this horribly worded amendment. No wonder Sophrosyne won’t answer my questions.
And really, the primary question remains unanswered. The questions that you provide answers to in your second comment were simply posed as a framework for getting closer to what I really want to know, which is where Sophrosyne gets this notion of “the two complementary parts of the human organism.” Is this a quotation, and if so, from whom? Did she make it up? What does it mean? Are individual men and women complete human beings, or are they not?
Still waiting. And Jack, I’m not expecting you to be able to answer this. They aren’t your words.
“It’s all rather arbitrary, isn’t it, what we decide needs to be “fixed,” and what is God’s will?”
Quite so, but we fix such things all the time. Disease for instance. We even have the State try to force children to undergo procedures against their will and their parents’ will.
“It’s quite clear to me that the presence of GLBT people in this world is also God’s will. Presumably, you disagree.”
I do NOT disagree. I was born to murder and steal. I was actually quite the little thief when I was young. The urge is still there, even for stupid little things. But I fought the desire to steal and mastered it. I will not claim that my minor kleptomania is even close to the power of your sexual desires. What I believe, though, is that you are capable of mastering your desires, too. (I’m assuming you are gay, but I have know heterosexuals who have never married and remained virgins, becuase they never found a person they loved enough to marry.) What I believe is that you were given a heavier cross to bear than I was, but that He also gave you the power to beat it, and that if you do, your eternal reward will be greater than mine.
Encouraging people to lie is NOT good public policy, and the amendment does not do so — I do so.
I was unaware of the rental policy, because my mother has rented a house to a gay couple.
This amendment would not dissolve common-law marriages from other states, unless it is a same-sex couple. Even then, the marriage would not be dissolved, but it would not be recognized by the state either. The couple would still be married if they moved back to the state in which they were married.
As for the one state’s not recognizing a divorce in another state, that is another subject on the WHAT’S NEXT? line. We can debate that when the law outlawing divorce comes up.
As for the “the two complementary parts of the human organism” quote, I cannot help you.
I think that “complementary” is misused here, and not intended to indicate individual incompleteness. However, I think it is meant to express the idea that men and women are intrisically different, and that a man-woman couple works better for the well-being of the individuals and society than do same-sex couples. As I say, that is only my interpretation, and I may be way off the mark.
David,
Made it in here, I do not know why the permlink did not work before. I see jack has done a thorough job of answering you questions. None the less the law only specifies that a single contract cannot be made to resemble marriage.
As for most legal activities that married couple can do any two people can do as well with a power of attourney. A special power of attourney can be written to cover just about anything. You do not even need an attourney to make the document legally binding. A stamp from a notory republic will give the document standing.
As for the complimentary parts of the human organizm, I am a bit befuddled quite frankly. I am wholly and completely human without anyone else, but, I am lonely and feel as if I am missing purpose w/o my wife. Ah! Recall from Genesis in chapter 2 I beleive some of the translations have Adam declaring himself complete upon seeing woman or the first time. I could be totaly off the mark here.
You ask, “Whats next?” This ammendment is a response to the activism of from your point of view. I talk about judicial cherry picking back on NOVA Townhall in response to Zim. This move simply takes that tactical option off the table. Nothing more.
As for “Why not mandate that any woman who gives birth be forced to marry the father?” Because the will of the people would never abide it. Such legislation is light years away from the VMA. There an established law is being converted into an ammendment for purely tactical reasons. This mandate you are wondering about is an anethema and borders on being a red herring as it is so ridiculous. But I answered you question none the less.
“How about passing a law that prohibits unmarried couples from living together?” The state of VA did pass one a long time ago. It may even still be on the books. Let me know if you find any newsw articles regarding the enforcement of this law.
I like how you turn the intent of the rulings in Lawrence v. Texas on its head. It was just one more ruling by the court chasing the government out of the bedroom. Here is the GLBT trying to park there bedroom activities front and center in the public square. What you do in your bedroom really is you business and not mine. I will defend you right to go about your business peacefully. But do not go demanding I applaud your choices. You do not approve of my morality, you actually reffered me as “[not] have a very high level understanding of morality”. Which was unsupported and could be seen as merely another personal attack, which is why I did not reply to you then, but I digress.
As for “if this is the grounding foundation of marriage (as opposed to the usual one of a promise to care for each other, for better or for worse, until death do you part), then we need to be having bedroom checks to make sure this is actually what’s going on.” Sex under marriage is the business of the married couple, not the state. This is a red herring David, please recall Lawrence v. Texas.
As for the one TLM posted back on NOVA I have an answer. You will not agree with it, but it is my answer. The all or nothing attitude comes from the fact there is a difference between compromise and being compromized. If I see something as immoral then am I being true to MY beleive system by condoning its enshrinement? You are being true to your convictions, let me be true to mine. That is the basis for true pluralism.
As for your blythe answer to TLM’s post “It’s simple. We aren’t fully human to them.” Are you too able to read minds in a manner akin to god? If you are not fully human would I bother to discuss ANYTHING with you? Jack, myself, Joe and others (even Soph) have engaged you in debate. We give you time, which is truely the most precious gift. For it is the only truely limiting factor of our existances.
rats! david, 2nd to last para, ‘condoning’, not ‘conding’ would you be kind enough to fix this?
Hey Jack,
I’m truly sorry that you feel that you were “born to murder and steal.” That does sound like a horrible burden, and perhaps a bit in excess of what most people experience. If it’s really a daily struggle for you not to do these things, that is a concern.
For most people, stealing and other anti-social behavior is just a bad choice. It’s really not appropriate to compare sexual orientation to some chosen behavior like stealing.
We all make choices about our behavior, for instance whether to be monogamous or promiscuous. Those behavioral choices are independent of orientation.
I imagine that you had the same experience of becoming aware of your sexuality as everyone else, so you know that it is simply part of who you are, not a choice you made. You make choices about how you behave; so do I. We all have to overcome the temptation to do bad things sometimes, and sometimes we fail. Being who God made me to be, however, is not a failure. Being gay is not a disease or a disorder like kleptomania, nor is it a moral failing.
You speak of “mastering your desires,” by which I assume you mean gay people denying ourselves the opportunity to love and be loved, as if that’s a desirable thing. I find it astonishing and cruel that anyone could seriously advocate this.
The thing is, I have found someone I love enough to marry, and it’s not a “cross to bear” at all – it’s a gift. You just don’t approve.
Why in the world would anyone throw away such a gift, and pretend to be someone they’re not? And why would you think that a loving God would endorse such a choice?
I don’t know your personal relationship situation, and I don’t mean to pry. I just wonder if you have experienced being in love with and wanting to build a life with someone, and having someone tell you that you should “master your desire” because they didn’t feel your relationship was appropriate. It happens all the time, because of differences in religion, culture, etc. How would you react if you were told that you couldn’t marry the woman you love because she is the wrong religion or race? And how would you react to the idea that your love for this “inappropriate” partner was a disorder amenable to treatment, like kleptomania, and that you should want to overcome it?
“For most people, stealing and other anti-social behavior is just a bad choice. It’s really not appropriate to compare sexual orientation to some chosen behavior like stealing.”
I did not. I compared sexual desire to kleptomania, a compulsion to steal.
“Being gay is not a disease or a disorder like kleptomania…”
There we disagree.
“…nor is it a moral failing.”
But acting on that impuse, just as acting on the impuse to steal, is. (At least according to every major religion in the world.)
“Why in the world would anyone throw away such a gift, and pretend to be someone they’re not? And why would you think that a loving God would endorse such a choice?”
Because this is not all there is. This is only the proving ground for our souls until we are called to greater things. If you made such a sacrifice for God, do you not believe that He, as a loving God, would reward you for it?
“How would you react if you were told that you couldn’t marry the woman you love because she is the wrong religion or race?”
She was Jewish, if you must know.
Jacob,
I am not trying to insult you. I say that you do not see GLBT people as fully human because you are unwilling to coexist with us as equal human beings. Pluralism doesn’t mean that your right not to coexist with me is equal to my right to exist. I am uninterested in whether you applaud, condone, endorse, or otherwise celebrate my existence and my life partnership. I simply want the same freedom to pursue happiness that you enjoy. Our experiences would be comparable if you were only permitted to marry another man.
If you honestly agree with the ruling in Lawrence, then I salute you as a defender of individual liberty. I suspect that many of your colleagues would disagree. However, it is not my argument that turns Lawrence on its head. It was Scalia’s dissent that insisted that the government is entitled to intrude in our bedrooms (including yours, I might add) because to remove that entitlement would open up a legal argument in favor of marriage equality. Thomas concurred for that reason, even though he believes such intrusive laws to be “uncommonly silly.”
There are several factual errors in your discussion of the amendment. It does not, as you say, convert established law into an amendment. If that were the case, the language of the amendment would not be different from that of the existing law. The language of the amendment is significantly different, in that it extends specific prohibitions on the legal recognition of same sex couples to ALL unmarried couples. You may not think that this is significant because these couples can supposedly just get married, but it’s not that simple. Especially older cohabiting couples where one or both rely on social security from a deceased spouse would be affected, as might people with common law marriages from other states. There is broad disagreement among legal scholars over how this language would be interpreted. Aside from the extension to straight unmarried couples, there is specific language in the Virginia amendment that goes beyond what is in even the most extreme amendments enacted in other states.
You confidently state: As for most legal activities that married couple can do any two people can do as well with a power of attourney. This is not true to begin with, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. Given those contractual rights that are available through power of attorney, wills, custody agreements, medical directives, property arrangements, etc., what specific configuration of these do you think a judge would deem to “approximate” the design, qualities, significance, OR effects of marriage? Which rights, benefits, OR obligations contracted for, and in what combination, would meet that standard? Does intent matter? If so, how is intent determined? If two people enter into some specific aggregation of contracts, does it make a difference whether they have also declared their intent to be life partners? What if they are joined in covenantal union by a church? Will a judge then rule that they are attempting through private contracts to “approximate” marriage, and that those contracts are unenforceable? These are the questions that nobody, including the Attorney General, seems able or willing to answer, and why we say that the amendment would open up a Pandora’s Box.
If any two people can, through power of attorney, enjoy the same legal rights that are conferred by marriage, how is that not “approximating” marriage? That is precisely what is prohibited by the amendment, and yet you are telling me that the amendment does not threaten these rights. I’m not buying it, because it doesn’t make any sense.
The willingness to put such vague questions solely in the hands of unelected, unaccountable judges belies any claim to concern about separation of powers. You are the ones trying to proactively deny the people the right to decide these questions legislatively, which is how they will ultimately be decided. This amendment is only an attempt to delay the inevitable.
The idea of mandatory marriage is not such a far-fetched red herring as you think, although I wish it were. There are fundamentalist scholars arguing right now that marriage is effectively a license to have sex, and that people who have sex out of wedlock should be subject to arrest and prison. There was a case not too long ago of a man who was ordered by a judge to marry an underage girl he had impregnated by raping her. Her parents (married and biological, no doubt) agreed to this “solution.”
If your belief is really that every child should live with their married biological mother and father, then it hardly seems far-fetched to make it mandatory, regardless of the will of the people. Don’t talk to me about being unwilling to compromise your beliefs and principles in one breath, and the will of the people in the next.
Jacob – fixed the typo.
Jack,
All I can say is that I think everyone should be able to build a life with the person they are in love with, and that this is also what God intended. Humans and their rules don’t always agree.
Would that extend to a man who wanted to marry a second woman, if the first wife agreed?
Did you not see my shortened lifespan post Jacob?
I have to agree with David on the potential impact of the Marriage Amendment on such powers of attourney. The Virginia amendment does do further than similar ones passed in other states. It does, in fact, give me some pause, but I will more than likely vote for it anyway. If it turns out to be too draconian, it, too, can be amended.
The homosexuals have, by using the courts to try to get “marriage,” unleashed this backlash. Perhaps the Marriage Amendment is overkill, but the abuse of the courts to circumvent the legislatures has required such draconian wording to guard against similar circumvention in the future.
Ironically, marriage to a second wife is A-OK biblically, whether the first wife agrees or not.
Seriously, this is not my battle. I personally feel pretty strongly about monogamy, although I wouldn’t try to foreclose on the right of anyone to advocate for what they think is right. Is there a shortage of men in the forecast?
The only thing I would offer is this: All of our marriage laws are predicated on the number two. Changing the law to encompass more than two would be quite an undertaking – one could say a radical redefinition of marriage as we know it. I don’t see it happening.
On the other hand, extending civil marriage to the relatively few same sex couples who would benefit from it would be barely a blip in terms of current law, essentially changing a few words.
Jonathon,
Yes I did. The time I am alluding in my post to David comes in the form of the dialogue between us as men, hashing out our differences. I saw your post regarding lifespan v. lifestyle. I have heard as much before. I beleive the statistics you sight are spot on. As is your hypothesis. It appears humans, who are alone, do not as well as those who are in a partnership. It appears men fair more poorly than women do when alone. Does the study address GLBT couples?
-JA
All of our marriage laws are predicated on male-female, too, even in Utah, where they turn a blind eye to polygamy.
Jacob, this is a catch-22 wouldn’t you say? Life span can’t be studied until there’s data. Isn’t it a bit disingenuous for an opponent of same-sex marriage to be asking for same-sex marriage data? The existing studies can be extrapolated don’t you think? Please don’t start up with that “abstract model of gender bipolarity”. My hubby thoroughly debunked it.
Jack, sorry but you’re wrong. Check out the CBO study. Of the 1139 or so federal marriage benefits, only a 5 are gender specific. The remaining 1134 are gender neutral. Check your favorite document, the 1040 tax form. See, it says spouse and dependent, not husband, wife, male dependent, female dependent…
I was speaking of the laws regulating who can be married. The 1139 marriage benefits are gender neutral because they apply to both husband and wife.
Jonathon,
I figured we have had gay couples living together for quite some time now. I really thought there would be data in this regard. I did not think a wedding band on the finger would matter. Did the study did look into heterosexual couples that cohabitated for long periods, i.e. common law marriages? I was not looking for a catch 22 here.
Rob
Rob,
I published a link to the study of 67000 married or once married couples. I would assume that the qualification for being “married” was taken at face value. The study designers probably examined court records and selected a random sample of 67000 marriage licenses and then looked for death certificates.
Jonathan:
First, that is NOT a link to a study, but to a REPORT on a study, and a very brief and insufficient report, too.
In fact, the report is so incomplete, one might assume that, since gays are never married, it is the gays dragging down the numbers for unmarried people. (I don’t believe that, I’m just remarking on the wothlessness of the study in supporting your position.)
Yes Jack, it is a link to a press release about the study, not the actual study itself, and after reading the report, the study surveyed 67,000 adults, not 67,000 marriage licenses. Thanks for the correction. Good point about gay people affecting the numbers. We agree. If there had been marriage equality over the study period, married same-sex couples would have moved into the married group and this would have had a double positive effect.
Gay people would have had the same opportunity to court and marry at a young age. The stability and happiness derived from the married lifestyle is well documented. This study demonstrates that one result is measurably increased life span.
Anti-gay social stigma would have been alleviated. This stigma and the resulting shame may result in destructive behaviors that are common in other stigmatized minority groups. Shortened life spans among members of stigmatized minorities is also well documented.
As I said in my post:
“If there had been marriage equality over the study period, married same-sex couples would have moved into the married group and this would have had a double positive effect.”
Where is your proof of that assertion?
Jonathan, you have the same rights I do: to marry any woman who will have you. That you cannot find one, or are disinclined to do so, is YOUR problem, not a violation of your rights.
Jack, you can find a good summary of same-sex marriage here. Same-sex marriage was legalized in Holland in 2001, Belguim in 2003, provinces in Canada 2003 through 2004, Massachusetts 2004, Spain 2005, plus domestic partner registrations are permitted in Scandinavian nations, England, and a number of states in the U.S.: Vermont, California, Hawaii, etc. Same-sex couples married or registered their partnerships after these laws were passed.
Regarding you third sentence, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and relate my personal history. David and I have been married for over 20 years. Our families, our Church community at the St. James UCC in Lovettsville, and our friends and neighbors all respect our marriage. I’ve only encountered one person, ever, who suggested to my face that David and I should break up and “find a couple of nice girls”. You just came pretty close to suggesting the same and you implied that my family is a “problem”. WWJD?
Ok, I’ve been very patient with this. Read our posting policy. We are happy to discuss differences of opinion with regard to policy positions, but advocating the destruction of anyone’s family is over the line. This is our house.
Jack, if you would like to post a response without the personal attacks, that would be fine.
Censor me all you want — it just means what I say is what you don’t want to hear.
YOU asked the question WWJD
I will tell you AGAIN what Jesus would do: He would tell you, “Go, and sin no more.”
Jack:
You misunderstand what was problematic about your comment. We are not interested in discussing with you whether or not our families exist. You wouldn’t like it if I came into your house and advocated the destruction of your family. Call it censorship if you like, but we’re just not going to have that here.
We disagree about what Jesus would do, by the way.
David:
Refresh my memory. Seriously. What did I say, exactly, that you could not allow to be posted here? My recollection is that I recommended you move somewhere where you “marriage” was accepted. (BTW, where WAS that marriage license issued, anyway?)
I will also, quite seriously, NOT recommend that you and Jonathan stop living together. But I am a Christian, and any part of the Bible that touches on same-sex intercourse regards it as sinful. By that standard, I believe that your souls are put in jeopardy by your actions. NOT by your love for one another (heck, I’d lay down my life for Jacob, and I’m sure he would for me), but for the way you express your love.
(I do not claim to be free of sin, but I do try to recognize when I fall into sin, and when I do I repent.)
What do YOU think Jesus would do?
David,
I am confused, did you actually black list Jack from your blog sight?
-JA
David,
I am waiting for an answer to what is a very simple yes or no question?
-JA
Jacob,
Of course not. Where do you get that idea?
All,
To reiterate our commenting policy: We welcome substantive debate of the issues and respect the fact that people may disagree, but we draw the line at comments that advocate the destruction of families, are abusive, are personal attacks, or deny the fact of our existence.
The above should NOT be taken as an statement that Jack did all of those things. He did not. There was some language in one comment that I felt crossed that line, so I removed it, explained why it crossed that line, and invited him to continue the discussion. I made a good faith assumption that he did not mean to offend, and still do.
Jack,
I hope you can understand from my email what I objected to in your comment.
To answer your question, I think that Jesus would continue to do what he did in his time on this earth as human, which was to defy the prejudices of the dominant culture and welcome everyone to the table. You’ll recall that the culture in which he lived regarded people from other tribes, and one could say “lifestyles,” as being “unclean,” and that the political/religious leaders were aghast at his willingness to associate with people who were considered less than human. That was what made Jesus and his followers such a threat. I can’t imagine him behaving any differently today.
Thank you for saying that you wouldn’t advocate the destruction of my family, even as you believe that our relationship is sinful. I am also a Christian, and I see in that clarification a loving heart that not all of our opponents seem to have.
Since you take scriptural references to sexuality as authoritative in your formulation of what is sinful, may I ask what criterion you use in deciding which parts of scripture are authoritative and which can be ignored? Because it’s highly unlikely that you feel as strongly (if at all) about other behaviors that are proscribed by the Bible. There are a lot of proscriptions in the Bible that we do not apply to contemporary living, and that are almost universally seen as irrelevent and archaic. How do you come to the conclusion that living in a loving relationship consistent with a gay orientation is a sin that would put one’s soul in jeopardy, while any number of other things mentioned in the Bible can be ignored because they don’t seem relevent to our lives?
I’ll tell you the criterion I use: Ask the question “is this a loving thing to do?”
Yes, David, Jesus did as you say, and at that table he called them to repent.
The question of “which parts of scripture are authoritative and which can be ignored” is an old one. The Church long ago decide that it was OK to eat shellfish and pork, and that one did not have to have a parapet around the roof of your house. I did not make those decisions, although I do recall St. Paul’s saying something about not refusing any food. (Jacob is better with the quotes than I am.)
Since the vast majority of Christians agree with me, I would think that the burden of proof would be on you to show that homosexual activity is OK, despite the repeated prohibitions on it in the New Testamant. I understand that you love Jonathan, so consider this: it is HIS soul your putting on the line here.
Yes, it is a loving thing to sacrifice one’s physical pleasure for another’s soul.
David,
Jack’s position above is that scripture does speak to the issue. Scripture does so in a manner that is decided negative. I will answer the question you posed to Jack, and the rest of us, though I am sure Jack’s two-cents worth is probably in the mail. “Is it loving?” you ask. From the scriptural standpoint granting license in this regard is NOT loving. Telling someone to go and sin can have tremendously negative consequence, damnation is no trivial matter.
This is the vantage point from which the counter argument against the activity. There is nothing wrong with your loving Jonathon, we are commanded to love our brother. We are also told to go forth and multiply. I do not beleive that is possible under your current arrangement. (David I am not being glib here, I am just answering your question.)
It is simply not loving to tell someone it is OK to do something that is wrong, even if they do enjoy it and gain solace in the activity.
As for the picking and choosing of proscriptions. Good question. Some elements are easy. The proscription regarding diet where abolished in acts.
The mixing of cloth so famously shown on West Wing is something many think of but have not investigated. The verse is Deu 22:11 “Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.” This is placed beneath teaming an OX and a mule above (22:10) and putting tassels on your garment below (22:12). There is no injunction for burning grandma at the stake as was stated in the TV show.
Please note that the positive proscription in 22:12 overides the negative in 22:11, most tassles were made of something other than linen. Thus allowing for linen garments to have wollen tassles. Does this sound like angles dancing on the head of a pin?
This verse is cross refferenced with Lev 19:19, According to some scholars have said that the mixed linen example is God’s way of providing Israel with a set of sound business and life practices. This is not a means of removing fun, but of sheperding someone away from a cheap suit.
Many of the passages pertaining to goats, sheep farming etc do appear problematical when viewed literally. However, at this point the wisdom they provide is now more of a cautionary parable as opposed to a brass tacks ‘how to’ manual. The Bible has not lost its meaning. Though we have gone from farmer to city folk, the Bible is still is relevent.
As for do I feel as strongly about ALL the proscritption in the bible? Of course not. Some prosrcitptions call for more serious penalty than others do. PLease note that back in Due 22, bad mouthing your wife, does not carry the same penalty as adultery.
-JA
Thanks to both Jack and Jacob for these answers.
In posing the criterion “is it loving?” I was referring to the criterion for determining what parts of the Bible are authoritative and important, as opposed to peculiarities of a time and place that can be ignored as only relevent in context, or explained as parable.
To say it’s not loving to grant license to sin assumes already that sin is defined. I’m really asking whether everything that is named as sin somewhere in scripture, no matter what the context, actually is. The answer appears to be no, so then the question is what is the criterion for making those determinations in the first place.
Different scholars come to different conclusions, using different criteria and methods.
One method is to use the core principle of the Christian faith, which is love, and to understand that scripture is a collection of testimonies of faith, written at different times, that each have their own context. This is, of course, anathema to someone who views scripture as the inerrant word of God and sees no need to think about it further.
That, to me, misses the point of faith entirely. The dietary laws existed for reasons that were good ones at the time. The fiber laws likewise had their reasons (thanks for the lesson on that, I wouldn’t want a cheap suit either), while other things that don’t seem to make sense are perhaps parables. Ok, there were reasons for specific condemnations of sexual diversity and gender non-conformity among the ancient Hebrew tribes as well, most of them having to do with the conquest and assimilation of competing tribes.
We now have refrigeration, and we understand vectors of food-borne illness, so we no longer have the basis for those particular dietary laws. We have a lot of knowledge that we didn’t have then, because God gave us these large brains. Knowing that a certain portion of the population, across time and across cultures, is oriented toward partners of the same sex, what is the basis for hanging on to that one?
When sifting through all of the bits of content in scripture, to decide that this one matters and that one doesn’t, this one is to be taken literally and that one is just a parable, you have to have some method. Retaining a punitive cultural prejudice against a category of person that has always existed as part of God’s creation decidedly does not use the criterion of love. That is the criterion that I use, because that is the one that makes sense of the entire faith tradition.
I don’t expect to change your minds, because I think we probably have fundamentally different understandings of what scripture is for. Simply understand that I am a thinking person with moral agency, as are you. I am doing what I believe is right, based on everything I both know and believe.
I have already explained some of that. God puts trials before all of us — some trials are worse than others. My burden has been frighteningly light, yours has not. As the last shall be first, I am sure your reward will be greater than mine.
I think we have seen the fruits of sexual immorality — broken families, out-of-wedlock births, STDs, etc. We ignored the clear words of St. Paul and Jesus, and these are the results. It sounds to me that the prohibitions on fornication, adultery, and homosexual intercourse are still applicable.
Nevertheless, the prohibitions that we do not adhere to were given up by the church hundreds of years ago. The biblical scholars then were the best and brightest of their ages, and spent their (celibate) lives in such study. They gave up sex, do you think they would turn around and risk their souls for the sake of a cheese-burger or a ham sandwich, if they were not absolutely sure they were correct?
I’d really be interested to know how YOU can be so sure as to risk your soul (and Jonathan’s) for sex, when doing so goes against the opinion of those who have given their lives to the study of Christ and the Bible.
And there are brilliant scholars continuing to explore these questions today. They were not just settled hundreds of years ago, end of story. Do you not think we have learned anything since then?
We are all responsible for finding our own path to truth. Mine is not yours, and I would ask you to respect that. My committed life partnership does not constitute “sexual immorality,” nor is the way I was created a trial or a burden. I do feel burdened at times, just not by that.
One of the things I feel burdened by is people who do not know me feeling at liberty to discuss my sex life. My partnership is not “for the sake of sex,” is yours? Perhaps we could move the discussion to less intrusive ground.
I do understand that you are sincere, and genuinely concerned about my soul. I know you probably expect me to be hostile, but that wouldn’t be very loving of me, would it? I accept it in the spirit in which it is offered.
David:
> And there are brilliant scholars continuing to explore these questions
> today. They were not just settled hundreds of years ago, end of story.
Please guide me to some of the writing of these modern scholars who claim that homosexual acts are not sinful.
> Do you not think we have learned anything since then?
We have learned to talk our way out of the incovenient truths and requirements of being Christian. No-one ever said being Christian was easy, the path is very narrow.
> We are all responsible for finding our own path to truth.
Worse still, we are responsible for those we teach, too.
> Mine is not yours, and I would ask you to respect that.
I can respect that your way is not mine, without respecting your way. Show me that your way is based on scripture, reason, and tradition, and I might come to respect it. I have read Integrity’s “Statement of Theology” on their website. It does not use a single quote from the Bible to support its position. From what I can see, your position is based on what you want, not what God wants.
> One of the things I feel burdened by is people who do not know me feeling at
> liberty to discuss my sex life. My partnership is not “for the sake of sex,”
> is yours? Perhaps we could move the discussion to less intrusive ground.
No, we cannot. Again, this is the very crux of the issue. The gay-rights people DEMAND that we accept your sex life as normal, and even that we teach that view to our children. It is the gay-rights people who have forced your sex lives into the public sphere. In fact, you yourself created this blog just for such discussion.
My partnership is not “for the sake of sex,” but that is an integral part of it right now, as the Bible tells us it should be (1Cor7:5).
> I do understand that you are sincere, and genuinely concerned about my soul.
> I know you probably expect me to be hostile, but that wouldn’t be very loving
> of me, would it? I accept it in the spirit in which it is offered.
Thank you.
Jack wrote: “Please guide me to some of the writing of these modern scholars who claim that homosexual acts are not sinful.”
I think it was comedian Denis Leary who said several years ago, “when it comes to homosexuality, EVERYONE’s a Biblical scholar.” And just this week in the Miami Herald, Leonard Pitts wrote, “You can’t go to the store without tripping over someone who wants you to know the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination.”
I am not one of those people who claim to be a Biblical scholar. But since the question was asked, I suggest looking up the writings of Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong.
Also, there was an interview recently in Newsweek with Billy Graham. “I’m not a literalist in the sense that every single jot and tittle [of the Bible] is from the Lord,” he said. “This is a little difference in my thinking through the years.”
The thinking that a “literal” interpretation of the Bible can’t possibly be literal is at the heart of a book you may also want to look up: “What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality.” The author is a former Roman Catholic priest. He cites Biblical scholars who believe that verses that seem to condemn homosexual acts aren’t about homosexuality at all. The verses meant something very different to the ancient people for whom they were first written, so they can’t just be transposed upon modern society without a full examination of the ancient era and its values. And then there are the layers upon layers of translations; as any foreign language student knows, the intent of an expression is often lost when translated. Imagine that done over millenia, by translators who had the mores and foibles of their own times ingrained in them.
Again, I am not a Biblical scholar, but I do remember something very clearly from my upbringing in the United Methodist Church: that Jesus railed against the religious leaders who “couldn’t see the forest for the trees.” And by that, I’m not talking literally about forestry, but about people who would pick and choose rules out of the Bible, focusing on finding other references to void this and that, while totally missing the main message of love and acceptance. That anyone would expend a lot of energy doing that, I was told, is not what God would want.
I offer these sources in all sincerity.
It is the gay-rights people who have forced your sex lives into the public sphere. In fact, you yourself created this blog just for such discussion.
No, that is not the purpose of this blog. If you take a look at the mission of this group, you can see that it doesn’t include forcing discussion of people’s sex lives into the public sphere. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. You are the only one here trying to talk about sex. Our interest is in having you mind your own business.
We don’t think that anyone should be subjected to unequal treatment on the basis of who they are and who they love. “Anyone” includes you. Your private life is none of my business, and should not be the determinant of your right to participate fully in society.
Re: your first question, read some of what John Shelby Spong has written on the topic. I don’t have any links handy, but it shouldn’t be hard to find.
I have looked at your mission statement. Let me ask a question about it. In what manner are you discriminated against?
> Our interest is in having you mind your own business.
Many of the gay groups have brought their business to our attention via lawsuits for “rights” which are not rights, but benefits granted willingly by employers. If you do not like that, I fully support your right to boycott those businesses, and to refuse to work for them.
I apologize for confusing your group with one of those.
> We don’t think that anyone should be subjected to unequal treatment on the
> basis of who they are and who they love.
To what unequal treatment are you being subjected? Can you not vote? Can you not buy a car or a house? Are you denied admittance to a restaurant or bar?
What is it you want that you do not have, and why do you want it?
> Re: your first question, read some of what John Shelby Spong has written
> on the topic. I don’t have any links handy, but it shouldn’t be hard to find.
Being an Episcopalian, I am painfully familiar with Spong. He has denied the virgin birth of Christ, and denied the resurrection. How he can claim to be a Christian is beyond me.
One other point I forgot to make. It is not a matter of who you are and whom you love — it is a matter of what you do.
You are correct in the sense that what we are doing is being honest about who we are and living our lives with integrity.
Does nothing that Tom says about how we understand scripture resonate with you? Your glib dismissal of the possibility of incorporating new knowledge and insight causes me to wonder how we ever managed to figure out that slavery was wrong.
If you actually have to ask how GLBT people are treated unequally under the law, there are many resources that can give you that elementary information – try HRC and Equality Virginia.
> Does nothing that Tom says about how we understand scripture resonate with you?
No — it just sounds like wrenching the truth to some unrecognizable shape that fits your desires. The author of “What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality,” Daniel Helminiak, is himself gay, as is Christopher Hubble, the author of “Lord Given Lovers: The Holy Union of David & Jonathan.” Both twist the Bible to justify what they do.
Yes, Jesus accepted everyone; he did NOT accept their sins.
> If you actually have to ask how GLBT people are treated unequally
> under the law, there are many resources that can give you that
> elementary information – try HRC and Equality Virginia.
I am asking YOU. What do YOU want that you do not have?
Jack,
Here’s some things to think about, maybe you haven’t thought of.
Okay, I typed up a lot of stuff and only the first line made it on the blog. I’m too tired to type it all again. I’ll try again tomorrow.