In response to President Obama’s embrace of same-sex marriage, the Reverend Franklin Graham put out a statement that said this:
On Tuesday, my state of North Carolina became the 31st state to approve a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. While the move to pass amendments defining marriage is relatively new, the definition of marriage is 8,000 years old and was defined not by man, but by God Himself. In changing his position from that of senator/candidate Obama, President Obama has, in my view, shaken his fist at the same God who created and defined marriage. It grieves me that our president would now affirm same-sex marriage, though I believe it grieves God even more. The institution of marriage should not be defined by presidents or polls, governors or the media. The definition was set long ago and changing legislation or policy will never change God’s definition. This is a sad day for America. May God help us.
About this statement, I have several thoughts, the first of which is that the definition of marriage has changed even within the Bible during those 8,000 years. For example, among the wealthy in ancient Israel, polygamy was a commonly accepted practice. Sarah gave her handmaiden Hagar to Abraham. Jacob married two sisters (Rachel and Leah). Esau had three wives. And marriages were often arranged. So even the Bible’s definition of marriage hasn’t been quite as static as Graham insists.
Second, does Graham believe that then-Governor Ronald Reagan “shook his fist at the same God who created and defined marriage” when Reagan embraced the first no-fault divorce law in the nation? (Reagan also signed legislation liberalizing abortion laws when he was governor of California.) Nothing has done more to damage the institution of marriage than the “divorce revolution” that began in the late 1960s. In addition, and of particular relevance to Graham, Jesus was far more critical of divorce than he was of homosexuality (of which Jesus said nothing).
My point isn’t that there’s no Scriptural guidance on matters of sexual relations. Instead, it’s the selective nature of the outrage. If one were to list the catalogue of things that grieve the God of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, it would be long – and near the top of the list would be indifference to the poor, pride, self-righteousness, anger, gossip, and hypocrisy. I image the people drafting press releases at the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association will be kept quite busy speaking out against these things.
I wonder if Franklin Graham realizes (as his father eventually did) that his forays into politics are beginning to undermine his ministry (this is a subject I’ve written about before. It appears that Graham is a fiercely conservative person whose politics is to some degree sculpturing his religious/political priorities. And Graham’s words and statements, at least in the political arena, are often censorious and lack a spirit of grace and reconciliation. It is one thing to state, in an intelligent and measured way, one’s objection to same-sex marriage. It is quite another for the president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association to say the president, in expressing his personal support for same-sex marriage, is “shaking his fist at God.” I say that as someone who shares Graham’s religious faith and probably agrees with him on most political issues. Yet his public pronouncements are at times cringe-inducing, his explanations shallow, his tone belligerent.
There is such a thing as being a winsome and effective witness to one’s faith. C.S. Lewis possessed those qualities. I wish Franklin Graham did.
So, Peter believes that the definition of marriage, from a Biblical viewpoint, has changed over time? Is this true? n nIt is not true. The definition of marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. Further the Bible (and I cannot address Christian faiths so perhaps others will) allows that definition to extend to a man and several women although that idea is highly frowned upon. Today, Judaism, for example, prohibits polygamy but polygamy is still between the sexes—one man, several women—not to include same sex unions. It's practice or allowance does not change the definition as an institution across genders. n nFurther, the idea of multiple men married to a single woman (polyandry) is not part of the current definition of marriage and I have never heard of anyone pushing for such an extension. It does not appear in the Bible as far as I know. I can, however, see such a thing emerging should the country take same-sex unions to their logical conclusion. n nIt bears noting that divorce, while hurtful to marriage, has no impact on the definition of marriage. I was sorry to read this in Peter's post as I don't see it's relevance to the definition. (It is relevant to the sustainment of marriage, but that is a separate point. Interestingly, divorce had been the sole purview of the husband and now it can be achieved by either the husband or the wife.) n nIt's important that as we debate this issue, we are careful with our terms and with our definitions. Peter's post is a blurring of the definition. He should know better. n
The biblical definition of marriage does not readily exist. There is no approving mention of the evolution of marriage from accepting of polygamy to the current state of monogamy. The evolution was societal and, in the case of the Judeo-Christian tradition, rabbinic. What has not changed is the biblical abhorence of the act of sodomy. Our very recent social acceptance of homosexuality corresponds with the effort to degrade the family unit as the backbone of our civic body. It also is a bit much to expect Mr. Graham simultaneously condemn the divorce "revolution" of more than 40 years ago. At least divorce was well-known has been part of the marriage contract for at least 3500 years. n nI agree that gays and lesbians should have the same contract rights and tax treatments (such as inheritance, hospital visitation, and the like) as heterosexual couples who enter into a contract of marriage. However, Mr. Wehner has, in my view, misplaced his ire. It is not Mr. Graham's defense of our most vital social institutions that ought to upset Mr. Wehner, but the left's continued campaign to degrade those institutions.
No, by attempting to pervert the definition of much of our language, then claiming violation of "rights" that are complete inventions. It is the left's aim to have us accept that our rights are what the government — be it the legislature, executive or judiciary — define them to be. The genius of our nation and the philosophy upon which its social and political institutions are constructed is that our rights emanate from the Creator and the citizenry, as we are the sovereign. Government is granted certain powers, but none of those powers, at least at the federal level, is to create additional rights unless through amendment of the Constitution. n nThe progressive left has for 100 years subverted this structure, often with supplemental assistance of non-progressives seeking to retain their share of power, by advocating an ever-expanding list of legislatively, administratively and judicially-created "rights" that do no more than create a series of justifications to restrict the constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms we in fact have reserved to ourselves and the states.
In our federal republican form of government, rights do not emanate from the federal government. Rights emanate from the sovereign — the people and the states. The federal government does not indeed have jurisdiction over civil marriage laws. Even Obama acknowledges this. n nThe anti-miscegenation laws were struck down not on the basis of any federal power over civil marriage or on the basis of any new rights created by the courts, but on the basis of the 14th Amendment's equal protection rights, properly adopted pursuant to the terms of the Constitution, and specifically applicable by its terms to the states. n nThe states in fact have the power to ban or allow same-sex "marriage". That is precisely the type of power or right reserved to them under the 9th and 10th Amendments.
As I said, the SCOTUS reasoning in Loving was indeed an equal protection argument pursuant to the 14th Amendment. And yes, the power to define marriage is left to the states, as it is not expressly delegated to the federal government pursuant to the Constitution. The equal protection clause does not, however, mean that rights or privileges granted in one state must be observed in another. New York cannot dictate the rights of citizens/residents of North Carolina. n nAnd if you read my original post, I am not taking "it out on gay families." I am saying it is up to the states and the people to define what constitutes a marriage. In the Judeo-Christian tradition (and indeed in every other monotheistic society that has existed), it is clear what that is. n nAs for
I also said: "I agree that gays and lesbians should have the same contract rights and tax treatments (such as inheritance, hospital visitation, and the like) as heterosexual couples who enter into a contract of marriage."
It is no business of the state to approve or disapprove or, ultimately, to license LOVE between individuals. The very idea is creepy and straight out of 1984. Examine a marriage-license application. Do you note the box that, when checked, affirms that the applicants love one another? No? Hmm. Well, now find the box that indicates their commitment to one another. . . . Can't find that either, can you? Why is that? n nThe only reason that the state takes an interest in marriage — indeed, has EVER taken any note of the institution — is to sanction the procreation and rearing of children. People have never needed a license to "love" one another or to "commit" to one another. Not everyone who marries chooses to have children, which is his and her free choice, but that is irrelevant to the reasons that the institution deserves state recognition to begin with.
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." n nThat is a plain evasion. Moreover it is a sentimental, not a legal, argument. The question, it seems obvious to me, is can and should homosexuals marry as a legal matter? n nEven so, ask yourself exactly whose "freedom" is meant that has been "recognize[d] as [a] vital personal right essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men" by the numerous marriage laws deliberately enacted throughout history? The answer: that of a someone marrying a member of the opposite sex. n nAlso, earlier you posed the disingenous question as to whose constitutional freedom is threatened by calling homosexual partnerships marriages. The answer: No one. So what? You're setting up a straw man. The danger posed is the threat to the plain purpose of a vital social institiution, namely, procreation, not to any individual right, constitutional or otherwise. I repeat, there is no other reason why the State ever has or ever should have encouraged and supported sexual relations between consenting adults. Thank heavens, but the degree of affection existing between those applying for marriage is no business of the State. THAT is one of the interests of religion in encouraging marriage, as plainly can be seen from the formal wedding vows uttered by husband and wife in every religion known to man, and even there love and sanctity in marriage are invoked in the service of something else, usually the successful rearing of children, which requires something altogether different than does the sexual act; and in some cases, there are theological reasons having to do with, for instance, why the Creator has fashioned two sexes that are physically complementary. There, in a religious ceremony, love, sanctity, and commitment are entirely fitting. n nIn other words, for the State to approve the "loving commitment" of homosexual partners by issuing a marriage license (in which neither love nor commitment is mentioned) is incoherent and, in fact, is more akin to a RELIGIOUS sentiment than to any justifiable secular purpose. Ironic, isn't it?
Good grief! Not every statement in a judicial opinion is essential to the legal argument being made. Warren's statement is airy sentiment that could never be a cause of action. And why on earth would you quote from an opinion about heterosexual marriage to buttress an argument about homosexual partnerships? I know you thought you were being clever, but in fact you're making my case for me, thank you very much. n nWhat the court held in Loving, as a matter of plain fact, was that all that mattered IN THE CASE BEFORE THEM was that the marriage applicants were of the opposite sex and that they were of the opposite race was irrelevant, as irrelevant as whether they loved each other or not. Race is NOT behavior, and the law may prescribe or proscribe only behavior. Or are you seriously going to suggest that Warren was in any way, shape, or manner, whether directly, indirectly, obliquely, allegorically, anagogically, or analogically implying that just anyone, particularly homosexuals, can be married? n nAs to your other question, the subject is vast, so I'll confine my reply to one general, and one specific, argument. n nFirst, and generally, ANY law that in the main — not in every single instance — that would be asking too much of a law — any law, I say, that sunders procreation from marriage or marriage from procreation will sooner or later lead to a social catastrophe. n nSpecifically, the welfare laws, particularly from the Great Society era onwards, made it more than possible for unmarried women to have children without the need for the father of her children to commit to her. In fact, the law made it desirable that she not be married. It did this, as a practical matter, by supplying her with the funds to raise the children in the form of housing, food stamps, health care, dental care, walking-around money, you name it (so long as she was unmarried, mind you). Are you deaf, dumb, and blind? There has been an explosion of out-of-wedlock births costing trillions of dollars over the past 45 years, and leading to generations of fatherless families mired in poverty, drugs, and crime. Is that catastrophe enough for you? It would be ridiculous — strike that — it would be contemptible to suggest that all of that has little or nothing to do with the sundering of marriage from childbearing, which progressive, enlightened opinion – emanating from the same hysterics who sob over the unfairness of denying marriage to homosexuals — had positively encouraged with its "rights" to housing "for the children," paid for by everybody but the parents, health care "for the children," paid for by anybody but the parents — always "for the children!" — Those enlightened opinions had everything in the world to do with the catastrophe of the urban ghetto. But who knew? So there's no one to blame and no lessons to be learned? Hah! Let's go ahead. Let's try something else never heard of before that says there's no necessary overlap between something called a child and something called a marriage. n nThe vast majority of marrying heterosexuals intend to have children and the vast majority of marrying homosexuals intend not to have children; and that is reason enough to restrict the honorific "married" to heterosexual couples, in my opinion. n nAnd yes, there is very definitely something Orwellian –echt Orwellisches — about the State, in the form of a drowsy, overweight clerk inquiring laconically into the state of affection between two men or two women showing up at a window at City Hall seeking a marriage license. Go back to the beginning of this thread: "Love" and "Commitment" are the ONLY items YOU saw fit to mention as justifying their "marriage." And in fact it's the same justification one only EVER hears from proponents of same-sex marriage. Not good enough to get the government involved, and yes, very creepy.
Anadessma2012: n nThanks for a much more eloquent reply than I could muster. n n
My "tirade" is anything but a tangent. It illustrates the extreme dangers of detaching marriage and childbirth. ALL you have to offer for transforming an age-old institution is treacly sentiment. There is nothing else to your argument. And it's just not enough. n nOh yes, and you WILL beaver on about how anyone may be harmed by homosexuals being allowed to marry. Must I — must you — be personally harmed by it in order to disagree with a proposition? Have a care. It's the law of the jungle you're arguing here. "So long as no blood is drawn," you imply, "what's the harm?" I ask you, by what other criterion do the beasts evaluate their affairs other than if it feels good, do it; if not, don't? THAT is to be our standard, too? An answer to a question that would not tax the wits of a rabbit or a simpleton is all one needs to form an opinion? You are like someone who simply will not peer beyond the end of his own nose. At that distance, like Mr. Magoo, you perceive no imminent harm. So why not do what feels good? I'm very sorry, but what YOU personally can or can't perceive as harmful to society is too slender a reed on which to found a drastic transformation of a foundational social institution. n nAnd it's not as though there isn't ample precedent for ignoring such a puerile argument. Your juvenile query is part and parcel of the same primitive, nihilistic morality we heard over the entitlement revolution I described above. "What's the harm if we support unwed mothers? Think of the children!" And oh yes, here's another pathetically naive plaint that I greatly treasure. I well remember listening to it repeated ad nauseam decades ago: "Where's the harm in no-fault divorce? Why should people stay married if they no longer love each other, children or no?" A proposition that was advanced, as should be obvious, along exactly the same lines as homosexual marriage in that the "feelings" of the spouses were what was all important in a marriage, regardless of whether children are involved. No-fault divorce also tended strongly, to put it really very mildly, to sunder the purpose and practical value of marriage to a society from procreation, which became merely an ancillary consideration, one to be subordinated to whether or not parents were "lovingly committed to one another." Who knew the harm back in the 70s? Well we know it now. By the way, that is not an argument against divorce but against no-fault divorce, a brainstorm advocated for the same mindless reason as homosexual marriage. What's the harm? n nThe research showing the enormous positive benefit for children to be raised by parents of the opposite sex is voluminous, not to mention the results of half-a-billion years of evolution being so airily dismissed. So shall we wait 30 years to find out what long-term psychological dystrophies are to be visited on children raised by homosexuals? I mean so long as we can't see blood flowing now, there can't really be any harm, can there? As if those questions weren't investigated millennia ago. n nThe situation I described as to the clerk is entirely accurate given your premises. There must be some qualification for marriage, mustn't there? Traditionally it was age and sexual complementarity, for all the reasons I've gone into, both criteria eminently objective with no need for the government to ask probe any further. What will happen now? For homosexual applicants, I mean to say? "Do you love one another? Are you committed to one another?" You can't be serious. If Bob loves Ted and Mary loves Alice, all well and good, but what possible business is it of the State's. Moreover any State in which the government takes it upon itself to be was concerned in such things AS A MATTER OF LAW will be a frightening place in which to live. Marriage serves serious practical aims. It is not a TV show designed to evoke teary responses nor is it a civil right. In case you hadn't noticed before now, that is the whole point of contention. You may not, as a matter of logic, simply assert that it is. n nYou're interpretation of Warren's remarks in Loving is seriously flawed. Both before and after that case the words "race" and "marriage" and "miscegenation [i.e., children]" had the same meaning. The Court pointed out that whereas the proper understanding of "marriage and miscegenation" revealed that the two had a good deal in common, there was no connection between "marriage and race." Logically, negating race as a qualification has no impact on the meaning of the word "marriage." There is simply no parallel, so your solemn evocation of the 14th Amendment is just hot air. n nBut enough replying to you since you're a johnny-one-note impervious to evidence.
The polygamy Wehner speaks of in the Old Testament was not condoned by God, and in fact was against God's specific commands. Wehner is the one who is being selective here. There are multiple examples of Scriptural guidance on sexual relations, in both the Old Testament and New. And, admonishing Franklin Graham about God's desire that we help the poor are laughable, given that Graham and Samaritan's Purse have worked tirelessly to improve the lives of people around the globe.