Same-sex Marriage


PolygamyConservatives have long argued that the legalization of same-sex marriage will likely lead to the eventual legalization of polygamy because the same principles used to argue for same-sex marriage apply equally to polygamy. Liberals tended to say this was nonsense.  Now that same-sex marriage is the law of the land, however, they are beginning to talk more openly about the legalization of polygamy.

In the New York Times, William Baude asks this very question: (more…)

I know this is old news (May 24), but I am behind on my news and I am simply posting this for documentation purposes.

Ireland had a popular vote to determine whether the country would allow same-sex marriage. A full 62% of the country voted to approve the measure. They are the 20th country to create same-sex marriage, but the first country to do so by popular vote rather than the courts or the legislature.

We rightfully bemoan the rise of the gay hermeneutic in which Christians are reinterpreting the Bible to allow for committed same-sex relationships, but has anyone ever stopped to think that what these liberals are doing to the homosex texts we “conservatives” have already done to the divorce and remarriage texts?  We have mangled Jesus and Paul’s teachings to allow for divorce for reasons other than sexual immorality, and to allow those who have divorced or have been divorced without grounds to remarry because we don’t think it is fair for people to be unhappy or alone.  We understand the strong desire to be in a loving, sexual relationship.  Our emotions become the motivating factor for reinterpreting (or ignoring) what would otherwise seem to be a pretty straightforward condemnations for most divorces and remarriages.

(more…)

There was an interesting exchange between Justice Alito and Mary L. Bonauto, one of the lawyers arguing on behalf of same-sex marriage before SCOTUS. Alito asks Bonauto how polygamous unions could be denied the right of marriage in the future if SCOTUS ruled in Bonauto’s favor given that the rationale offered for legalizing same-sex marriage seems to apply to polygamous unions as well. Bonauto’s response was…well…interesting.  After shooting herself in the foot, the best she could come up with was a statement of faith that it wouldn’t happen due to some practical and legal concerns. Not very persuasive. The fact of the matter is that once you dispense with the opposite-sex prerequisite for marriage, the idea of “two and only two” no longer makes sense. The rational basis for limiting a marriage to two people is that there are two sexes, and the sexual completeness of one man and one woman.  As Robert Gagnon has written: (more…)

In light of my recent post regarding religious freedom, Lowder with Chowder has a great video talking about this issue.  He illustrates it by showing what happens when a supposedly homosexual man asks a number of Muslim bakeries to bake him a same-sex wedding cake.  The end is great too.  He addresses the idea that people should not go into business unless they have no conscience or are willing to violate their conscience are willing to provide their services for any purpose.

For those who are reacting so negatively to the Indiana religious freedom law, do you not realize what you are saying (even if not explicitly)? You are saying that people should not have the right to live out their own religious convictions and follow their own conscience. Read that sentence again. Say it out loud. You are saying we should deny these American citizens a Constitutional right that is 200+ years old so that we can uphold these new same-sex marriage rights that are less than 10 years old and nowhere to be found in the Constitution. You would deny American citizens a basic human right (the free exercise of religion and conscience) in favor of a right we just made up a few years ago.

(more…)

Indiana Governor, Mike Pence, has signed legislation that prevents anyone (individuals, business owners, organizations) from being forced to violate their conscience and religious convictions (what the bill calls “exercise of religion”). One would think the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution would be enough to secure these rights, but not these days. While the historical context of the bill is surely recent examples in which business owners have been forced by state governments to offer their services to homosexuals in ways that violate their conscience and religious convictions, the bill does not make any reference to homosexuality in particular. It is a general protection religious freedom.

This bill will prevent Jewish publishers from being forced by law to print anti-Jewish propaganda, gay sign-makers from being forced to make signs that condemn homosex, and Christian business owners from being forced by law to provide services that violate their religious convictions.  Like it or not, agree with it or not – that is true freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

You can read the text of the law here.  An excellent legal analysis can be found here.

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 390 other followers