Anyone who saw the live Ellen DeGeneres interview with John McCain after the California Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage, who has some kind of rudimentary understanding of the real underlying issues surrounding same-sex marriage, and who truly understands how high the stakes are in this on-going battle, would have been hard pressed to restrain themselves from "laying hands" on Mr. McCain with far less than religious intent. This is the “conservative” candidate for the presidency of the United States, who cannot, when asked, give a clearly articulated argument in favor of his foundational beliefs in the institution of marriage? He is an embarrassment. And so are his handlers, who allowed him to wander into "Ellen" territory ill-prepared. Indeed, did they expect that he would make an appearance on a television talk show hosted by a widely popular, openly lesbian comedienne one week after a landmark California Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage in that state and the issue would not be raised?
Columnist Paul Edwards analyzes the embarrassing spectacle Mr. McCain made of himself and makes the arguments Mr. McCain should have been, and needs to be, apprised of before contemplating another trek into gay rights territory:
". . . Rather than defend marriage on moral principle as the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation, the establishment of the home as the basis of a civil society, and as a union entered 'before God' in accordance with His laws, McCain offered a compromise, emphasizing that, 'people should be able to enter into legal agreements' for the purpose of sharing insurance and decision-making. He pointed out that same-sex couples are not denied such legal benefits and should be content with the legal status of civil unions. Such a position leaves unstated all of the conservative principles relative to the defense of traditional marriage, the first principle being that marriage is not primarily a legal contract, but is fundamentally about reproduction, valued by the state because it provides a context for the rearing of children who have been birthed as a result of the sexual union of a man and a woman, thus securing the future for a stable and free society.
Ellen denies these fundamental principles of marriage, arguing for same-sex marriage on the basis of erotic love, grounding her argument in the mistaken idea that marriage is a civil right denied to gays and lesbians in the same way this country denied the freedom of slaves and the suffrage of blacks and women: 'I think that it is looked at—and some people are saying the same—that blacks and women did not have the right to vote. I mean, women just got the right to vote in 1920. Blacks didn't have the right to vote until 1870, and it just feels like there is this old way of thinking that we are not all the same. We are all the same people—all of us. You’re no different than I am. Our love is the same.'
There is absolutely no correlation between the equality denied blacks and women and marriage being denied to gays and lesbians. All humans, regardless of ethnic or gender differences, have been endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights on the basis of their common humanity. When Ellen argues that 'we are all the same people' she is absolutely correct that, in terms of our humanity, we are all equal. But she misapplies the equality standard to sexuality, insisting that there is no difference between the erotic love and relational commitment of homosexual persons versus that of heterosexual persons. She couldn’t be more wrong.
Love-making for same-sex couples results only in physical and emotional satisfaction while the same cannot be said of heterosexual love-making, which carries with it the possibility of procreation. No such possibility exists in a homosexual union.
Ellen is equal to me in terms of personhood and the individual human rights that accompany personhood. It is a fundamental denial of the human person to deny blacks and women equal status. But no one is denying Ellen and her lover status as persons or the rights that inure to them as human persons by denying a right to marriage. The rights of marriage are granted to those who can meet the biological standard necessary for entering a physical union that, all things being equal, can produce offspring. This is the fundamental nature of marriage. Any other benefits of marriage are subordinate.
To say that because we share the same rights as human persons we are the same in nature, physicality and even sexuality is to deny reality. I am not the same as Ellen in terms of human biology. She is a female and I am a male, and as such there are fundamental differences between us that are naturally innate which, even with radical surgery, cannot be changed. As Michael Medved has said, ''Sex change' procedures do nothing to alter the most important distinctions between males and females, and blur only a few external characteristics.' Even advances in biotechnology have not succeeded in changing the basic fact that the female body is capable of carrying and bringing to life the seeds of reproduction, a feat the male body cannot accomplish. To argue that marriage for those of same-sex attraction is a fundamental human right in the same way as suffrage is nothing more than changing the subject. John McCain allowed Ellen to change the subject and in doing so demonstrated that he is a poor apologist for conservatism on one of the key issues that really, really matters. . ."
In previous blog entries, we have highlighted how gay rights activists have mastered the art of the ad hominem argument, which obfuscates the substantive issues at hand by effectively changing the subject. Essentially, such tactics further the real, self-serving agenda of the LGBT movement. But the intrinsic issue of gay marriage is ultimately about whether or not we, as a society, will confer the moral equivalence of heterosexual relationships to homosexual unions. As one of the posters to our last blog entry — Anais65 — declared,
"Same-sex marriage, as Ellen brought the debate between herself and McCain down to, is not about 'my relationship' versus 'your relationship.' Public policy is not about specific individuals. Likewise, public policy regarding marriage is not about any couple in particular. Marriage is about future generations, and about the ideal setting in which future generations are raised. Sure, some same-sex couples can do a half-decent job at raising kids, while some heterosexual couples screw-up their kids royally. But again, public policy is broader than any specific couples, and should be based on noble ideals that transcend all of us—you, me...even Ellen and John McCain."
Anais65 gets it. So what's Mr. McCain's excuse?
22 comments:
Common sense has obviously flown the coop in this country and many of our "leaders" have become a morally bankrupt, disgraceful bunch of cowards, who have sold their souls for whatever benefits and access they believe more important than the account they'll have to give for their actions before God.
No question that McCain was an embarrassment in this interview. But who's the alternative? Not Obama. When the California Supreme Court issued its same-sex marriage ruling, Obama's campaign issued a statement suggesting that he respected the right of states to determine their own marriage laws. But he is clearly being disingenuous, since he was also quoted recently in the media that he is for a complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. If this is his true position, then clearly he is in favor of every state being forced to recognize same-sex marriages because the practical effect of fully repealing DOMA would be to force all the other 48 states to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in Massachusetts and California, where the state supreme courts have now said same-sex marriage is a "right." The main purpose of DOMA is to exempt states from having to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other states as they would otherwise need to under the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the Constitution.
McCain's inability to articulate his defense of the institution of marriage while truly disappointing more so because of his candidacy for the presidency is not surprising. Sadly, I doubt most Americans can, which is why your magazine provides such a valuable service. People depend too much on the current crop of media "experts" for analysis and to articulate the issues and generally only parrot what they hear. The problem with that now is that most of the media seem to be aligned too closely with the homosexual agenda; the other side is not being heard; and people are losing the ability to properly debate the issues. Most of the time they are not even aware of the flaws in the arguments being put forward and Christians, in particular, lose the debate the minute they argue on the basis of what the Bible says, which is clearly no longer suffient for today's crop of pagans... and which as I have now learned is exactly part of the LGBT strategy, which is working! Keep up your excellent work, especially on this particular issue. I am looking forward to seeing your publication on a newsstand near to me.
I don't know that John McCain is a "conservative". His stance is more that of a "moderate"...the kind who stradles the fence in a non-committal way...the kind who wants the ability to play in the sandbox with lots of wiggle room to go in whatever direction will further his own personal agenda and ambitions.... which ironically is what may cost him the presidency. Not exactly what the country needs for such a time as this.
KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid!
Assuming "Legal Eagle" is correct re Obama's position on the California ruling and the repeal of DOMA... If, as the California same-sex marriage ruling has decreed that same-sex marriage should be given the equivalence of heterosexual marriage, and only bigotry and hatred explain our state's historic marriage tradition, then the idea that children need a mother and father will cease to be a common-sense social ideal and will become a stigmatized expression of bigotry. One cannot, repeat CANNOT, believe in both same-sex marriage AND that children have the right to be raised, ideally, by a mother and father, and especially, by the ones that birthed them.
At least John McCain was actually able to say he believes that marriage is the union of one man and one woman... if not exactly why. To me, he's ahead of Obama on this point.
Puts the lie to all his lofty maverick rhetoric, doesn't it... or he is playing the "indulgent dad" dealing with a rebellious kid? Either way... AWKWARD.
I think Ellen made a compelling argument.
Here is the problem though as I see it. What Ellen is asking for is for the state to go beyond just declaring legal partnerships and declare gay unions as having the sacred status of “marriage”.
Now this is not to say that there can’t be compelling arguments for why gay unions could not be considered sacred and given the term marriage; I am just not sure that government is really able to mandate any union beyond just it’s legality and declare something “sacred” one way or the other. So perhaps government has over stepped its boundaries by ever declaring any legal union, even heterosexual, a marriage.
Perhaps the answer is for government to get out of the marriage game all together and declare both homosexual and heterosexual unions “civil unions” and let marriage be determined in the context of peoples various religious and cultural communities.
This way everyone would have the same legal rights and at the same time allow diverse communities to determine on their own what would constitute sacred and marriage beyond just a legal agreement and partnership; and no one could deny them that.
Just a thought, I would love to hear your opinion.
Peace,
James
James Diggs wrote, "I think Ellen made a compelling argument..."
I think Ellen's argument only SOUNDS compelling to those that still don't fully grasp what the real issues are about. Neither Ellen nor McCain raised the issue of the "sanctitiy" of marriage...and, frankly, I don't think that aspect is even relevant to the whole marriage debate. That's a religious argument, which underscores how many religious people believe marriage originated. However, governments do not regulate marriage because if its "sanctity" so let's not obfuscate the issue yet again with another ad hominem argument. What homosexuals like Ellen are arguing about is the "fairness" factor; they want homosexual unions to be granted the equivalent status of heterosexual unions. But only in a world removed from any semblance of common sense could that ever be the case.
As columnist Paul Edwards rightly says, "Love-making for same-sex couples results only in physical and emotional satisfaction while the same cannot be said of heterosexual love-making, which carries with it the possibility of procreation. No such possibility exists in a homosexual union." As he also stated,marriage is not primarily a legal contract between consenting adults who feel "erotic love" for each other, but is fundamentally about REPRODUCTION, and it is VALUED BY THE STATE BECAUSE it provides the proper context and environment for the rearing of children who have been birthed as a result of the sexual union of a man and a woman, thus securing the future and continuity of a stable and free society.
Malcolm,
wow, you really missed the point of my comment. By saying that I thought Ellen,s argument was compelling I was not saying that it had no holes and was entirely sound.
I do think though that her argument unknowingly pokes a hole in how we have seen governments role in marriage at all.
As a Pastor I believe in the sacredness of heterosexual marriage, however as an American citizen I also believe that government does not have the right to define what is sacred an what isn't.
The concern for many Christians in our country lately in this debate is about the government's right to "re-define marriage". My question is why is government defining marriage at all?
I agree with you about how heterosexual unions along with the potential for reproduction is sacred. I just don't think it is the government's place to tell me that- and I certainly do not want the government to tell me that I can no longer hold to my belief in exclusive heterosexual unions as sacred.
Perhaps, government should just get out of the marriage game. Historically speaking governments never got involved with defining marriage until they got the idea that they could tax it.
Peace,
James
I love Ellen's work as an entertainer. I think she is among the best. However, I cannot condone her stand on what is clearly a self-serving mission. She is obviously very sincere in her beliefs, but on this matter, she is very sincerely wrong. Out of compassion and love we need to speak the truth to each other, not accomodate sin in the name of "diversity" and "tolerance", or perversion in some kind of "fairness" doctrine, which is why I so appreciate your magazine's fearless voice on this issue in these times.
Government gets involved and should stay in the "marriage game" because it involves a social and legal contract that has repercussions for society at large, especialy when its original obligations and intent fails...I thought that would have been obvious.
James,
Why is marriage considered to be any of the government's business in the first place? It has nothing to do with its "sacredness" The state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves. Whether we like it or not, the basic fact is that all human relationships and interactions, regardless of how "private" they are, ultimately have public consequences as well as a cost or benefit that will be bourne by society as a collective whole. This is fundamentally why governments exist in the first place...to determine and regulate the rules by which society is prepared to live, and to establish those institutions that best determine how scare resources are going to be allocated and spent. Individual rights--and their proclivities --therefore, can never trump what's best for society as a whole. And societies for several millenia have determined that children are best raised when they are brought up by a mother and a father...preferably and ideally by the ones that birthed them and whose DNA they carry. In the absence of marriage laws, a husband could dump his wife at will and she could lose decades of investment in their relationship. Marriage laws seek to recoup some of that investment for her through alimony when divorce occurs. It was recently determined that divorce now cost taxpayers some $112billion annually. Why? Through welfare and social programs that then have to pick up the slack for when parents fail to fulfill their obligations for their "private" decisions to abandon their marriages and families.
James Diggs writes, "My question is why is government defining marriage at all?. . . Historically speaking governments never got involved with defining marriage until they got the idea that they could tax it."
I am not sure that the basic premise of this argument is even correct. Governments were not the ones that "defined" marriage. I think because our laws were founded on Judeo Christian principles, our society accepted that marriage, as GOD defined it, would be as it was defined in Judeo-Christian law. Therefore your quarrel is not really with "government" but with God.
I have been following your last few blogs on homosexuality and the media's role in trying to normalize this behavior, and I have come to the conclusion that homosexuals will not stop with "legal rights" and "privileges." What they want is society's affirmation and validation of their relationships. In essence, what they are doing is trying to justify and rationalize what they already know deep in their conscience is wrong. HOWEVER, changing the law so that what God calls "evil" is now called "good" will not fix what ails them and it is certainly not the loving or compassionate thing for us to do either. God will not change His standards to fit what American law and culture think is "politically correct" or "fair".
Homosexuals and lesbians feel bad about themselves because they are living in sin and the truth will continually convict their conscience about their sin....as we all are for our own different types of sin. Change all of our social institutions as much as we possibly can and homosexuals will still feel the conviction of that truth, as long as God is...and He knows how to deal with the most prideful of hearts.
James Digss said: "...Perhaps the answer is for government to get out of the marriage game all together and declare both homosexual and heterosexual unions "civil unions" and let marriage be determined in the context of peoples various religious and cultural communities..."
You've got to be kidding! That kind of tribal mentality would lead to societal chaos as various religious and cultural communities fight to assert their respective "rights". This is already happening in places like Africa and India where several different religious and cultural belief systems collide.
In these places, marriage "in the context of people's various religious and cultural communities" could mean enabling child marriage, where impoverished parents marry off children as young as 7 and 9 for profit...and sex. Heck, forget Africa and India. It's happening right here in America on polygamist compounds, where 13 and 14 year-olds are forced to marry older men with several wives and into sexual relationships that result in multiple pregnancies before they're 16! Extrapolate this utopian ideal further and we could witness such "diverse religious and cultural communities" that enable marriage between consensual siblings, and even fathers and daughters....the fight for such "rights" are already happening across the globe today in places like Austrailia and Germany....unless, of course, Pastor, you don't think there's anything wrong with this.
A little Anne Heche, anyone, just to remind lesbians like Ellen that homosexuality is a choice that should never be codified into law?
Malcolm,
Under what I am suggesting government would still keep the legal people accountable for the legal aspects of their unions; all they would do would cease from calling it "marriage" for anyone.
There are so many heterosexual "marriages" in this country that fail to live up to what God calls marriage to be, that fail to live up to the responsibility of raising their children the way they should. The fact that government calls these things "marriage", when at best they are only treated like a legal partnership is terrible.
Frankly though, that is the best government can do- comment on the legal side of these unions. I say it is up to the church's role to hold up a higher standard of marriage, not the state.
This does not me that government would not play a role in the legal accountability, or would fail to help with the reality of when these things go bad.
Anonymous,
My basic premise was not that government defined marriage first, just that at some point government superseded that role from the church. I have no quarrel with God concerning this, but I do understand that government has no right to make God a factor in anyones' relationships. Government does not mandate that people have a particular religious view concerning their marriage and hold them accountable to that.
Mickey65,
Your conclusions sound like paranoia. What I have suggested would not allow anyone to force their perspective "rights" concerning legal unions and partnerships on others. It would allow everyone the right to define the sacred aspect of legal unions according to their own philosophical or religious views.
What determines a legal union however, would still be controlled by the government so your fear that polygamy and the abuse of children would somehow be accepted under this idea is absurd.
peace,
James
Calling something by another name for the sake of regulation or appeasement doesn't change what it is....just like the pregnant "man" propaganda fiasco being spread by the liberal media....let's not argue about semantics.
Actually Anonymous,what I am suggesting is all about calling something what it actually is. What makes you think just because government calls something a "marriage" than it is actually a marriage?
Marriage is more than just a legal contract but in reality thats all government can really say about it.
By the way, your accusations of "liberal propaganda" makes you sound like a conspiracy theory nut that can only think through issues as far as what one hears on conservative talk radio.
You may not in reality fit that description, but such crazy generalities and paranoid language about how the "liberals" are conspiring together against people is just over the top.It also does nothing to help in the interest of having a real discussion about the matter.
James Diggs writes, "What makes you think just because government calls something a "marriage" than it is actually a marriage?"
Again, a wrong premise. Government did not call marriage "marriage"; it only regulates (for reasons already presented) what has been clearly understood to be called marriage for several millenia and the ramifications such social and legal contracts have on society, which makes your arguments a useless debate of words and semantics, which has added nothing really to the issue in this forum, which you may or may not recall has to do with being able to understand and intelligently argue why same-sex marriage should not be entrenched into law. THAT is the issue of this particular forum. Trying to obfuscate this important issue and redirect the debate is exactly what the LGBT agenda and game plan directs its proponents to do, and will succeed ONLY if people aren't aware of the strategy being used. This is NOT a "conspiracy theory." Read "After the Ball", the LGBT manifesto written by two Harvard-trained marketing professionals, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, regarding the strategies and tactics that homosexuals ought to implement to successfully normalize homosexuality in America and then tell me this is a "conspiracy theory."
In love, brother, and only because you say you are a pastor, let me remind you what Paul wrote to his protegee Timothy (2 Tim 2:14-17), an aspiring pastor, "Warn them before God against quarrelling about words; IT IS OF NO VALUE, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who CORRECTLY handles the word of TRUTH. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene..." (NIV)
And for extra good measure, here are the NIV Life Application Notes for this passage: "Paul urged Timothy to remind believers not to argue about unimportant details("quarrelling about words") or to have foolish discussions ("godless chatter") because such arguments are confusing, useless, and even harmful. False teachers loved to cause strife and divisions by their meaningless quibbling over unimportant details (See 1 Timothy 6:3-5). To handle the word of truth correctly, we must study what the word of God says so we can understand what it means..."
Peace OUT.
To anonymous: Love it....DING.
Anonymous,
Again, you completely missed my point. Just because government says something is a "marriage" doesn't mean it is such.
If government started calling "homosexual unions "marriage" it doesn't mean that it is actually is marriage, any more than the many heterosexual unions it calls marriage where the couples may not be living faithful unions that would bring honor to the picture of how Christ loves the church that marriage represents.
You quote Paul's advice about not arguing about words, yet it is your argument that is the is based on trying to protect terminology. Does legalized homosexual unions or gay marriage change the reality of homosexual relationships in God's eyes one way or the other?
Like a Pharisee that comes anonymously by night your argument is completely based on outward righteousness that would rather have a whitewashed tomb than actual life in Christ.
You may not agree with my political solution but it is one one that embraces the reality that we now live in a post-Christian nation where we can not expect the law to always exclusively reflect the things we find sacred.
By no means have I advocate to cease from preaching our sacred truth in Jesus Christ. My only comment was that I did not think government should be allowed to declare what is sacred for us as followers of Jesus- and even if they try it does not mean they are right.
Certainly if gay marriage ever gets legalized by the government this will be a definition of sacredness that the church rejects. What right does the government have to tell us what we should or should not find sacred? After all we live in a country that built a governing premise on the fact that government should not make a law that governs religion. This protects the church, and it protects everyone.
Now, as a Christian I believe in having integrity towards others, even my enemies. In all fairness to those who do not hold to my definitions of sacredness, government has no right to define these things for others either. The political ethos of our country should not define the sacred, or sacred act of any union one way or the other.
Do you not see how this also protects the church? Otherwise if the government says homosexual unions are "marriage" there may one day be legal penalties for the church that denies such a definition.
Here is the reality. There is nothing in our law that stops homosexuals from having a relationship, from committing themselves to a partner. Let me ask you then Mr.2 Tim 2:14, how does preventing the legalizations of these unions really protect or lead these couples to righteousness? What difference would a stamp of approval concerning these relationships from the United States government make in the eyes of God?
My suggestion that government should not comment on the sacredness of any union- homosexual or even heterosexual- will continue to protect the church allowing it to preach with conviction about what it considers sacred. All of this, while not forcing our view of sacredness on others by political means as well. Like I said before, as the church we do not want the view of gay unions forced on us as something we have to accept as the sacrament of marriage.
No, I am all about preaching our sacred truth as well as protecting our right as the church to do so. In the meantime, by not advocating government to force my view of sacredness on others I am actually more free to invite others to walk in the sacredness and holiness provided through Jesus Christ by their own free will.
I suggest making a political compromise that will actually allow the church to continue to preach holiness without compromise and do it in love. Your argument is the one that is just concerned about politics and would in reality change nothing for those who may be in unsacred unions of any kind regardless if they are sanctioned or unsanctioned by the government.
peace,
James
Post a Comment