Boy am I hot today! It's bad enough that's it's over the 100 degree mark with the normal Northern California humidity. It's bad enough we forgot to get the window fans out and we don't have air conditioning. It's bad enough I'm tying this with my laptop on my lap, cooking my legs. All of that heat would have been enough. But no, there's more...The California Supreme Court ruled to legalize gay marriage yesterday. Despite the vote of the people, despite the fact that we supposedly live in a democracy, and get to decide these issues, despite the wrongness of it, they did it anyway.
There's an initiative on the ballot this November (hopefully) to amend the California constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. That may work. If not, then what? What do we do to protect our society from something that undermines it's very basic fabric? What do we teach our children? And how do we keep schools from teaching that something so immoral is "normal" when it is legally defined as normal and acceptable. Hot air had some interesting ideas:
Had the people of California chosen to recognize gay marriage through legislation, I’d accept it — and in truth, I’d consider that a more rational policy than civil unions, which basically reproduce marriage with a different label. Government stopped being in the sacrament business at the moment it offered no-fault divorces. A civil-union contract has more binding power than does marriage these days. States would do best to leave the term “marriage” as an exclusive province of the churches and have all couples sign civil-union contracts instead, and let the individuals determine whether they feel “married” or not.
Another blogger, The Anchoress talked about this as well:
I frankly think it might be a better thing if the religious sacrament of marriage were separated from the legal action of marriage, and vice versa. Perhaps it would be wise for us to adopt the practice of France, where the civil marriage takes place at City Hall, and the Sacramental marriage at the church.
A civil union is a mere legality. It can be defined any way the state wishes, but it leaves the church out of the question of who may “legally” be married and protects her ability to bestow sacraments and practice the faith free from “discrimination” lawsuits and the inevitable punitive damages that can materially destroy her.
Depending on how the courts go, we could conceivably see this issue coming up in a lot of states, and then there will be a press for federal recognition of gay marriage. If the church does not take steps to protect herself now, by advocating this sort of separation of duties and intents, she will be spending a lot of time and money (and losing tax-free status, of course) fighting for the right to practice the faith without government interference.
Bottom line: the churches manage to perform funeral rites without signing the death certificates; they should consider performing the marriage rites without signing the licenses, and distancing themselves from co-operative functions with the government which may open them up to lawsuits originating from and arguing a strictly secularist position.
I don't know, but this idea is appealing to me. It's a way of clarifying for ourselves what we define marriage as, and there wouldn't be a way for others to usurp it. Hmmmm....
The battle is heating is up I think. My stripling warriors are going to need all the faith this mother can teach them to have. I'm praying hard that through the Lord's great mercy I'll be up the task.
Update: I keep thinking about what we read in the Book of Mormon last night. Mosiah 29:
- Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
- And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.
- And now if ye have judges, and they do not judge you according to the law which has been given, ye can cause that they may be judged of a higher judge.
- If your higher judges do not judge righteous judgments, ye shall cause that a small number of your lower judges should be gathered together, and they shall judge your higher judges, according to the voice of the people.
- And I command you to do these things in the fear of the Lord; and I command you to do these things, and that ye have no king; that if these people commit sins and iniquities they shall be answered upon their own heads.
- For behold I say unto you, the sins of many people have been caused by the iniquities of their kings; therefore their iniquities are answered upon the heads of their kings.
When judges, who are not elected and can't be voted out, start legislating, isn't that much like being ruled by kings? I realize it's not exactly the same, but it does seem to have similarities.
No comments:
Post a Comment