The US Supreme Court declared the unconstitutionality
of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.
The potential effect this has for the American people has been
speculated about from both sides of the political spectrum. What actually happened was that the Supreme
Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to define marriage in the United
States Code. What did not happen was the
legalization of gay marriage at the federal level. Gay marriage remains a states’ rights issue. The Court also ruled that homosexuality is no
longer an acceptable reason to deny couples benefits traditionally reserved for
married couples.
As an institution, the establishment of marriage, as
it exists, in the United States draws its roots from the Judeo-Christian
tradition. According to the Church’s
tradition, marriage is a sacrament. Marriage
is a visible sign of the grace of God made present in the bond between a man
and woman who pledge lifelong fidelity to each other. Marriage exists uniquely, within the
Christian Church, because the priest does not perform the sacrament but,
rather, the spouses marry each other in the presence of the Church. The Church holds that marriage is created by
God. This notion is dogmatic to
Christianity from the inception of the Church.
The Church is completely intolerant to being
legislatively forced to accept what it views as a completely heretical idea of
what marriage is. Tolerance has a few
definitions: 1) capacity to endure pain
or hardship; 2) a sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing or
conflicting with one’s own; 3) the allowable deviation from a standard. The definition of tolerance is included so
that we clearly define the terms used.
The Church is claiming the right to retain its definition of
marriage. This is essential because the
Church is not, and never will, actively seeking to impugn or degrade the
dignity of people who ascribe to themselves a same-sex attraction. The Church explicitly in its teaching seeks to
protect the dignity of people with same-sex tendencies.
In defending separation of Church and state, it is unjust
for the state to define for the Church what marriage is, especially when the
Church’s established notion of marriage existed long before the United
States. In keeping with historical
tradition outside of the most recent revisionist movement of life and culture,
which I should argue either began with Roe v. Wade or the free love movement of
the 1960s. However, this is not a purely
academic piece seeking a grade for its philosophical merits. I’m not entirely convinced my posts are even
read. Just thoughts put out “there”. The revisionist perception of marriage fits
with deliberate, anti-Christian motives.
Christianity has long held that marriage is the bond of one man and one
woman in lifelong commitment for the sake of children. Thus Christianity does not have divorce. However, revisionists wish to define marriage
as a bond between two people distinguished by its intensity. There is little regard for the idea of a
lifelong commitment or children.
The current state of religious freedom in the United States
is itself under grave attack. Lawsuit
after lawsuit, and settlements from these, demonstrate that there is a
misconception about the First Amendment.
Some judiciary rulings seemingly have changed the interpretation of the
First Amendment from the freedom of religion to the freedom from religion. One of the most provocative organizations is
the Freedom From Religion foundation. Their claim is to fight to maintain separation
of Church and state. Their fight from a
philosophical standpoint is acceptable and often noble because the separation
of Church and state prevents abuses from either side in government. However, the FFRf has made this battle a unilateral engagement with the Church
in the name of tolerance and protecting atheist students. The result of the relentless lawsuits is an
idea that some believe it is illegal for anybody to demonstrate and kind of
Christian-like behavior or practice in the public sector thereby redefining
what the First Amendment protections should be vis-à-vis religion. Some organizations and governments will go so
far as to change policy just to avoid defending constitutional rights from this
organization. This misuse of pecuniary superiority
is tantamount to financial extortion.
They essentially say: You don’t have the funds to battle us in
court, so save yourself money and do what we want…
Returning to our definition of tolerance, we should be
tolerant of others to a certain degree.
Our tolerance is no longer acceptable at the point where we have to
compromise supposedly constitutionally protected freedoms. The Christian should not have to hide faith
out of fear of lawsuits. What I find
most difficult is how can non-believers be so offended at the mention of the name
of Jesus Christ. If a person doesn’t
believe, then why is the name of Jesus so offensive to some? Why is some partial nudity and vulgar speech
acceptable on some network TV shows, but the name of Jesus Christ sparks
virulent opposition? Why does it matter
so much? The name of Jesus is the name
of Jesus. We call him Lord and
Savior. He is almighty God and I will
defend my right to believe so. Unlike
other “rights” so fought for, this is one is clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment