What is the Federal Marriage Amendment?

[derwen]

We'll see how this goes:

First, while I'm thinking about it, and off topic, RE: patriotic music-- Patriotic music is good and all, but where there's one mention of God in a song, and it's all about my nation. It's certainly not worshiping God. I don't like it in church. </off topic>

Okay, now, RE: Gay marriage. I was frankly surprised that the leaflet you mention found its way into my church's bulletin at home. (My mom told me about it). I think it is a tad propagandistic, as you say.

I am going to vote for the amendment, but not because it will undercut the foundation of our entire culture, but primarily for benefit/adoption reasons. I don't believe we should allow two women in a homosexual relationship to function the same way as a man and woman do--they should not receive benefits as if they were married, nor should they be able to adopt children and have benefits that a male-female family would have. And that's really hard to say because my aunt is homosexual.

Our religious freedom is being jeopardized all the time--not just if we fail to pass this amendment. Even if we do pass the amendment, the whole country's going steadily downhill, so it won't prevent the inevitable, perhaps it'll just push it a bit further away.

I've been thinking too hard now anyway, so I should stop here, and continue. "Discuss."

[Katydid104]

So befuddled was I by the patriotic tunes reverberating from my church's sanctuary yesterday I must have forgotten to read my weekly bulletin. Not until I cleaned out my car this morning did I notice the glossy insert that had been stuffed behind my sermon notes. The flier -- which appeared to have been printed (or, at least, endorsed) by the Missouri Baptist Convention -- read as follows:

VOTE August 3
For the Missouri Constitutional Marriage Amendment

A Matter of Life or Death...For Our Families

We MUST have a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect our families!

What is the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA)?
It is a national amendment needed to protect our families by defining that marriage shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

Why do I need to make this a priority?
+ Our entire culture sits on the foundation of the family.
+ The legaliztion of homosexual marriage will destroy the traditional family.
+ Children will suffer due to not being raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers.
+ Adoption laws will be affected.
+ Our religious freedom will almost certainly be jeopardized.
+ If we're passive, what will we be saying to the generations behind us?

What can I do to make a difference NOW?
It's real simple, make two phone calls to each U.S. Senator...one to your local office and one to the national office. According to Dr. James Dobson, we need to make the phone lines "smoke" to get our senators' and nation's attention.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ahem.

Even now I'm at a loss for words. Can someone, please, help me establish a biblical framework for hanging this sort of propagandism out to dry?? Or better yet, does anyone else have a list of reasons why "I (we) need to make this (lobby) a priority"? (Preferably a list of reasons more substantial than the ones given by Dr. Dobson and the Missouri Baptist Convention.)

And while you're at it, could ya'll answer a few more questions for me?

1.) In what ways is the American Family foundational to American culture? Would anyone argue that there is a different institution or set of values undergirding "our entire culture"?

2.) What does the author mean by "the traditional family"? Are we talking about Christian families, or just any ol' two-parent household? Family as an institution? What do we hope to preserve and/or protect when defending "traditional family values"? And how will the legalization of homosexual marriage destroy the Christian Coalition lobby...or the traditional family...or whatever?

3.) How in the world could the legalization of homosexual marriage jeopardize "our religious freedom"? (P.S. Is this "our" different from the "our" in bullet number 1 -- "our entire culture"?)

and D.) Who cares about our religious freedom anyway? I mean, I know it's "constitutional" and everything, but I'm kinda indifferent about my religious freedom...hmmm...maybe that's the problem. And maybe I romanticize the persecuted Church.

Okay, now I'm definitely rambling. Sorry. For anyone who's still with me, the topic is: the Federal Marriage Amendment. What is it, and why should we care?

Discuss.

P.S. I do see the importance of considering how the legalization of homosexual marriage would affect adoption laws.

Call me overly simplistic (or go ahead and tell me what you really think of my sickening bigotry), but I believe it is good that homosexuals can't reproduce. Not because their evil seed would produce demon spawn who would corrupt all the heterosexually made innocents, but because God designed natural law in such a way as to preclude homosexual partners from conceiving children.

The end.

[chasingsophia]

I'll respond to the one question that I know a little about. I have heard anecdotal stories about Canadian churches being under legal pressure to not say that homosexual acts are abominable before God, that such language constitutes hate speech. There's where the concern for religious liberty comes from. But of course, hate speech laws and marriage ammendments are two separate matters.

I'd also like to cast a vote for "bad idea, pastors." The Church's message is never about ammendments or laws, but about sin and redemption.

About what our culture is founded on, meh, I think the "it's founded on traditional marriage views" is empty jargon. Granted, most Americans through time, and certainly the "founders," would say "man-woman marriage," but I don't think they considered this to be foundational to "America" or a civil society.

[Rrose Selavy]

I am a little confused as to how a secular government would be able to define marriage, let alone intellectually have it as an institution in the first place. Is there an example anywhere in world culture where marriage arose outiside of a religious belief system, Christian or otherwise? Should marriage even be a legal issue?

[Randall3452]

I always love the Christian Right's pitiful excuses for keeping homosexuals from marrying. It's just another place where they're butting into other peoples' lives, trying to keep them from committing the horrible act of...love. And why is this? Because the just, loving, forgiving God apparently told some guy to write:

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

It's a shame that Christians can't see this for what it is: The ramblings of an ignorant bigot.


My favorite argument, however, is that gay marriage supposedly "cheapens" marriage (unlike the 50% divorce rate - that's OK). Here's a news flash: If your marriage is so shaky that seeing a couple of homosexuals marry causes you to fall out of love with your spouse, I think you needed to separate a long time ago. I don't care if they allow DOGS to legally marry - it doesn't affect my marriage in the least. And it doesn't affect YOURS, either. So mind your own business, let these people love each other in the way that they want, and remember - the only part of the Bible worth taking seriously is "Do unto others...". Would you really have homosexuals oppress you the way you choose to oppress them? Didn't think so.

It's a shame that Christians think "tolerance" is a bad word.

Randall

[Rrose Selavy]

The just, loving, forgiving God apparently did tell some guy (Moses, I believe) to write the previously quoted statement, as well as several others like it from other writers scattered throughout the Bible. I'm sure we've all heard them shouted at the protest rallies, so I won't list them here.

I too find it laughable when right-wingers worry about protecting the sanctity of marriage. If they really cared about sanctity they would not have a 50% divorce rate. The Christian right has no place to complain either when our divorce rate is the same as the national average.

Politically and ideologically, I really do not care who couples up with who or what. I do not need to agree with it, but I will put up with it. I will "tolerate" it, a term society has butchered into meaninglessness. I might even try to convince people to see things my way. Graciously, of course.

However, when it concerns my faith this becomes a different matter. The just, loving, forgiving (all knowing, all powerful, unchanging) God dictated a certain moral conduct for those who choose to believe in him. It is not up to me or anyone else to pick and choose right and wrong behavior for fear of facing God's justice.

When a Christian church allows for a same sex marriage, something the Word of God is clearly opposed to, I will not tolerate it. No legislation or societal pressure is going to convince me otherwise.

Frankly, I am leaning towards the idea that marriage should not be a legal matter. My commitment to my wife is between her, myself and, above all, God. Ultimately I am not responible to the government or society for my conduct towards her. That is how seriously I view marriage and my commitment.

Somebody correct me if I am wrong here. The government is only really concerned about marriage when it comes to taxes, property rights, and child welfare. Maybe the government should stop using Christian terminology for civil unions.

As far as doing unto others...

If I don't live up to my own Higher standards but I expect you to, then shame on me.

Hold us accountable, Randall.

[Randall3452]

I'm generally fine with what you're saying, JJ. I get quite irritated with this whole issue (as you may have noticed) because of the handful of homosexuals I've known in my life, ALL of them have been absolutely terrific people. To force one's religious beliefs to become government policy, especially when you're trying to prevent people from doing something that hurts NO ONE is completely ludicrous. Mr. Bush lost this American's vote when he tried to push that stupid amendment.

I don't, however, think that any church should be forced to marry someone they don't believe should be married. My wife and I, for example, couldn't get married in her church because I am heathen trash and they didn't want to contaminate the flock. I have no problem with this - it certainly should be within the church's freedom to do this (plus, it got me out of going to church, the most horrendously boring place on earth, so I certainly wasn't complaining).

I will argue one thing you said, though, JJ: Marriage is not a Christian invention, so Christians don't own the rights to the word. The government should be able to make it mean whatever they want without worrying about what Christians think about it. Every society, religious or not, has had some form of marriage. Hell, even some animals keep the same mate for life. Marriage was prevalent long before Christianity came around, and it exists in places that Christianity doesn't.

Ok - enough blabbing. Time for bed.

Randall

[Rrose Selavy]

For the sake of my argument , I am specifiying a Christian marriage. Although I don't think I ever claimed marriage in general to be a Christain invention, just a religious one.

When I say "government should stop using Christian terminology..." I do so with the understanding that the vast majority of the American populace views marriage in Christian terms, whether they actually practice the faith or not.

The government can define marriage or anything else however it wants to. I just don't think it can have any real substantial meaning without the belief in a greater, unchanging absolute that exhists beyond it. A secular government is unable to do that. Many religious governments can't even do that.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ July 22, 2004 09:34 AM: Message edited by: JJVW ]</font>