There has been a lot of talk in the last week over the oral arguments presented for and against same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media is presenting the outcome as a foregone conclusion. There are no reasonable or logical reasons to be against it, we are told.
But, there is one main reason to be against same-sex marriage that the mainstream media simply won’t talk about. And it is a reason I’ve mentioned numerous times on this website (e.g., see prior posts here and here), and that many others have also observed.
That reason is simply this: the logic being used to promote same-sex marriage could be used to support a variety of other sexually questionable forms of marriage.
If marriage is just about consenting adults that love each other, then why can’t a mother and her adult son get married? Why can’t an adult brother and adult sister get married? Why can’t a man marry three wives? Or a wife marry three husbands?
As I said in a prior post, “The logic used to justify homosexual marriage is like an acid that will eventually eat its way through every remaining sexual boundary in our culture. And pretty soon, there will be no boundaries.”
This very problem with the same-sex marriage argument was noted by several justices during oral arguments. The mainstream media hasn’t talked much about this, but here is a transcript of the conversation. Bonauto is the lawyer arguing for same-sex marriage and it is clear that she has no coherent answer to this problem. My own comments are embedded in the dialogue in blue.
Justice Samuel Alito: Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?
Mary Bonauto: I believe so, Your Honor.
Alito: What would be the reason?
This is the question Bonauto has been dreading…
Bonauto: There’d be two. One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons. But I want to also just go back to the wait and see question for a moment, if I may. Because—
Notice how irrelevant the first response is: “One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as marriage.” This is a nonsense statement. The whole issue is what logic the State would use to make such a decision. To raise the question of whether the State would is just a diversionary tactic.
The issue of “coercion and consent” is also a red herring. You will notice below that she just repeats this mantra with no explanation for what it means or for how it rules out other forms of marriage. And, as you will see, neither Alito or Scalia even understand what she is trying to say.
How quickly she tries to change the subject shows that she realizes it is a problem for her view.
Justice Antonin Scalia: Well, I didn’t understand your answer.
Scalia rightly doesn’t understand her answer because she really didn’t provide one.
Alito: Yes. I hope you will come back to mine. If you want to go back to the earlier one –
Bonauto: No, no.
Alito: — then you can come back to mine.
Bonauto: Well, that’s what — I mean, that is — I mean, the State –
Alito: Well, what if there’s no — these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it’s not–it’s not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. And let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated. They’re all lawyers. What would be the ground under–under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? What would be the logic of denying them the same right?
Alito rightly won’t let this go. On a judicial level, the arguments for same-sex marriage will just lead to future court cases where those wanting polygamist marriage or incest marriage claim their civil rights are being violated.
Bonauto: Number one, I assume the States would rush in and say that when you’re talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we’ve had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people. Setting that aside, even assuming it is within the fundamental right –
This is incredible. Bonauto actually rejects polygamous marriage on the grounds that “that is not the same thing we’ve had in marriage.” In other words, Bonauto actually appeals to tradition–to the long history of the way marriage has always been. But, this same rationale would lead one to reject same-sex marriage. If we are talking about the history of the institution, then same-sex marriage has no chance.
Alito: But–well, I don’t know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before, recognizing that is a substantial break. Maybe it’s a good one. So this is no — why is that a greater break?
Notice that Alito picks up on the inconsistency of her argument. If the history of marriage is the standard, then that would not only rule out polygamy but same-sex marriage as well. He is clearly confused by her reasoning when he says: “But–well, I don’t know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before.”
Bonauto: The question is one of–again, assuming it’s within the fundamental right, the question then becomes one of justification. And I assume that the States would come in and they would say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If there’s a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? There are issues around who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know, in the time of crisis. I assume there’d be lots of family disruption issues, setting aside issues of coercion and consent and so on that just don’t apply here, when we’re talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be. So that’s my answer on that.
All the talk of the complications over divorce is not a meaningful argument. Divorce laws are always complicated–and yes, could be even more complicated in a polygamous relationship. But, is this really enough for the state to deprive people of their constitutional rights (assuming her own argument for a moment)? If she is correct that consenting adults can define marriage for themselves, then the complications of divorce are not relevant. She is straining out a gnat, but swallowing a camel.
In the end, Bonauto simply does not have a coherent argument for why marriage should be changed for homosexuals, but not changed for polygamist and incestuous individuals.
And this simply shows what everyone has always known: homosexuals want to be able to redefine marriage for themselves, but don’t want to let others redefine marriage. Which means they don’t want equal treatment, they want special treatment.
Ted Weis (@TedWeis) says
In this Q&A, Ryan Anderson demonstrates your point: Those who want to “expand” the definition of marriage on the basis of “discrimination” have no reasonable argument to deny marriage in any form. When you redefine one boundary, every other boundary is open to revision. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcs1K7Gi9Pg
Philmonomer says
In the end, Bonauto simply does not have a coherent argument for why marriage should be changed for homosexuals, but not changed for polygamist and incestuous individuals.
Well, what is the reason now we don’t let polygamist or incestuous individuals get married? Why would that reason change if homosexuals are allowed to get married?
Kyle says
Let me ask you, what principal would you appeal to to prevent marriage from being redefined to include the same sex thrupple? Once you remove the male-female gender binary (which is the foundation of all societies – everyone has a mother and father one way or another), and simply make it about adult consent, what possible boundaries could you impose without engaging in special pleading? What is significant about the number 2 if not the gender binary?
Philmonomer says
Well, in order to understand where we might go, let’s first understand where we are. What are the reasons now we don’t let polygamist or incestuous individuals get married? Why would that change?
Grant says
Philmonomer, the reason that homosexuals, polygamists and incestuous individuals are not currently allowed to get married is that marriage is defined in legislation as being a monogamous, heterosexual union of only two people, obviously with qualification to prevent incestuous marriage as well.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments from lawyers both for and against legalising same-sex marriage. But to legalise same-sex “marriage,” they will have to remove the very same legislation that prevents other undesirable forms of “marriage.”
Their responses to Bonauto’s arguments show the difficulty this presents: if they remove the definition of marriage from law, and rule that marriage is a “constitutional right,” then how will they justly allow some marriages and not others? Twenty people all want to get “married,” then how can they legally be refused if its their “constitutional right” to marry whomever they want, with no necessarily limiting definition in the law?
Philmonomer says
Philmonomer, the reason that homosexuals, polygamists and incestuous individuals are not currently allowed to get married is that marriage is defined in legislation as being a monogamous, heterosexual union of only two people, obviously with qualification to prevent incestuous marriage as well.
Right. But is the only reason we don’t allow them to get married is that it is because it is against the law? What if the law is challenged in court? What is the reason (now) in court, that they cannot get married?
When Mildred Loving was married in 1967, it was against the law in Virginia to be married to someone of a different race. Since at least 1967, there has been a Constitutional right to marriage. It seems like the “mistake” (to the extent it is a mistake) –that there is a “right” to marriage–started there.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments from lawyers both for and against legalising same-sex marriage. But to legalise same-sex “marriage,” they will have to remove the very same legislation that prevents other undesirable forms of “marriage.”
No. They would just find legislation that restricts marriage to 1 woman and 1 man unconstitutional; it wouldn’t “remove” any other legislation.
Their responses to Bonauto’s arguments show the difficulty this presents: if they remove the definition of marriage from law, and rule that marriage is a “constitutional right,” then how will they justly allow some marriages and not others?
Well, this is back to my question, how do we allow some marriages and not others, now? (Before any Supreme Court decision is issued?)
Twenty people all want to get “married,” then how can they legally be refused if its their “constitutional right” to marry whomever they want, with no necessarily limiting definition in the law?
Why were polygamists in the 19th Century (or 20th Century) denied the right to marry several women? (I honestly don’t know.)
Kyle says
One of the reasons we don’t allow polygamy as I said above has to do with the male-female gender binary which reflects obvious male/female complementarity (designed by God as such). Ideas have consequences, two men cannot by nature produce offspring, a third party must be introduced (a mother), and while it is tragic that many children are left without their biological parents, when two men decide to “have children” they must engineer a situation wherein a child is purposely kept from their biological parent. Polygamy, incest, same sex marriage are bad for children for very obvious reasons. Even if the couple cannot have children, you are still setting a precedent for others to choose to have children in that setting (whether gay marriage or otherwise). The point is that ideas have consequences — an elderly male-female couple may not be able to have children, but by definition a male-female couple can. Even incest and polygamy have an advantage over same sex unions from a simple definitional standpoint — you’re dealing with male-female, which by definition allows for father and mother, homosexuality can’t allow for that in any meaningful sense. “Well, in order to understand where we might go, let’s first understand where we are.” Wrong, lets determine where morals come from first, a court or a society do not determine what moral truth is. So let me ask you, what makes you think homosexuality is a morally good thing? Was male and female created by God for a purpose, or are we the result of purposeless time and chance? Your attitude is that of someone who thinks marriage is whatever society wants it to be, what gives you the right to question God’s created order?
Philmonomer says
One of the reasons we don’t allow polygamy as I said above has to do with the male-female gender binary which reflects obvious male/female complementarity (designed by God as such).
Huh? A man marrying many women still fits in fine with the male-female gender binary. But we still don’t allow it. Why?
Ideas have consequences, two men cannot by nature produce offspring, a third party must be introduced (a mother), and while it is tragic that many children are left without their biological parents, when two men decide to “have children” they must engineer a situation wherein a child is purposely kept from their biological parent.
Ok. But that has more to do with adoption than it does with marriage. Or are you ok with a gay couple getting married that never plans to have/adopt children?
Polygamy, incest, same sex marriage are bad for children for very obvious reasons.
So if gays cannot adopt children, can they get married?
. Even if the couple cannot have children, you are still setting a precedent for others to choose to have children in that setting (whether gay marriage or otherwise).
I don’t follow.
The point is that ideas have consequences — an elderly male-female couple may not be able to have children, but by definition a male-female couple can.
Huh? By definition, a post-menopausal woman cannot have children.
Even incest and polygamy have an advantage over same sex unions from a simple definitional standpoint — you’re dealing with male-female, which by definition allows for father and mother,
So why are they prohibited?
homosexuality can’t allow for that in any meaningful sense.
Nor can post-menopausal women. But we still let them get married.
“Well, in order to understand where we might go, let’s first understand where we are.” Wrong, lets determine where morals come from first, a court or a society do not determine what moral truth is.
Morals come from evolution, modified by society.
So let me ask you, what makes you think homosexuality is a morally good thing?
Observation of the world around me.
Was male and female created by God for a purpose, or are we the result of purposeless time and chance? Your attitude is that of someone who thinks marriage is whatever society wants it to be, what gives you the right to question God’s created order?
Well, I think people have a “natural” desire to pair-off. That is (generally speaking) marriage.
Ed Dingess says
What is being argued, and what you don’t seem to get is that the reason that makes marriage exclusively between one man and one woman is the same reason that precludes ANY OTHER form of marriage. If THAT REASON is removed to open the way for homosexual marriage, the reason is now out of the way. Hence, any other marriage is now plausible because the reason for their prohibition is removed. What the justices seem to be saying is that homosexual marriage opens the door and the only way to NOT open the door is an arbitrary one. This is why Dr. Kruger rightly pointed out that they do not want equal treatment. Rather, they want special treatment. They want an artificial, arbitrary ruling that only changes the rule for them. But that is not logically feasible. Law must apply equally to all. One the one man one woman arrangement is knocked over, the floodgates open wide. Otherwise, law is now truly applied in an arbitrary fashion. But this is the gay way I think. This decision could change the model of how we do church in American culture. Why religious freedom for the majority should be abolished for the <2% is simply ludicrous. We have truly lost our wits in this culture.
Philmonomer says
What is being argued, and what you don’t seem to get is that the reason that makes marriage exclusively between one man and one woman is the same reason that precludes ANY OTHER form of marriage. If THAT REASON is removed to open the way for homosexual marriage, the reason is now out of the way.
What is THAT REASON?
anaquaduck says
Thats the thing though…set a legal precedent without considering the implications is like playing with fire. The game of domino’s will never be the same again, just argument after argument after argument. If it happens it will work against the one man & one woman biological/ genetic model that is unmatched in wisdom & has been such a blessing to society & families over the centuries.
The implications are huge & the intellectual/legal argument seems so vague or week but it has popularity…Personally I see it like Dr Frankensteins creation/experiment.
Philmonomer says
Thats the thing though…set a legal precedent without considering the implications is like playing with fire.
Sure. But that’s true of every legal decision. Would you go back and overturn Loving v. Virgnia? It found a constitutional right to marriage–something that had never been found before. Without that, there would not even be the possibility of a (federal) right to same sex marriage.
The game of domino’s will never be the same again, just argument after argument after argument. If it happens it will work against the one man & one woman biological/ genetic model that is unmatched in wisdom & has been such a blessing to society & families over the centuries.
There is also the one man, several women model.
The implications are huge & the intellectual/legal argument seems so vague or week but it has popularity.
I disagree. I think we’ve long been in a space where we celebrate marriages that cannot possibly create children (indeed, we’ve been doing it for decades, if not hundreds, if not thousands of years–any time a woman over the age of 50 gets married, the marriage isn’t about kids.).
And I think the intellectual/legal arguments are incredibly strong. That’s why (IMHO) they keep winning. Why do you think they are vague and/or weak?
Grant says
Philmonomer, I have some concerns about this reply of yours.
Regarding the legal precedent set by rulings, what is the basis for the ruling? Was the ruling made merely to create precedent, or was it made on the basis of the strength of an argument? I hope you don’t believe that judges don’t having agendas that they might try to work into their rulings…that’s why there are structures to hold judges accountable.
“The one man, several woman model” with regard to marriage is an example of polygamy, which is precisely the challenge the Justices of the Supreme Court are making to Bonauto: how will they reasonably deny polygamists the right to marry if they rule that there is no longer a legal definition limiting who can marry whom, and that marriage is a “constitutional right”?
You disagree that the implications of removing the definition of marriage and ruling that marriage is a right for all are huge? How is it not a major decision? And creating children is only one factor to the issue of marriage.
Regarding your statement that “the intellectual/legal arguments are incredibly strong,” the challenges that Justices Scalia and Alito make to Bonauto’s arguments show that they’re legally and logically weak, and Bonauto is not able to give good answers to their challenges. Her arguments are clearly not strong.
Therefore, the reason the arguments for same-sex “marriage” win is because, as anaquaduck pointed out, they have popularity.
Grant says
Philmonomer, you seem to be thinking that those are two different reasons.
They aren’t. The reason polygamists or the incestuous have not been allowed to get married is the same reason that homosexuals have not been (but may soon be) allowed to get married: the definition of marriage as monogamous and heterosexual.
If the definition of marriage as monogamous and heterosexual is cast out to allow homosexuals to get “married”, then what reason can be provided by liberals to prevent polugamous “marriage”, incestuous “marriage”, bestial “marriage”, or any other kind of “marriage” that could be imagined by people in rebellion against the good desire of their Creator?
Grant says
I apologise for the spelling error (“polugamous”) I have spotted in the second paragraph of my comment.
dantespencer says
She is illogical because sin is always illogical. This is intended to go further into allowing adults to marry children etc. I was reading something by Mark Talbot and he suddenly brought up a woman who conducted a “scientific study” about 15 years ago showing sex between a man and a boy has no harmful effects upon the boy as long as the boy is willing. I’m finding that unbelievers love sin for the simple reason that it is sin, so long as they don’t think their permitting of sin will hurt them. This is nothing other than an expression of their hatred for God.
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III says
Dear Mike,
This is an excellent post, but I would add that there is another problem that was answered by the Solicitor General that will be even more imposing on individuals and religious institutions:that “Homosexual Marriage is a ‘Civil Right.’ ”
Remember the Bob Jones case in which their Tax Exempt status was lost due to their opposition to “inter-racial dating.” The college fought it in the courts and lost before the SCOTUS. Inter-racial dating was declared to be a “Civil Right.” BTW, the Tax Exempt status was restored in 2000.
Now, for the sake of this argument, if “Homosexual Marriage” is a “Civil Right,” then the government has the right to remove the tax exempt status of any institution that opposes this “Civil Right” even on religious grounds. The First Amendment AND the RFRA has been bludgeoned by the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, ALL religious institutions will have to pay taxes; and see their corresponding donations severely drop! Furthermore, ALL institutions especially churches, synagogues and mosques will be required to perform “Homosexual Marriages;” this will even apply to individual pastors, rabbis and imams regardless of the person’s religious views.
The Bible is quite clear over this issue. The Marriage Institution, and its corresponding definition, had been instituted BY GOD before civil governments were even instituted; see Genesis 2:24 and Genesis 4ff. This is as much a “religious” argument as it is over a “civil right” argument. In fact, it is more than a religious argument. It is a fidelity to the character of God as revealed in Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2).
Grant says
This is indeed a good point, Rev. Williams.
Albert Mohler has also alerted us to these problems on his blog, adding that this was forecast a decade ago by legal theorists: http://www.albertmohler.com/2015/04/29/it-is-going-to-be-an-issue-supreme-court-argument-on-same-sex-marriage-puts-religious-liberty-in-the-crosshairs/
I recommend that article, Dr. Mohler has some good detail there.
Mike Gantt says
Bryant, your response, for all its length, doesn’t seem to respond to the point of concern I was raising.
I have no doubt that religious liberties will be diminished, and it is likely that tax-exempt status for religious institutions will also be imperiled. My only point was that the destruction of marriage is a worse spiritual calamity than loss of a tax deduction.
Dan says
We need to stop calling it same sex marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman. What is being discussed is same sex immorality.
Grant says
Dan, I agree, it isn’t truly marriage.
The mindset that Christians should have is that using the term “same-sex marriage” is valid ONLY in its use for referencing what non-Christians are talking about, and engaging in discussion and debate about it.
Grant says
Further above Philmonomer replied to Kyle, and I replied to Philmonomer. Philmonomer has replied to my reply, and since I there isn’t a “Reply” link there, I reply here.
Philmonomer, I am wondering about the meaning of your responses. Your responses don’t seem to indicate what your intentions are in making them. Are you arguing that marriage shouldn’t be denied to anyone? Are you arguing that polygamous, incestuous, etc. marriage should be allowed?
Considering this, we need to know what marriage IS, we need to DEFINE it.
The definition of marriage is WHY a marriage of only one man and one woman is legally valid, and also WHY anything else, whether same sex “marriage,” or incestuous “marriage,” or polygamous “marriage” is legally invalid.
The Supreme Court is deliberating about whether to legalize same-sex marriage. That will require the removing of the definition of marriage, and making same-sex marriage a “constitutional right.”
If it becomes a right for homosexuals to marry, then how will it not be a right for those engaging in incest, or more than two people, or anything else? The ONE constitutional right will apply to EVERYONE, so on what basis will it be limited?
Using Mildred Loving’s marriage in 1967 as an argument, are you arguing that homosexuality is something just like ethnicity? That it is intrinsic to a person and can’t be changed and that there is therefore nothing wrong with it? Homosexuals who have repented of sin (including homosexuality) and believed the true Gospel will disagree with that.
Your responses that “They would just find legislation that restricts marriage to 1 woman and 1 man unconstitutional; it wouldn’t ‘remove’ any other legislation,” and “this is back to my question, how do we allow some marriages and not others, now?” indicate to me that you don’t recognize or don’t understand the role of the definition of marriage in laws regarding marriage.
The very PART of the legislation that restricts same-sex marriage is the DEFINITION of marriage that was written into law. That would have to be removed for same-sex marriage to be made a right.
David Anderson says
“And this simply shows what everyone has always known: homosexuals want to be able to redefine marriage for themselves, but don’t want to let others redefine marriage.”
That’s one interpretation. It’s not the only possible interpretation. Another would be that they’re quite comfortable with redefining it for everyone, but realise that practically, an incrementalist approach is needed to attempt to get it through more easily. The other steps can, and very possibly will, come later.
The whole game has been an incremental one. The homosexuals could never have got a hearing if the battle over easy divorce hadn’t been gone through in previous years. Only by progressively emptying the marriage commitment of its meaning, can the contradiction-in-terms of “homosexual marriage” have got to the stage where it can now get a hearing. And other things will then get their hearing in turn afterwards.
Bishop Lillian Coaxum says
If you don’t stand for God–you will fall for anything.lillian
Kyle says
Since I cannot reply above to Philmonomer, I will reply here. Let me clarify the reasons for rejecting polygamy; the whole point of two in a marriage has to do with two complimentary sexes. Male-female is the basis for two, if you remove the male-female aspect, you remove the necessity for two. Both sexes may be represented in polygamy, but it’s hardly a complementary relationship when one partner is “shared.” “…are you ok with a gay couple getting married that never plans to have/adopt children?” Your argument here could also support bestiality. Are you ok with with a bestiality marriage as long as they don’t plan to adopt children? “So if gays cannot adopt children, can they get married?” I’ll return the question, So if a man and his dog cannot adopt children, can they get married? If not why not? Are you bigoted against inter-species love? “By definition, a post-menopausal woman cannot have children.” The point is that females by definition can have children, the question of infertility is irrelevant. Name me one male that has or had the potential to get pregnant? How many men have egg cells and a uterus? Again, definitions sir, you are essentially saying that gender does not matter — if that’s the case, we should fight for the right of men to get pregnant since gender doesn’t matter. “Morals come from evolution, modified by society.” Ok if morals and the definition of marriage do not transcend society, than marriage is whatever a society decides. So the definition of marriage could include bestiality as long as society is on board right? After all, what standard could you appeal to to challenge the current consensus? It seems morality in your worldview comes down to a personal preference, like a favorite color.
Bob S says
Thank you Dr. Kruger.
There’s no question that among other things in this judicial farce, the homosexuals want special rights. Or as we used to say in grade school, they want “cuts”. They want to cut in front of all those standing in line for heterosexual same family (incest) or more than one person at the same time (polyany,bigamy) marriage licenses. IOW the meme that ‘heterosexuals get to marry anybody they want to/whomever they love’ is a lie.
But more importantly, what the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ is Not telling us about the arguments for marital rights for lesbians and sodomites is that to whom much is given, much is required.
If the American church can’t get the creation ordinance of a one day in seven rest, i.e. the 4th commandment right, how can we expect the world to get the creation ordinance of marriage or the 7th commandment right?
I think I know what the answer is, but I hope I am wrong.
1 Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
Mike Gantt says
Excellent post by Michael Kruger.
Weak argumentation offered by Philmonomer.
As for Bryant Williams comment, I am troubled whenever someone brings up the potential loss of tax deductibility for religious institutions in the context of the marriage debate – especially when it seems to imply that the former would be an even greater problem. The corruption of marriage is a much more important issue than the loss of tax deductibility. To lose tax-exempt status would make life more difficult for religious institutions, but the corruption of marriage will destroy the nation than practices it.
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III says
Dear Mike,
Thank you for your response.
First, my point is the increasing use of equating “Homosexual Marriage” or “Same-sex Marriage” as a “CIVIL RIGHT” will lead to persecution of the Church and other Religious Institutions. This is in violation of the First Amendment and the RFRA. It is the using of the Fourteenth Amendment over the First Amendment. It is quite clear from Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Romans 1, I Corinthians 5-6; Revelation 2-3 that sexual immorality, i.e. homosexuality is wrong; let alone the other sexual sins!
In terms of Scripture it must be remembered that when God gave the Law to Moses it was the revealing of the character of God to the nation of Israel. Those laws, commandments (613) were to distinguish the people of God, Israel, from the nations of Canaan that they were going to displace at His command. The Church, as the people of Christ, is to be different from the surrounding culture. There must be a clear distinction between the Church and the Culture or World. If not, then the Church has failed miserably.
Second, in practice this means that a precedent of Bob Jones University tax exempt status was used to accomplish what could not be done otherwise. For the record, inter-racial dating and marriage is perfectly okay. Scripture has several examples: Moses and an Ethiopian wife; Boaz and Ruth; Solomon and the Shulammite(?). There are several instances were it did not work out: Ahab and Jezebel; Solomon and his many foreign wives.
Third, since persecution will occur, then Pastors, Rabbis, Imams, etc. will have to make a decision with regards to the obeying their respective Scriptures or not. For the Church, this means that God over money, morality over immorality, holiness over sin will have to be made. Unfortunately, the majority of the Church will bow down to sin; it will compromise the truth, II Corinthians 6:14-7:1 needs to be followed. It appears that compromise with the Nicolaitans = Neo-Gnostics is happening as I write.
Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? The weeding out of the lost, the unsaved, the weeds out of the Church is necessary. And it always begins with the “household of God.”
Several times this has happened. The generation that came out of Egypt; the death of Eli’s sons; the Northern Kingdom of Israel; the Southern Kingdom of Judah; the generation after the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70. Will the Church go through tribulation? Yes, but not near as bad as what awaits the world in the Tribulation! Fortunately, the Church will be spared that, but the world will not.
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III says
Dear Mike,
I guess I am missing what you are saying.
First, I agree that the issue is sexual immorality. It is a by-product of Idolatry. In fact, the two go hand-in-hand.
Second, religious institutions, such as RTS, Liberty University, etc. teach the Definition of Marriage as being One Male and One Female. This definition has both civil and religious backing for about 6,000 years. Genesis 2:24 indicates that Marriage was instituted by God before the civil government was even formed. In fact, Civil government was firsts instituted by Cain (Gen. 4:17). Thus, the issue is really religious to begin with. Unfortunately, most of Christianity does not believe that Genesis 1-11 is historical nor scientific. They believe that it is speaking in theological terms; therefore, not historical nor scientific. This a false dichotomy, but that is an issue for another time.
Third, my only mentioning the Tax Exempt status was to bring to the table another problem that was asked by the Court of the Solicitor General that acknowledged that this would create another issue for religious institutions.
Yes, it speaks to the money issue, but to ignore it is too often dangerous. Counting the cost is necessary ethically, economically, legally, etc. Look what has happened at the California State University (CSU) system which denied access to any religious organization who denies leadership roles based on sexual orientation, i.e. homosexual, etc.Many groups, e.g. IVP, have withdrawn from those campuses because they refused to bow to CSU demands; although some groups have done so. Since I am a Baptist preacher, I adhere to the priesthood of all believers and freedom of conscience even when I think the other person is wrong. II Corinthians 6:14-7:1 comes into play here..Each Baptist Church is autonomous, self-governing. “Within the SBC, two or three have gone the way of Jezebel and Balaam. They have been removed from fellowship; and rightfully so. BTW, there is a move to remove the tax deduction of the Boys Scouts for similar reasons. Remember that the non-tax supported institution is governed by its constitution and by-laws. It is to prove that the institution is legally operating as an non-tax supported entity. If that constitution and by-laws are violated, then the state as the authority to put that institution in to receivership. In this case, the violating of CIVIL laws and rights would clearly cross that line even over the objections of religious rights and beliefs.
Finally, the government will have a say in what a church can do, if SCOTUS decides to redefine Marriage to be between Male, Male; Female, Female; Male, two or more Females; two or more Males and Female; etc., as a CIVIL RIGHT. Some churches within the Episcopal (Anglican Confession), Methodists, etc. would have no problem with this, but the majority of churches would not.
money says
hey dr. Kruger, this doesn’t relate to the post but I want to get some of your books for kindle and I can’t spend the money to buy them all. So I was wondering, out of your two books specifically on the canon which one should I buy? Which one is the most dense and informative? What is the difference between them? I can’t buy them both.
Michael Kruger says
Canon Revisited is the place to start. It deals with the “How do we know which books are right?” question. The Question of Canon deals with historical models for canon (extrinsic vs. intrinsic).
Chet Davis says
Oh, good grief, here we go again. The issue at hand is on sexual discrimination in Marriage, which, is dis-allowed per standing Federal law prohibiting discrimination based on a person’s gender; it is plain and simple. So, one issue at a time, people. Later, if “Jane Doe and her dog” want to proceed through the 20+ year process that same-sex marriage supporters have had to endure, so be it. I’ll be anxiously awaiting to hear the oral arguments from the dog as he/she howls for the right to get a wedding collar and to sign a Marriage Certificate with a pawprint. Let’s, at least, start with marrying chimpanzees or dolphins, as their higher IQs may allow them to understand why a human is trying to make them their spouse.
Opponents to fair and equal access to Marriage have repeatedly grasped at the same old, tired and absurd straws they have tried to use to confuse the actual legal issue. That issue, when boiled down to its Civil level, is whether or not Citizen #1 may marry Citizen #2. As Marriage is currently written, Citizen #1 and Citizen #2 must be of opposite sex BUT current Federal Law prohibits sexual discrimination based on gender and that, alone, should resolve what needs to be done to bring Marriage into compliance with our Laws prohibiting discrimination -AND- it does so, even, without reference to discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Law does not focus on each Citizen as being, for example, black, yellow, red or white, rich or poor, Jewish or Christian or man or woman. Law is required to see all people, simply, as “Citizen” and must apply that fairly and justly to the Laws of the Land so all Citizens are equally served and protected. Marriage, as it is written into Law, specifically, excludes some Citizens from participating with another Citizen of their own free choice. In fair Law, gender would not matter from one to the next couple. Marriage is the only such contract available that grants Gov’t benefits, protections and recognition, thus, it must be opened to allow each Citizen their Right to decide which other Citizen they are contractually co-signing with.
Of course, Marriage could stand as it is and continue to be gender-restrictive but the Gov’t would no longer be able to be involved if it is to be compliant with non-discrimination Law. Also, to insure the Public funds could not be used to benefit or promote Discrimination, the Gov’t would need to completely step away from the licensing process, as well as, strip out the 1000+ benefits and protections the Gov’t currently provides through Marriage. The Gov’t, then, could reasigned Itself and the Public funds to a new program or license, such as, Civil Unions. Then, all Citizens would have fair and equal access to it all. Marriage, free of the Gov’t, could be completely handed over to religious organizations to manage and even, attach their own benefits packages to, if they wish.
So there, we have it, “The Church” and “The State” are separated and One has no say-so over the Other’s programs or set of beliefs or Laws. To each their own. Now, let’s move on.
Mike Gantt says
Chet, if you want to remove gender discrimination from marriage why do you want to retain number discrimination?
Michael says
First, let me lay my cards out on the table: I am a pastor of a Southern Baptist Church that affirms traditional marriage. I believe the institution of marriage (one man & one woman for life) was instituted by God in creation (Genesis 1&2), affirmed by Jesus during his ministry (Matthew 19) and championed by Paul as a wonderful picture of the love Christ has for his church (Ephesians 5).
However, I think I may have some insight into the discussion that would be helpful from a legal perspective since that is the discussion we are having currently. Opponents of same-sex marriage must present a valid legal argument for why two people of the same sex should not be extended the right to marry. Here are some things to consider:
1. If we are going to argue that same-sex marriage is harmful to society (exactly what Mr. Bursch attempted to argue) we must prove, with valid studies, that same-sex marriage/parenting is harmful for children and society as a whole. In previous cases before the Supreme Court, the justices asked for this specific information. If we could have provided this information, we could have shown that same-sex marriage/parenting was harmful for society because of the ills that children experience. The problem is that there is no such evidence like this to date that can be submitted. On the contrary, all the evidence points to no measurable difference between same-sex parenting and traditional parenting. This evidence may come but we would need it today to present a valid legal argument.
**We can say all day long that we believe marriage is an institution reserved for one man and one woman. But if the best we can come up with is that the Bible says this and it has largely been the understanding for all of human history, we will fail to offer the court a valid reason, legally speaking, as to why same-sex couples should not be extended this right (especially when they cite the openness of the Constitution to this possibility).
2. To jump from same-sex marriage to polygamy is not a great argument for precisely the reason I mentioned above: there exists tons and tons of evidence that demonstrates how harmful polygamous marriage/parenting is on society. I’m talking real scientific studies that verify this truth. The Supreme Court would read this evidence and see clearly that extending marriage rights to polygamous couples would be detrimental to society. Therefore, they would rule against these marriages. The same holds true of incestuous relationships because the evidence shows the great harm that befalls children and society.
*Bonauto would have done well to offer this argument instead of the one she offered. She should have said, “Justice Alito we have hundreds of studies that demonstrate why polygamous and incestuous marriage/parenting is harmful to society and should not be permitted. There are none with regards to same-sex marriage/parenting.”
Mike Gantt says
Michael,
Though I am thoroughly committed to the lordship of Christ and the Bible as the word of God, and this alone gives me enough sense to know that same-sex “marriage” is nonsense, there is a non-religious case we can make for marriage which does not require anyone to accept the tenets of our faith in order to acknowledge the validity of the institution as it has always – at least up until now – been understood. I shall now lay it out.
Every human being entering the world requires roughly two decades of care before he can become a self-sufficient adult. It is in society’s interest that every child entering the world receives this care, and the most obvious candidates for the role of caregivers are the man and woman who produced the child. To the degree that children go uncared for during this formative period, society is burdened. (It only takes a little imagination to recognize that the social costs can be, and are, enormous.) Therefore, it is in society’s interest to regulate the relationship that produces human beings. This regulation can include economic and other incentives to the couple responsible for procreation so as to encourage them to stick with the job for the twenty or so years required. If the caregiving job is done well, the state benefits by ultimately having another productive citizen on its tax rolls. Thus marriage laws, including tax treatment of married couples, are society’s means of managing the costs of perpetuating the human race. By contrast, the state has no compelling interest in regulating romantic relationships which do not produce children. (For this reason we have never had a Federal BFF Registry.) Thus marriage laws, properly understood, have always been for the sake of any children that might be produced – not for the adults involved. That every single marriage does not produce children does not constitute sufficient grounds for denying the government its interest in fostering the one kind of relationship that has the potential to create a human being.
A person does not have to be a Christian, or even religious, to recognize that the idea of nine people making a decision that is about to overturn the consensus of all previous generations of humanity about this subject requires an unprecedented hubris.
Michael says
I agree with your initial statement that the Scriptures should be enough to show that same-sex marriage is nonsense. I believe that marriage is the union of a man and woman for life and, therefore, there is no such thing as same-sex marriage in God’s eyes.
But we must be able to prove, with sufficient evidence in our secular court of law, that extending marital rights to same-sex couples will be detrimental to children and society as a whole. Can you prove that? If you can then you need to get in touch with the lawyers arguing before the court. I believe that if proponents of traditional marriage (of which I am one) could produce documented evidence that same-sex marriage/parenting is harmful to society then we would have a valid legal argument before the court. However, that evidence does not exist to date (at least it doesn’t appear that it exists or else the lawyers arguing for traditional marriage would have made it available to the court). Today the evidence of numerous studies says that there is no measurable difference between traditional parenting and same-sex parenting. Which means the court looks and says that children are not harmed if they are parented by a same-sex couple but same-sex couples do not have a federal right to be married. Therein lies the problem. That is the argument as presented by the other side.
I very much agree that letting 9 justices decide this issue is problematic. I think it should be left up to the states. But, alas, that is not where we find ourselves today!
Mike Gantt says
Michael,
I expect us to lose the SCOTUS case, but it is not for lack of logic, law, or data. They’re all on our side.
1) I think there are already amicus briefs on file which explain the harm that will come to children with legal affirmation of SS”M” in all fifty states. Jennifer Roback Morse of the Ruth Institute worked on one of them. I think Katy Faust was involved in another. If only SCOTUS would heed such qualified thinkers.
2) Wedding bakers, photographers, florists, and caterers who are faithful Christians don’t need studies to tell them that legalization of SS”M” will be detrimental – and in many cases, devastating – to their economic lives. People who say that granting SS”M” will not have a negative effect on anyone else are either naive or lying.
3) It is not necessary for us to provide social science studies that proves SS”M” will be detrimental to children. If we were, then that same standard would apply to any other change to the definition of marriage. As a result, as argued in the original post above, there would no obstacles to all sorts of corruptions to marriage. Just imagine: “Unless you can demonstrate that a marriage between a man and a fence post would be harmful to children or broader society, you have no basis for objecting to SCOTUS approval of it.”
4) It should only be necessary to demonstrate that the state has no compelling interest in regulating romantic relationships incapable of producing children. That is not hard to demonstrate – my non-religious case against re-defining marriage shows.
5) As you saw in the original post, SS”M” proponents have no reason other than tradition for retaining the numerical requirement of marriage while rejecting the gender requirement. The argument for SS”M” is the most emotional, least reasoned argument that can be imagined.
The case for SS”M” is flimsy at best. It will only succeed because the lust of the flesh and the fear of man is strong in America today.
sisterofkay says
Actually, MIchael, there IS evidence from the experts, Christian and non-Christian, that the best home in which to raise a child is one in which there is a mother AND a father. Children need a parent of each sex to develop healthily.
Secondly, studies show that same-sex couples are less likely to stay together than heterosexual couples. And, sadly, the incidence of violence is greater in a same-sex home than a heterosexual one.
Therefore, to put children in a same-sex home is to put children at risk. Homosexuals are being selfish in wanting to raise children. Unfortunately, we have the technology and the desire for political correctness allowing them to do it to the detriment of the children involved.
I live in Canada where homosexuals are allowed to go through a legal or religious ceremony and call themselves married. We are seeing the negative fallout from it here.
Sweden provides us with another example of how society has broken down because the traditional family unit has been dismantled.
As for the continued comparison with interracial marriage, someone rightly pointed out above that one’s race, ethnicity or skin colour is not a sin. Homosexuality is. To call the issue of same-sex “marriage” a civil rights issue is inappropriate and just plain wrong.
Michael says
If that research were out there don’t you think it would have been presented to the courts in the previous cases about same-sex marriage? The justices begged for that evidence but none was presented by those supporting traditional marriage. My question is if that evidence exists then why was it not presented?
I want that evidence to exist and to be presented but until it is the courts are not going to rule in our favor on this issue.
Rob Dewar says
On the contrary, Michael, I’m sure I can find biases in those studies of polygamists and incestuous couples that demonstrate that the harm suffered by children in those situations is not caused by the polygamy or incest, but some other attribute present in those families (this reasoning is used to dismiss any studies – and they are out there – that show that same sex couples are in any way less ideal than heterosexual couples).
And of course, a pair of good, otherwise stable same sex partners ARE far better parents in many measurable ways than many heterosexual couples. But by definition, in order for them to become parents and have a child, there was a departure from the ideal, and government should think long and hard before deciding that that’s something they want to promote …
Michael says
I don’t doubt your sincerity but don’t you think that the lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court over the last several years (specifically about same-sex marriage/parenting) would have made it clear that there were biases and that the studies should be thrown out and not considered. They did not even attempt to do this in those cases. So either they had no standing to make that charge or they were just inept at doing their job.
I very much agree with your last paragraph but we must demonstrate that the ideal is better for society and for children. For some reason the lawyers arguing for traditional marriage have failed to demonstrate why same-sex marriage/parenting will harm society.
The basic arguments have been:
1. Traditionally it has not been done that way. But, this same mindset would have been used to keep women from voting and blacks from integrating.
2. It is harmful for children and society. But, we have to prove this and we can’t seem to do it with credibility.
Rob Dewar says
I’m not aware that the studies of the harm done on polygamous/incestuous marriage have been presented in front of the courts or addressed by the lawyers, as those have not been the issues at hand. In fact, you implied this in your original post (“The Supreme Court would read this evidence”), so I’m a bit confused why you now think that the lawyers in question should have addressed them as I suggested … if in fact polygamous/incestuous marriage does come before the court and these studies are addressed, I do think that the lawyers arguing for those things would be able to point out the biases implicit in the studies, because all such studies have biases and flaws.
As for the studies with respect to same sex couples, I honestly haven’t read the testimony closely enough to say how they’ve been addressed in court. But I have followed the research, and have seen how, for example, the Regnerus study was received and misrepresented. If you haven’t read this response to it, I encourage you to: http://www.baylorisr.org/2012/06/20/a-social-scientific-response-to-the-regnerus-controversy/. The study definitely has shortcomings, but it at least attempted to do a large enough scale study to say something with meaning (most other studies have been so small scale that they really don’t). What it really ended up demonstrating is that such a study is hard to do well to start, and is virtually impossible to do in today’s political/cultural climate.
In addition, as far as #2 (arguing that it’s harmful for children and thus society), it’s even harder to argue because our culture is so broken already. While same sex parenting may be harmful when compared to the ideal, it is in some demonstrable instances (which are raised in court) less harmful than many other things already accepted or ignored by our culture (easy divorce, abusive situations). Those in favor of traditional marriage have their hands tied behind their backs to start because marriage as government institution is already largely broken. That’s why I favor getting government out of the marriage business altogether, personally. While I don’t think that’s the best thing for our culture, I do think it’s better than any definition of marriage (whether traditional or same sex) that has already become normalized today – ie, at least the church would be providing witness to the ideal solution instead of trying to defend a government institution that has already been largely broken.
To get back to same sex parenting – it’s much easier to hold up the ideal there. It’s much easier to show how, while adoption may be better than the alternatives available to those who get adopted, it’s better to be born into a loving home. It’s much easier to show how using surrogates involves renting someone else’s body (putting all kinds of pressure on them that they’re better off without no matter how many legal agreements they sign agreeing to it), as well as injecting some psychological loss of connection with the birth mother into the child that can have long lasting effects. By definition, same sex parenting means the child is separated from their birth parents, and there are long lasting effects to that in many documented cases – how many adopted children end up questioning who they “really” are, even if they’re raised by exemplary parents in a loving and supportive home, and even if they come to satisfactory answers.
Anyways, I’m rambling, but those are my thoughts … thanks for yours!