“Same-Sex Marriage and the Assault on Moral Reasoning”

Matthew J. Franck writes:

It is something of a consolation, albeit a small one, that the best arguments advocates for a constitutional “right” to same-sex marriage can muster are so transparently bad. Disconnected from nature, from history, from the canons of legal reasoning, and even from the standards of logic itself, their arguments betray themselves at every turn, as acts of the will and not of reasoned judgment. When the advocate advancing the arguments wears a black robe and sits on the federal bench, of course, even falsehood and fallacy have a decent chance of ultimate victory.

3 thoughts on ““Same-Sex Marriage and the Assault on Moral Reasoning”

  1. I have an unshakable belief in the biblical model of the family. That said, I am not convinced that the Seventh Day Adventist church should join in with other Christians to support proposition 8. As I have studied the issue of gay marriage I have come to the conclusion that my opposition to gay marriage is rooted in religious belief and conviction. Outside of that belief I have no rational basis to oppose gay marriage. States have offered the following reasons why marriage should be between a man and woman only: marriage is for procreation. Second, marriage provides the most stable arrangement for the rearing of children. Finally, there is the need to preserve scarce State resources.

    These arguments are seriously flawed. First we do not preclude non-child bearing couples from marrying. Second we do prohibit the unmarried from having children. Finally, the fact that allowing same-sex partners to marry will increase the financial burden on the States is not a reason to prohibit gay marriage. It is not surprising that there are Judges who have found the foregoing reasons irrational.

    We now face a significant challenge. Gay marriage is a serious threat to religious freedom. How will gay marriage impact the interpretation of our non-discrimination laws. In fact, we can than Justice Scalia for the challenges to religious freedom because of his decision in the Smith case. Catholic Family Charities has closed up shop in every jurisdiction where gay marriage has become the law. Time will tell how gay marriage impacts the Adventist Church’s institions.

    How should we respond? Should we utilize the power of the State to fight the gay marriage movement or the power of the gospel. The first reality that we must confront is the fact the the Christian Church on a whole is divided over this issue. As Christians we should resolve this issue as a movement before we confront the secular society. I firmly believe that the Adventist movement is based upon the call to reform and where that reform fails, then we must separate. We must not fall to the lure to use the State to impose our sincerly held religious convictions.

    The Sabbath and Marriage are the two institutions that we find inaugarated after the creation event. How many of us would join a movement to enforce the Sabbath as the law of the land. I can think of no reason why marriage is any different. We teach and preach the Sabbath. We should do the same for marriage.

    These are my thoughts at the present time. I look forward to learn from others on this issue.

    • “I have come to the conclusion that my opposition to gay marriage is rooted in religious belief and conviction. Outside of that belief I have no rational basis to oppose gay marriage.”

      The fact is, this involves a redefinition of marriage. Marriage is between a male and a female. It has a biological basis in the complementarity of the sexes. It is ordered for human reproduction and the stability of the family. It is only in our day that any one thought to challenge this most fundamental of truisms. It is a “self-evident truth.”

      If you want to support something else, called “gay marriage” or “civil unions” or “kalithumpianism”–fine. Just realize it isn’t marriage.

      For some good legal or moral discussion of the issue, I’d recommend what lawyers like Dwight Duncan and Mary Ann Glendon have written–also the writings of a philosopher named Karol Wojtyla.

  2. Well, most homosexual supporter’s articles say that animals do homosexual activities, so why can’t we. If that is the case, animals are also known to be cannibalistic, guess we should make that legal too. Incest can also be applied to this scenario.

    Shouldn’t the social liberals protect cannibals and incest practitioners rights and pursuit of happiness too? They are a minority.

    Social Liberals would say Im taking it the the extreme, but I find it interesting that I am using their “logic”.

    (I do not support any of those, but making a point.)

Comments are closed.