Connor Kelty, Bible lover and scholar
From a letter to the editor of the C-J today...
Let gay couples marry
There is no logical reason that gay marriage isn't legal in this state. How can equal rights exist if one couple has the right to get married and another couple doesn't?
Uhhh...Can we count the problems with and exceptions to this claim? How about the definitional problem: Connor might reasonably support civil unions, but he's not describing marriage.
"A great book full of good teachings"? Really? I don't think Connor means it. He means that it's full of good teachings when he agrees with it.
posted by Eric Schansberg @ 4:47 PM
23 Comments
23 Comments:
We cannot get the government out of the marriage business soon enough. The sooner the Church takes it back and restores it to its proper place, the better.
How did we let this happen anyway?
Hi Greg!
In a perfect Libertarian world - your position makes sense.
I, too, wish this did not have to be such an explosive issue.
But, the government will have to be involved in this and it will have to be defined in civil law. Here's why:
Who do you think people turn to settle disputes when things don't work out?
Who can adopt children? (the state has taken this over)
When someone dies and there's a big fight over their will (or the will that doesn't exist?), who will get their stuff?
The family court system is overburdened with these type of issues.
Without "marriage laws" - how will any of this be decided?
Thus, the "dilemma" for Christians. Marriage, as defined by the Bible, is between one man and one woman. So that is what people with a biblical worldview support.
Hi PianoMom - I like that you put the Christian worldview first. I agree 100% that marriage is between a man and a woman. Anything else is an attempted redefinition of the term.
To your questions -
Q - "Who do you think people turn to settle disputes when things don't work out? Who do you think people turn to settle disputes when things don't work out?"
R - If they are married in the Church, the Church should arbitrate. 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 says, "Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? ... Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?" It is to our shame that these things go to court.
For those married outside of the Church, I would hope that they have some sort of marriage contract, and that the entity which acknowledged their marriage would arbitrate.
That is a risk one takes when one binds oneself to another person - the person might wrong them.
Q - "Who can adopt children? (the state has taken this over)"
R - Yes, that is unfortunate that the state has taken this over. Perhaps Eric has something to add here, as he is experienced in adoption?
Q - "When someone dies and there's a big fight over their will (or the will that doesn't exist?), who will get their stuff?"
R - What have they contracted to do? If there is a will, it stands, unless it conflicts with their marriage or other preemptive contract.
With no will and no other contract (such as a marriage contract), it is not too difficult to work out through common law the normal succession of property.
Q - "The family court system is overburdened with these type of issues."
R - I rest my case ... :-)
Q - "Without "marriage laws" - how will any of this be decided?"
R - So, what reason does the state have to regulate who I marry? How does this usually turn out? How many times throughout history have there been unjust marriage laws - where one could not marry without the king's blessing, or could not marry someone of another tribe, caste, or skin color?
Let's imagine the case of gay "marriage". I would say that is an abomination. OK, but because the state allows it (in some jurisdictions), it happens. How exactly did the state help that situation?
From the libertarian viewpoint, the state should not be involved in marriage. So I go to the Church, and I get married. The terms of that marriage (the "contract") are as required by the Church which performs the rites of marriage. It is a Godly and Holy union.
A homosexual couple decides to get "married". They go to some entity (I hope not a Church) and have a ceremony that they call "marriage". The contract is likewise as required by that entity.
I, as an individual, business owner, etc have no obligation to recognize that "marriage". There is no state enforcement of it, it is of no interest to the state, just like my marriage is not of interest to the state.
I cannot and will not be forced by the state to accept that "marriage" as legitimate, nor will I try to use the state to force my viewpoint on others. The best I can do is to "proclaim liberty throughout the land", and to do my best to get the state out of marriage.
Q - "Thus, the 'dilemma' for Christians. Marriage, as defined by the Bible, is between one man and one woman. So that is what people with a biblical worldview support."
R - Agreed 100%. I support that by not allowing anyone other than the Church (through scripture) to define marriage. The state has messed it up in the past, and will continue to do so into the future. It is time to take it back.
Thank you for the intellectually stimulating conversation!
I'm reminded of a quote by someone (David Friedman), paraphrasing: We have reached a time when it is difficult for us even to imagine how things could be done without the State.
On adoption, private adoptions could occur easily-- with the potential exception of "selling" babies.
The (presumably larger) issue would be occasions when the State punishes parents for crimes or determines that they are "unfit" as parents (slippery slope!)-- and then controls those children, sending them into "foster care" or putting them up for adoption.
Maybe I'm lacking imagination here, but what would a Libertarian state do in such cases?
There is no simple answer for this one from me. Sorry. If I find something someone else has written on this subject, I'll post it here. The children - that's the hard question always.
I appreciate your comments and I wish things could be the way you described, but the fact is most of us don't go to church anymore (even if we were married in the Church), and for those of us that do, how many really see the Church as the authority in their lives. This actually may be the reason why the state had to take over? I never thought of that?!
A marriage contract independent of the church is still just that - a marriage contract and must be defined (can 2 men and 2 women get married; can a man have more than 1 wife; can 2 14 yr olds get married?)- and arbitrated in the event of a break-up.
I wish it could be exactly as you described, but that's not the United States we are living in.
In the world in which we find ourselves, marriage will have to be defined by the state. But I do agree that it is important to continue discussing the ideals.
Hi PianoMom - How does 2 men and 2 women getting "married" hurt you or me? It is an abomination, but isn't that for God to sort out rather than you or I or the state?
How did Jesus handle the woman caught in adultery, who's penalty (by OT Law) was death by stoning? He said, "Let him who has no sin throw the first stone". Then He told her that he did not condemn her, go and sin no more.
Jesus is our role model. We likewise should not be throwing stones (via the state), but showing the way to righteousness.
It is hard to imagine that kind of society, but it is entirely possible. It is not just an ideal, it is scriptural. I am convinced of it. And, trust me, I am a conservative Christian, not a madman :-)
Peace,
Greg
Does two 14 yr olds getting married bother you?
How about a 30-yr old and a 15-yr old?
Should we allow polygamy?
There's also still the child protective services, foster care, adoption questions that demand a legal definition of "marriage" and "family".
Hi PianoMom -
"Does two 14 yr olds getting married bother you?"
Yes, but it is not at all unusual in human history. Nothing in scripture forbids it.
"How about a 30-yr old and a 15-yr old?"
See above.
"Should we allow polygamy?"
Yes. Note, you asked me if we should allow it, not if it is right. I think it is wrong.
"There's also still the child protective services, foster care, adoption questions that demand a legal definition of 'marriage' and 'family'."
Why? So if marriage is undefined by the state, these needs cannot be met?
One thing you need to understand about my viewpoint - I think many of these things are wrong, evil, an abomination, etc. I don't see where Jesus taught me (or the state as my agent) to go and prevent these things by force. He taught us to point the way to righteousness instead.
You may have the last word, I won't respond any further unless you ask me a direct question.
Peace,
Greg
Hi Greg!
In summary, because people will not allow the Church much/any? authority in their lives,and people seem to want to get married whether or not they go to church, the State will have to be in charge of civil unions/marriage. The Church answer does not work here.
Bible-believing Christians can only define marriage one way - between a man and woman - therefore, that is what they support as a state definition of marriage.
Currently, CPS/foster care system is run by the state, therefore the definition is of critical importance here.
In my opinion, your final answers to my questions - especially when it comes to older individuals marrying individuals considered less than "age of consent" - are "over the top" and in my mind, characterize an extreme position.
"Age of consent" laws are completely Scriptural and are all about protecting younger persons who are not yet able/ready to make decisions for themselves from older individuals who could easily influence/take advantage of them.
Thanks for giving me the last word!!
Hi PianoMom - I don't think I am breaking my promise about you having the last word by posting a link to an article I found today?
A Discussion on MarriageI enjoyed the chat and look forward to the next time.
Hi again, Greg! :-)
Evidently, both of these men are "religious scholars".
I agree with George, of course, but it presents both sides fairly well. I copied "your side" first. "My side" is in the next post.
As Eric always says... "Enjoy!"
Marriage is more than merely a religious institution.It’s the coming together of a husband and wife, creating the institution of family. Robert George
(Picture: Robert George) 'Family is built on marriage, and government--the state--has a profound interest in the integrity and well-being of marriage, and to write it off as if it were a purely a religiously significant action and not an institution and action that has a profound public significance, would be a terrible mistake.' Robert George
MALIBU, California (CNSNews.com) – A top constitutional law professor who served as a surrogate for then-presidential candidate Barack Obama told CNSNews.com that he would like to see “marriage” replaced in the legal sense with a neutral “civil license.”
“As awkward as it may be, I think the way to untie the state from this problem is to create a new terminology that they would apply to everyone--straight or gay-call it a ‘civil license,’ said Douglas Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University and author of “Can a Catholic Support Him?’
“The net effect of that, would be to turn over--quite appropriately, it seems to me, the concept of marriage to churches and a church understanding,” Kmiec said.
Kmiec said that one of the things that motivated the passage of California’s Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, “was a genuine concern on the part of religious believers--including myself--that the previous California ruling was not addressing what that would mean for religious practice.”
“After the state of California acknowledged same-sex marriage, would that mean, for example, that churches like the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church, which don’t acknowledge those relationships as a marriage by virtue of their scriptural and theological teaching--would they be subject to penalty? Would they lose public benefits? Would they be subject to lawsuits based upon some theory of discrimination?”
Kmiec said his idea would address those questions.
“One of the possible outcomes that would be good in this case, would be if the state got out of the marriage business, did their licensing under a different name--which, of course, would satisfy the state’s interests for purposes of distribution of taxation and property, but then the question of who can and cannot be married would be entirely determined in your voluntarily chosen faith community.
“We know that religions differ as to how they see that question,” Kmiec said. “But it seems to me that would be a nice way to reaffirm the significance of marriage as a religious concept--because that is a much fuller concept than just civil marriage.”
"Because, as we all know, from a standpoint of religious belief, the couple is not just making a promise to themselves, or even to their local community or their state, but they are making a covenant between themselves and their Creator. That’s something that is differently expressed in different religious traditions, but we shouldn’t lose the value of that, and this is an opportunity to heighten the value of that in order to help the State of California out of the corner it has worked itself into.”
Part 2:
But Princeton University law professor Robert George, who is also a top constitutional scholar--and a Catholic academic--said that Kmiec’s idea would do away with the public role of marriage--and banish it to the religious “ghetto.”
“That is a terrible idea,” George said. “The idea that the state would abandon its concern for the institution of marriage, that it would treat marriage as a purely religious matter, is I think a very bad one.”
Marriage is more than merely a religious institution, George told CNSNews.com.
"It’s not like baptisms and bar mitzvahs,” he said. “It has profound social significance, public significance; it’s a pre-political institution. It exists even apart from religion, even apart from polities. It’s the coming together of a husband and wife, creating the institution of family in which children are nurtured.”
“The family is the original and best Department of Health, Education and Welfare,” George said.
“No government agency can ever surpass it, ever has surpassed it,” he added. “Governments and economies and systems of law all rely upon the family to produce something they need, but that they themselves cannot produce, and that is, basically honest, decent, law abiding people of goodwill--citizens--who can take their rightful place in society.
“Family is built on marriage, and government--the state--has a profound interest in the integrity and well-being of marriage, and to write it off as if it were a purely a religiously significant action and not an institution and action that has a profound public significance, would be a terrible mistake,” George said.
“I don’t know where Professor Kmiec is getting his idea, but it’s a very, very bad one.”
PianoMom - I'll read what you have posted, and I thank you for it in advance.
Back to keeping my promise...
PianoMom - Neither of those gentlemen represent my view, the article I linked does.
Thanks for posting them! Until next time - as Eric says "Enjoy!"
You are for the right of individuals to engage in types of civil contracts (marriage contracts) - to be turned over to state jurisdiction in the event of a "break-up" or breach of the contract. Isn't this in effect the "civil license" referred to in the article? He states your view that these do not have to be recognized by churches, etc.
I believe the author (on your side) would concur that these do not have to be/should not be issued by the state.
Quote - "One of the possible outcomes that would be good in this case, would be if the state got out of the marriage business, did their licensing under a different name ..."
His view legitimizes (or at legalizes) homosexual "marriages" under a different name. My view gives them no credibility whatsoever.
Kmiec still wants the state involved in "licensing" marriage. I want the state out of marriage, completely. If someone says "The government should ..." and complete the statement with anything other than "get out of marriage", they don't represent my view.
There is a wide gulf between his view and mine.
Greg, I have 2 questions for you
Q #1 Did you read the article you posted as representing your view? Here is an excerpt:
"This means we should not look to the government to play any role in marriage (either allowing or disallowing marriage under any terms) except to acknowledge that a contract has been entered into and to enforce the legality and terms of that contract."
So, you ARE for the state enforcing the legality and terms of a "marriage contract".
My second point is this - a marriage or "union" of that type involves "contractual issues" by its very nature. It is impossbile to separate this out. Married people or people living in a commune (or whatever) own pretty much everything together. It's not just about LOVE.
Q #2: Are you going to give me the last word? :)
PianoMom -
Q #1 The article I chose does give the state a role in enforcing contracts. That is debatable, but acceptable. The one you posted has the state "licensing" marriage, that is unacceptable. There is a significant difference.
Q #2 Have at it. This has just been too fun ... :-)
Actually, I was quoting from your article, not mine. The article which you provided a link to, "A Discussion on Marriage", and said presented your view, suggested state involvement in "marriage contract" breakups. It's down toward the bottom.
Here it is again:
"This means we should not look to the government to play any role in marriage (either allowing or disallowing marriage under any terms) except to acknowledge that a contract has been entered into and to enforce the legality and terms of that contract."
This is from your article "A Discussion on Marriage"
In any case, I have enjoyed the debate as well. Thanks, Greg!
Hopefully, it has been beneficial for everyone.
Looking forward to the next time (except for the fact that this has kept me on the computer way too much!)
Uhhhh...I just wrote this for school...I didn't know it would get into the paper...chill out lol
Connor rolls in to comment. Fun!
I appreciate your efforts. And looking back, I was too hard on you-- focusing on the important and oft-overlooked distinction between "civil unions" and so-called "gay marriage".
You also made an important point that I ignored-- that there is another important and oft-overlooked distinction between what the Bible prescribes for individuals vs. a nation (through its laws). People on the Left and the Right confuse this-- e.g., through all sorts of calls to redistribute income on the Left to legislating against gambling on the Right.
There's a good book on this out there! ;-)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home