A gay marriage amendment has stalled in the Senate for the moment. So individual states have picked up the fight and Tennessee is no exception. Partisans have gone cuckoo on this issue to the point where most have betrayed their own "party line." The religious or moral position is that marriage was instituted by our Creator and is a sacred ceremony. He designed it as a union between a man and a woman, the best arrangement for rearing children; stable marriages are a crucial element in our society, and that social problems can be linked to withering traditional family. I have absolutely no quarrel with that position. I have difficulty understanding the gay lifestyle, but on the other hand have no ax to grind with them.
That said, I would think that Christians beyond all would be outraged by the proposed constitutional ban on same sex marriage. Why in the world would Christians want to give government, rather than the church, the authority to define marriage? It is ironic that minister who lament "liberal activist judges" want to grant new powers to the federal government. Government should stay out of the marriage business altogether; churches have managed them well for centuries.
Where morality spokespersons fall into a logical pothole is the confusion over the union and a myriad of legal questions, which are separate issues. Contract law is well covered by the Constitution. Individuals might sign legally binding contracts establishing the usual financial partnerships, at the same time a man of God pronounces them man and wife, even if they happen to be of the same sex.
The proposed amendment says marriage in the US "shall consist of a man and woman only." This certainly rules out same-sex marriage, but doesn't rule out a man marrying his sister, or polygamy. Should churches support further laws to tie up loose ends? Or should the churches stop looking to government to solve the nation's moral crisis and attend to their own flocks? Furthermore, a plausible argument could be made that government is one of the primary causes of moral decline in the first place.


Comments: 4
You, on the other hand, write a truly conservative article that seeks to limit the scope of government. I agree with that. Frankly, I never saw what was wrong with the democratic position, which opposed a constitutional amendment, opposed gay marriage as a legal institution, but favored the same legal rights to gays through civil unions. I agree that marriage is a matter for the churches. It is a religious institution, and government should stay out of church matters. Separation of church and state protects the integrity of both church and state. Thanks for this article.
Allow civil unions for financial matters and allow whatever they want for spiritual considerations. There is no one religion that should have a monopoly on the thinking of the citizens of this country ... period.
In fact if I had my way ... spiritcalls,/a> ...