marriage

Universities--a marketplace for only CERTAIN ideas


     Earlier this month I wrote a letter to the editor of Chapman University's student run newspaper, responding to previous articles printed by my alma mater about the gay marriage issue generally, and Professor John Eastman's appointment to National Organization for Marriage specifically. All the articles were from one perspective--in favor of same sex marriage. This was incredibly ironic seeing as how the editors boasted the university was a marketplace where ideas and views could be discussed and debated. Conveniently they had forgotten to print the other "side" of the gay marriage issue. I took them to task. Below is my letter, "edited" of course by the editors. Notice the title-- "Re: 'Gay marriage can be love story, too'." I had a different title for my letter. They made up this title to "control the debate." Interesting. As they say, "He who frames the question controls the debate..."

The Panther Online 

Re: “Gay marriage can be love story, too”

Published: Sunday, November 13, 2011
Updated: Sunday, November 13, 2011 23:11

     It appears from the October and November issues of The Panther that the editors have a liberal political and social agenda. In October, The Panther wrote a news article about professor of law and former dean of Chapman's School of Law, being selected as the new chairman of National Organization for Marriage. It also printed a staff editorial and two opinion-editorials from guest columnists on the topic.    
   Ignoring the journalistic equivalent of "piling on," the editorial board, incredibly, boasted, "A compromise will only be reached through conversation, but it's hard to engage in conversation when only one party may speak."
   If anyone held out hope that The Panther would engage in "conversation" on the marriage debate, that hope was dashed in the November issue. It contains a guest column by President Jim Doti expressing his personal opinion in favor of same sex marriage and reminding us that Chapman is a "marketplace where ideas and views are discussed, deliberated and debated."
   Somehow, The Panther seems to have exempted itself from this marketplace, since neither the October nor November issues included any editorials or guest columns supporting Eastman's National Organization for Marriage appointment or traditional marriage.
   Although I do not share Doti's opinion on same sex marriage, I have not demanded Chapman "dissolve affiliation" with Doti, nor would I imply such, unlike those calling for Chapman to take action against Eastman. Chapman really should be a marketplace of ideas where different opinions are openly discussed. Chapman has a diverse student body and organizations reflecting that diversity. The law school, for example, has a very active LGBT club. However, it is ironic that many gay rights groups don't provide forums where ideas and views really can be discussed, deliberated and debated.
   As one of Eastman's former law students, I speak from experience in saying that he is a brilliant legal scholar as well as a devoted family man. His professional and personal integrity and serious work ethic are some of the reasons for his amazing accomplishments. He deserved applause when he became dean of the law school. Now he deserves applause for courageously taking a public stand for traditional marriage as the chairman of National Organization for Marriage.  
   I caution those who demand respect and tolerance for their same sex marriage ideology and yet try to silence and intimidate those who oppose it, like the majority of California voters who voted twice to define marriage as between one man and one woman. After all, how is being a conservaphobe any different from an alleged homophobe?



[NO] Respect for Marriage Act

You've probably heard of the Federal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), a bill signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton. It defines marriage for the Federal government as between one man and one woman; and it protects states who do not want same sex marriage in their state from being forced to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states.

Did you know about current efforts to get rid of DOMA? One effort is a bill introduced by the U.S. Congress called the "Respect for Marriage Act." Don't be mislead by the title. The goal of this bill is to force the Federal government to recognize same sex marriage, and eventually, force all the states. Are we surprised? We shouldn't be after the controversial repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT). President Obama signed the repeal of DADT on September 22, 2011, thus ending the long-existing U.S. policy that prohibited homosexuals from being able to serve in the armed forces.

Earlier this year, Respect for Marriage Act bills were submitted to the House and the Senates' Judiciary Committees.  Now, after having successfully repealed DADT, activists on Capitol Hill are preparing to destroy DOMA. Next week, on November 3, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee will commence debate on the bill, leading ultimately to a vote.

Respect for Marriage Act Talking points - From Concerned Women for America
  • Despite its deliberately deceptive name, the “Respect for Marriage Act” insidiously seeks to destroy the historical, traditional definition of marriage.
    • It seeks to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
  • DOMA does not prohibit states from recognizing same-sex “marriages.”
    • It defines marriage as we have always known it, the union between one man and one woman, for federal purposes.
    • DOMA also protects states from being forced to recognized same-sex “marriages” from other states, if a state chooses to do so.
  • The Respect for Marriage Act runs contrary to the will of the majority of Americans who support marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
    • The most comprehensive scientific national survey to date, completed by Public Opinion Strategies (May 16-19, 2011), reveals that 62 percent of Americans believe “marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman.” 53%  strongly agreed.
  • The Respect for Marriage Act circumvents the will of the 30 states that have already voted to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman in their state constitutions, forcing the states to go against their own public policy goals to recognize same-sex “marriages” from other states.
    • More than 63 million Americans in 30 state elections have voted on constitutional marriage amendments. Around forty million in all (63 percent) voted to affirm marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
  • The Respect for Marriage Act forces states to recognize any kind of marriage that another state decides to sanction. It is by no means limited to same-sex “marriages.”
  • It was introduced by Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) in the House (H.R. 1116) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) in the Senate (S.598).

Keep your eye on the status of these efforts. May the Lord have mercy on us.

In God's light, we see light. Psalm 36:9

Irony of Same-Sex Marriage Arguments

            I should not have been surprised that a California Federal District Court struck down the state marriage amendment (Proposition 8). But I was. Maybe I was a fool. Maybe I was just hopeful that Judge Walker might open his eyes to the truth about the sanctity of marriage and make a right ruling.
            Regardless, the decision to strike down the marriage amendment stands, for now. It is already on appeal. Most people believe this issue will continue in active controversy until the U.S. Supreme Court finally weighs and decides once and for all if states can define marriage or if there is some new fundamental right to same sex marriage to be implied from our Constitution.
            What I find particularly ironic is how Judge Walker and others can claim states cannot mandate morals, that is, morality has no basis in forming laws. And yet, that is exactly what gay activists want, to legislative morality. Just a different kind of morality.
            LGBT activist Chai Feldblum, a recent EEOC appointee by President Obama, has gone on record with a clear strategy to promote homosexual rights. She claims gay sex is morally good, and as such, government has a duty to teach it. Wait a minute—isn’t that government mandating morality? Ah, yes, but it is a different kind of morality.
            This kind of hypocrisy reminds me of how the liberals initially used the buzzword tolerance to push their agenda. Social conservatives and people of faith needed to be tolerant of homosexual conduct and the desire for same-sex marriage. However, their demand for tolerance is only a one-way street. Progressives are intolerant of anyone who opposes their agenda, especially if there is a moral or religious reason for opposing homosexual conduct and relationships.
            That reminds me of another buzzword used by LGBT activists, equality. They assert state recognized civil unions or domestic partnerships are not equal to traditional marriages, but instead makes them second-class citizens and inferior. Therefore, they demand their committed relationships be recognized as the same, as marriage. Gay partnerships equal traditional marriage. Now, religious and moral arguments aside, equal protection under our Constitution does not mean that things that are different in fact or opinion must be treated the same in law. There is one huge obvious difference between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples—gay couples cannot make babies. No matter how activist courts choose to define marriage, we simply cannot make something that is not the same, the same.  
            One final irony worth pointing out, gay activists consistently use the interracial marriage analogy to promote same sex marriage. They justify court intervention in defining marriage because they point to the U.S. Supreme Court appropriately striking down anti-miscegenation laws (laws banning interracial marriage). However, the analogy not only fails, it actually hurts the gay marriage argument. At common law, there was no ban on interracial marriages. Americans passed anti-miscegenation laws only after the institution of enslavement of Africans on American soil. This means interracial marriage was a common law liberty before anti-miscegenation laws. Court abolishment of anti-miscegenation laws merely returned us to common law. Moreover, the purpose of anti-miscegenation laws (awful as they were) was racial purity, because interracial couples could naturally produce interracial children.
Same sex marriage, on the other hand, was never a common law liberty before traditional marriage laws were passed. The purpose of traditional marriage laws is not to preserve anything akin to racial purity, because it goes without saying that same sex couples can never produce children. Traditional marriage is a naturally emerging social institution because when men and women come together, they create children, totally independent of government recognition. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, is completely a creation of the state.  Not only does the interracial marriage argument not help same-sex marriage advocates, it may actually work against them.
I cannot close without mentioning the issue of immutability.  Do you remember back when special legal protections were first granted to homosexuals to prevent discrimination, like bullying and physical harm? Back then, arguments were made that homosexual orientation was genetic and could not be changed. Sympathetic to the claim that gays were born that way and not exercising choice in conduct, special protections were enacted. This paved the way for additional gay rights, which led to gay marriage and the new argument that gay sex is morally good. The issue of whether sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic is hotly contested today by the fact that there are now many ex-gays. Studies show that sexual orientation is fluid and hard to define. Ex-gays exist, but I don’t know any ex-blacks. 
It is true that we are all born with a sinful nature. But by faith in Jesus, we are set free from the penalty and power of all sin. (1 Cor. 6:9-11) As believers, we have a choice to follow the flesh or follow the Spirit. We will be accountable to God for the choices we make. God “will give to each person according to what he has done.” Romans 2:6
Let us be aware of how fuzzy notions of equality, tolerance, and morality have been deceptively twisted to distort the truth about marriage. Marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman, a physical representation of the ultimate marriage yet to take place between the bride (the church) and the groom (Jesus Christ). Anything else is a cheap masquerade.