[rock_show_host]

Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules - latimes.com

[bobthecockroach]

The right decision.

I will never understand why straight people care whether gay marriage is legal or not.

[Epaphras]

I guess we'll see how SCOTUS handles this one.

I'm not sure where I stand on this kind of issue from a "Citizen of the secular humanist equal-rights democracy of America...who is first-and-foremost a Christian" perspective.

In other words, I agree the from a constitutional, democratic perspective there is no logical reason why the civil and other benefits of marriage should apply to only some kinds of unions but not others.

However, it is impossible to appeal to a higher standard with either someone who doesn't agree with that standard (God's revelation in scripture), let alone a complex multicultural society. So in that sense it's a futile battle to fight for "traditional marriage" because laws that "protect" traditional marriage do nothing to change the hearts of the dissenting voices. The best you can hope for is a simple majority to vote with you to maintain a cultural hegemony.

In the end, fighting to maintain a hegemony is not worth the horrible loss of face the evangelical church had suffered. I want to say, "At least let them hate you for something truly important" but then another part of me says, isn't standing up for your Christian convictions in the voting booth and going against the politically correct but doctrinally false status quo important?

[Bryan]

hooray! now we wait a year or more before the supreme court hears this

[bobthecockroach]

Except I have no conviction as a Christian that gay marriage should be illegal. I am convicted that I shouldn't do it, but not that everyone else should be legally prevented from doing it.

In fact, the message I would like to convey as a Christian is, "I have no interest in forcing you to behave like a Christian, because no amount of legalism will save you. Christ is the answer; being 'good enough' is not." Nor am I interested in imposing my understanding of Christian virtue on other Christians through human law.

[doulos14]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Except I have no conviction as a Christian that gay marriage should be illegal. I am convicted that I shouldn't do it, but not that everyone else should be legally prevented from doing it.

In fact, the message I would like to convey as a Christian is, "I have no interest in forcing you to behave like a Christian, because no amount of legalism will save you. Christ is the answer; being 'good enough' is not." Nor am I interested in imposing my understanding of Christian virtue on other Christians through human law.

I'm half and half on this post. At one end of the spectrum, legislating morality and trying to get people to be good enough is wrong, but if you then step back and let them act as they want, you have not done your duty as a Christian to spread the message of Salvation, which includes stepping away from sin.

I don't understand the last sentence because why would you have to impose Christian virtue on other Christians? Unless you're referring to the the differences on gay marriage

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Except I have no conviction as a Christian that gay marriage should be illegal. I am convicted that I shouldn't do it, but not that everyone else should be legally prevented from doing it.

In fact, the message I would like to convey as a Christian is, "I have no interest in forcing you to behave like a Christian, because no amount of legalism will save you. Christ is the answer; being 'good enough' is not." Nor am I interested in imposing my understanding of Christian virtue on other Christians through human law.

I couldn't agree more.

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by doulos14

I'm half and half on this post. At one end of the spectrum, legislating morality and trying to get people to be good enough is wrong, but if you then step back and let them act as they want, you have not done your duty as a Christian to spread the message of Salvation, which includes stepping away from sin.

But since when does spreading the message of Salvation involve arbitrarily choosing specific acts of sin to prevent at all costs? Even if I prevent a gay person from getting married, I'm not actually getting him or her to step away from sin. I'm just making the sin less visible to people who might have their feathers ruffled by it.

There's also the fact that plenty of people are against gay marriage for non-religious reasons. So fighting tooth and nail to prevent homosexuals from getting married does not in and of itself have anything to do with the Christian message of salvation.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by doulos14

I'm half and half on this post. At one end of the spectrum, legislating morality and trying to get people to be good enough is wrong, but if you then step back and let them act as they want, you have not done your duty as a Christian to spread the message of Salvation, which includes stepping away from sin.

Stepping away from sin apart from coming to Christ is meaningless. Coming to Christ is accompanied by repentance and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, leading to sanctification. There's not really much reason to preach morality until after salvation.

I don't understand the last sentence because why would you have to impose Christian virtue on other Christians? Unless you're referring to the the differences on gay marriage

Exactly. There are married gay Christians (or will be if it's made legal). I should respond to them... but not through the law.

[doulos14]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Stepping away from sin apart from coming to Christ is meaningless. Coming to Christ is accompanied by repentance and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, leading to sanctification. There's not really much reason to preach morality until after salvation.

Except for showing them the very reason they need Salvation.... The very basic mantra is that a fallen human needs redemption from their sin given by grace through God's gift of Christ's death which we accept through faith to avoid the just punishment of a just God. If you tell them (or let them be) that what they are doing is correct, then why would they ever change?

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by doulos14

Except for showing them the very reason they need Salvation.... The very basic mantra is that a fallen human needs redemption from their sin given by grace through God's gift of Christ's death which we accept through faith to avoid the just punishment of a just God. If you tell them (or let them be) that what they are doing is correct, then why would they ever change?

You have a point. But it still doesn't warrant getting the law involved. We have no problem telling people lying is immoral even though it isn't illegal in most cases.

[tlj009]

You have a point. But it still doesn't warrant getting the law involved. We have no problem telling people lying is immoral even though it isn't illegal in most cases.

The problem that I have with your argument is that I don't know how to justify supporting other laws. Why is polygamy against the law, not wearing my seatbelt, etc.? If we love our country, shouldn't we support things that we think are good and vote against things that we believe are bad? If something is detrimental to society, then we should discourage it and I don't see how sin wouldn't be detrimental to society.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by tlj009

If we love our country, shouldn't we support things that we think are good and vote against things that we believe are bad? If something is detrimental to society, then we should discourage it

That's precisely why I think this was the right decision. I think outlawing gay marriage is detrimental to society.

Frankly, I don't know the theological arguments on either side, but I don't think there's anything wrong with not wanting to outlaw all sins. Remember that lying is almost always considered a sin and almost always considered legal. Do you really want to live in a society which attempts to prosecute all liars?

Do you want to live in a society which prosecutes adulterers?

What about a society which prosecutes people for lust or hate?

A government attempting to police lust would be disastrous. See Iran.

Unless you want *that*, where do you draw the line? How do you decide which sins to prosecute and which not to prosecute?

[tlj009]

That's precisely why I think this was the right decision. I think outlawing gay marriage is detrimental to society.

Frankly, I don't know the theological arguments on either side, but I don't think there's anything wrong with not wanting to outlaw all sins. Remember that lying is almost always considered a sin and almost always considered legal. Do you really want to live in a society which attempts to prosecute all liars?

Do you want to live in a society which prosecutes adulterers?

What about a society which prosecutes people for lust or hate?

A government attempting to police lust would be disastrous. See Iran.

Unless you want *that*, where do you draw the line? How do you decide which sins to prosecute and which not to prosecute?

But why pick some and not others? Why not use your same argument to say that polygamy should be legal? Or really anything else since for that matter?

Perhaps if you explained why "outlawing gay marriage is detrimental to society."

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Epaphras

The best you can hope for is a simple majority to vote with you to maintain a cultural hegemony.

C'mon, now. Jesus was (IS, sorry) an apocalyptic figure. There is better to hope for than an ultimately empty power struggle over the American project. How does one make sense of marriage and family? Through state regulation? Is that how you persuade people to take part in the Christian life?

All rhetorical questions, if that weren't obvious.