Christian response to homosexual marriage?

[bjs]

Should Christians in the USA support or oppose the legalization of homosexual marriage in their state?

I put this debate topic in this sub-forum because I’m not really interested in atheists’ opinions here, but I do wonder what Christians think.

On the one hand, we do not have to look far in our world to see what happens when people try to enforce their worldview on others. The result is always disastrous. I do not like the idea of Christians trying to legal enforce their worldview.

On the other hand, recent history has shown us that when gay marriage is legalized the right to oppose, or even abstain from involvement, is quickly lost. Opposing or abstaining from homosexual marriage is outlawed on the charge of discrimination. If gay marriage is legalized then we should expect, at the very minimum, that those who are morally opposed to homosexual action will still be required to act in support of homosexual actions if they wish to do business in their state.

I am unsure of the right approach. What do others Christians think?

[Nickman]

Eminent domain may be abused. This is what those lawsuits are all about.
The concept is not unreasonable however. Let's take the most common example:

The gov'mint wants to build a bridge, or widen a street, or construct a dam which will flood a valley and leave homeowners literally under water. Even if both the government, the courts, and 99% of the landowners agree that it is in the public's interest to sell, and even if they want to sell, a single owner could hold the population and the gov'mint hostage by demanding millions or even billions of dollars over the value of the property.

I want to hit this up again, because I failed to address one important aspect.

You mention the 99% in the highlighted portion, well we do not live in a democracy. We live in a Republic. In a democracy, if you own a well of water and 99% of your neighbors want part of that well, then you must give it up. That is not our process in the US. We have a republic, where majority rule cannot undermine the rights of the minority. The land owner has the right to keep his property regardless if 99% of his/her neighbors want them to give it up. You seem to not favor our constitution or republic.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 78 by Nickman]

You have a very bad understanding of what our government is supposed to do. It is not to govern us. It is to be governed by us to ensure our rights are upheld. It does not give us rights, it upholds our rights that we already have and which cannot be taken from us. Not by a government or by a customer who wants to buy our property against our will.

You have a very bad understanding of my position then. There are rights that are not given to us by the government and there are rights provided to us by having a government.

Let me rephrase this so as not to be misconstrued.

Without the existence of government we have certain natural rights. These rights exist with or without government. No government can create them no government can take them away(well technically they could by force but that would still be a violation of our rights).

Then there are rights that are inherently a by product of government. Property(land ownership) being one of them the idea of property(land ownership) does not exist without government. Property does not exist without government(nobody owns the earth for example or the moon) Property(land ownership) is a social construct dependent on a social infrastructure.

the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to me does not imply the right to oppress others. as that would infringe on other peoples rights to the pursuit of happiness.

It is interesting that you don't think we have the right to healthcare when the constitution including the 9th was written with the idea that life is one of those three unwritten rights.

Ok so just so I understand you correctly I don't have the right to seek healthcare but I do have the right to deny people access to healthcare?

That seems really backwards to me and not a place I would like to live in. I agree with you on a lot of issues Nick but I think we really are butting our heads here.

[Danmark]

Eminent domain may be abused. This is what those lawsuits are all about.
The concept is not unreasonable however. Let's take the most common example:

The gov'mint wants to build a bridge, or widen a street, or construct a dam which will flood a valley and leave homeowners literally under water. Even if both the government, the courts, and 99% of the landowners agree that it is in the public's interest to sell, and even if they want to sell, a single owner could hold the population and the gov'mint hostage by demanding millions or even billions of dollars over the value of the property.

I want to hit this up again, because I failed to address one important aspect.

You mention the 99% in the highlighted portion, well we do not live in a democracy. We live in a Republic. In a democracy, if you own a well of water and 99% of your neighbors want part of that well, then you must give it up. That is not our process in the US. We have a republic, where majority rule cannot undermine the rights of the minority. The land owner has the right to keep his property regardless if 99% of his/her neighbors want them to give it up. You seem to not favor our constitution or republic.

Nick, I well aware that we have a representative democracy, i.e., a republic. The problem is that it IS a republic, which in our current state of affairs results in the wealthiest 1% owning as much [roughly] as the other 99% put together. Congress today consists of legalized bribery. I am not advocating that system, I'm just describing it. Same with the law. I'm just describing it, not arguing about what it SHOULD be.

However, I do favor the current interpretation of the Constitution that prevents the grocery store owner from refusing to let the little black girl come in his store and buy a piece of candy or a carton of milk. I have no respect either personally or otherwise for the store owner who claims his public accommodation is only for those he favors.

[Danmark]

Who owns the goods being sold in a store? The owner! Does the owner of the goods have a right to decide who they sell to? It is their stuff by the way. They OWN it. It is simple. You guys are making the owner lose their rights. This debate is all about property rights. No one has a right to my property or anyone else's unless consent is given to sell it by the owner.

It is important to distinguish between what a person believes is accurate re: his rights and what is the current state of the law. Again I refer you to the landmark Heart of Atlanta case.

The fact is, according to civil rights and business law experts, when business owners hang up open signs, whether literally or figuratively, they have a responsibility to treat all customers equally under the law.
http://www.insidetucsonbusiness.com/new ... f887a.html
BTW, that site is operated by a Tucson business journal and offers a wealth of information for Arizona businessmen on this subject; e.g:

Public Accommodation
Discrimination in places of public accommodation
What is protected?
Race; Color; National origin/ancestry; Sex/gender; Religion/creed; Disability (physical and mental)
Places of public accommodation include:
Restaurants; Banks; Hotels; Museums; Parks; Day care centers; Health clubs; Stores (grocery, department); Theaters; Health care facilities
Source: Arizona Attorney General’s Office Civil Rights Division

One of the first things a law student is surprised to learn is that when he buys real property, he does not 'own' it in any absolute sense. What he has purchased is a certain bundle of rights, which vary depending on deed or contract.

Generally he has purchased the right to exclude others; however there are circumstances where the right of the State trumps even that right and, for example, allows the police entry against the owner's will. I may not like that if it is my house, but that is the law, and I grudgingly may agree with it when a court has granted the State a right to enter to search for a terrorist.

Then you have given up your rights. The states and the Fed Gov are there to protect your rights that are unalienable. Any law created against your unalienable rights are null and void and enforcement thereof is a violation. This would mean that our legislators are wrong and in violation of creating laws that limit your rights.

Lien: A claim upon a part of another's property that arises because of an unpaid debt related to that property and that operates as an encumbrance on the property until the debt is satisfied.
Alienable: Transferrable to the ownership of another.
Unalienable: not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated

Re: the law, the question has been long settled. The owner of a 'public accommodation' absolutely may NOT refuse service due to a person's race, gender or beliefs.

I'm sorry, but that is just not true. Any law that would hinder my right to my property and who I decide to sell it to is a violation.

Not only is this the law, but it is a good policy in my opinion. Consider what would happen if this were not the law. Any hotel, restaurant, bank, or grocery store could refuse service or sales to anyone for any reason. Christians, Jews, atheists, Mormons, Irish, the blind, those with canes or in wheelchairs; people who just don't "look right" according to the owner's whim.

And prejudice is a right of the people. I disagree with those who are prejudice, but they maintain that right to do so. They also have the right to their property and services they provide. Those who decide to not sell to certain people will sorely lose business from the group that they decide not to sell to as well as sympathizers of that group. That is the greatness of a free market. While Joe's Lumber yard down the road is thriving because they sell to everyone regardless of race, gender, etc. Johnny's Lumber yard is suffering and losing business because they do discriminate.

And that is exactly what happened in the American South and other regions of the country before passage and enforcement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. "Negroes" were not allowed to go to most hotels or restaurants; had to sit in the back of the bus; had to use "colored" drinking fountains and rest rooms. "WHITE ONLY" signs were ubiquitous.

That is because they were still not considered citizens with full rights as they already retained by the Constitution. Their rights were not being recognized or enforced as they should have been. They should have already had their rights to public uses that they pay taxes on. But no one has the right to someone else's property such as a business or the goods and services they provide. The customer does not trump the rights of the owner of the property. They do not enter a store with the right to the property that they see being sold. It is only until the owner decides to enter into a sales agreement with them that they retain right of the property they seek. Once purchased, it is now the property of the customer and they may sell to whoever they want.

It seems counterproductive to not sell to everyone if you are in the business of making money. In most places you cut your potential revenue by a 1/4 or even 1/2. However; that is the right of the business owner to do with their property as they wish, even to their own demise.

I remember a case in law school that I disagreed with vehemently, Wickard v. Filburn. Poor old Roscoe Filburn was not allowed to grow more wheat than the amount the government set, even tho' the excess was for his own consumption and never left his property. This was because of a law passed during the great depression to support the price of wheat and the court's rationale was that Filburn's action affected "interstate commerce".

Filburn argued that since the wheat for him and his farm and never entered commerce at all, let alone interstate commerce. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat, he would have had to buy wheat on the open market and have an effect on interstate commerce.
As outrageous as this may sound, it is still the law of the land, tho' in subsequent cases the Courts have decided the government's ability to so regulate is not absolute. The rationale and history of the case is interesting. You can read a reasonable summary at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

That is an unconstitutional ruling and a violation of one's property rights. Whatever I grow on my property is mine and I maintain the right to sell it or not sell it to a person who wants to buy it. This would be another violation of the Fed Gov trying to regulate commerce instead of letting the market grow as it should. Mr. Filburn would also have the right to sell his wheat to whoever he wanted or not sell to whoever he wanted.

I fully agree with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and sympathize with those who have ever been discriminated against based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc. I do think that it violates the right of property owners to serve who they decide to serve to because it is their property. It paints private property as public property. I don't want to sound like the bad guy here, and am only approaching this from the Constitutional side.

If a customer goes to a fancy restaurant that requires nice clothes yet the person does not like to wear fancy clothes, they will be removed. Or maybe they cant afford nice clothes and just want a nice meal that they can afford. Have they been discriminated against? You could make an argument that they have. So if it is legal to turn away customers based on appearance in this case, why is it wrong if the owner is a bigot in the other case? Why can a fancy restaurant turn away the less fortunate based on appearance and something they cannot necessarily change due to their income?

We cannot force people to be tolerant and loving to all people. That can only come through the heart and conscience of a person. Those who would welcome everyone regardless into their establishments would quickly weed out the ones that don't. It would foster better customer service relationships instead of the forced obligation to serve those you may be prejudice to.

Nick, you keep failing to distinguish between what the law is and requires, from what you think it should be. Your assessment of what the law IS is simply flat wrong. What you think the law SHOULD be is entirely another matter. I've simply told you what the law actually holds.

My efforts to educate on what the law actually IS in this area seem to have made no impact.

I do agree that one cannot "force people to be tolerant and loving to all people. That can only come through the heart and conscience of a person." You are absolutely right, but that is not the issue. The issue is that a family has a right to be seated in a restaurant, rent a hotel room, or buy groceries no matter the color of their skin or their religious beliefs.

That has nothing to do with refusing service to someone not appropriately dressed or who is loud and boisterous or otherwise causes trouble because of excessively rude or criminal behavior.

For this law to apply, there has to be TWO elements:
1. The business must be a "public accommodation" and
2. The refusal to serve must be based on a person's race, gender, religion or other suspect category.

You can't find a single lawyer or judge who will agree with your point of view about what the law is; however you certainly can find many who will agree with your opinion about what the law SHOULD be.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 81 by DanieltheDragon]

No one is forcing anyone to sell anything they don't want to sell. They are simply stating that if you are open to public accommodation then you have to sell to all the public not just whom you want to. These individuals are more than welcome to only have private accommodation. It is their choice to sell to the public. There is no force involved. It is the cost of doing business with the public. Private organizations are exempt from civil rights laws(for the most part there have been some exceptions and is typically dealt with on a case by case basis).

If you want to discriminate then your business must be a private one not open to the public. It is that simple. That is what the law stipulates. No property rights are violated. Saying you are open to the public and simultaneously not being open to the public could be considered fraudulent as well.

This is simply a case of having your cake and eating it to.

[Nickman]

You have a very bad understanding of my position then. There are rights that are not given to us by the government and there are rights provided to us by having a government.

Let me rephrase this so as not to be misconstrued.

Without the existence of government we have certain natural rights. These rights exist with or without government. No government can create them no government can take them away(well technically they could by force but that would still be a violation of our rights).

Then there are rights that are inherently a by product of government. Property(land ownership) being one of them the idea of property(land ownership) does not exist without government. Property does not exist without government(nobody owns the earth for example or the moon) Property(land ownership) is a social construct dependent on a social infrastructure.

The government is an invention of man and has no bearing on whether I own something or not. Did the American Indians own America before we came here? Or were they just stewards of the land to later be taken from them by force? According to the Constitution, a person owns land independent of the government. Why did we recognize this right for the Native Americans and try to give some land back with other compensation?

the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to me does not imply the right to oppress others. as that would infringe on other peoples rights to the pursuit of happiness.

Who is being oppressed? If one property owner decides not to sell their property to you and many others will, how are you oppressed? The only loser is the guy who turned away your money.

It is interesting that you don't think we have the right to healthcare when the constitution including the 9th was written with the idea that life is one of those three unwritten rights.

The right to life regards the right to live and to not have your life taken from you by another human being. Not disease. A disease cannot be taken to court. A person can. Let's stay in the scope of human intervention and responsibility. The Constitution only deals with human to human interaction.

Ok so just so I understand you correctly I don't have the right to seek healthcare but I do have the right to deny people access to healthcare?

You have the right to buy health insurance, save money for healthcare, and visit a healthcare provider, but if that particular healthcare provider does not want to provide you services. I am sorry you must seek it elsewhere. On the other hand, if you invest in healthcare and the doctor is a partner with that healthcare, they cannot turn you away. If you go to a doctor with a fist full of dollars (Clint Eastwood Movie) you can be turned away.

That seems really backwards to me and not a place I would like to live in. I agree with you on a lot of issues Nick but I think we really are butting our heads here.

It is only backwards if you think that property rights do not exist and people are entitled to certain things that they don't own.

[Nickman]

Nick, you keep failing to distinguish between what the law is and requires, from what you think it should be. Your assessment of what the law IS is simply flat wrong. What you think the law SHOULD be is entirely another matter. I've simply told you what the law actually holds.

You have simply told me what the law currently states, and I have argued that the current law is unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional, the current law is null and void to the Supreme Law of the Land.

My efforts to educate on what the law actually IS in this area seem to have made no impact.

I do agree that one cannot "force people to be tolerant and loving to all people. That can only come through the heart and conscience of a person." You are absolutely right, but that is not the issue. The issue is that a family has a right to be seated in a restaurant, rent a hotel room, or buy groceries no matter the color of their skin or their religious beliefs.

Not if the owner of the business says they cannot. Who owns the seats? Who owns the building? The food? The beds? Not the customers. That leaves one person..the owner.

For this law to apply, there has to be TWO elements:
1. The business must be a "public accommodation" and
2. The refusal to serve must be based on a person's race, gender, religion or other suspect category.

You can't find a single lawyer or judge who will agree with your point of view about what the law is; however you certainly can find many who will agree with your opinion about what the law SHOULD be.

Well not after the Civil rights act of 1964, but the 14th Amendment says nothing of businesses having to serve all customers. Last time I checked the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not a Constitutional Amendment. Therefore it is answerable to the Constitution.

[Nickman]

Nick, I well aware that we have a representative democracy, i.e., a republic. The problem is that it IS a republic, which in our current state of affairs results in the wealthiest 1% owning as much [roughly] as the other 99% put together. Congress today consists of legalized bribery. I am not advocating that system, I'm just describing it. Same with the law. I'm just describing it, not arguing about what it SHOULD be.

The republic is not the problem. It is the fact that we have not governed our government and kept them in check. The only people to blame is ourselves and our parents and our grandparents. Any government left unchecked by its owner, us, will resort to greed. It will take from us until they have everything and we are left with nothing. We are reliving all of history right now. 1776 was not long ago and they rose up because of the same tyranny we see today.

However, I do favor the current interpretation of the Constitution that prevents the grocery store owner from refusing to let the little black girl come in his store and buy a piece of candy or a carton of milk. I have no respect either personally or otherwise for the store owner who claims his public accommodation is only for those he favors.

Well I am sorry but if you own a business you have the right to serve the little black girl or deny her. It is your choice. Even though we both hate the decision to deny her.

[Danmark]

Nick, you keep failing to distinguish between what the law is and requires, from what you think it should be. Your assessment of what the law IS is simply flat wrong. What you think the law SHOULD be is entirely another matter. I've simply told you what the law actually holds.

You have simply told me what the law currently states, and I have argued that the current law is unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional, the current law is null and void to the Supreme Law of the Land.

At least we are in agreement that I am talking about the current state of the law, and you are talking about what you wish the law was as well as your opinion that the current state of the law is unconstitutional. We simply disagree about that. The current state of the law is constitutional, by definition. That definition has been provided by U.S. Supreme Court opinions. It remains fully constitutional unless and until it is reversed by the Supreme Court. Privately held opinions simply do not count. They are wholly irrelevant to the issue, and no more valid than someone's opinion that the moon is made of cheese.

[Nickman]

Nick, you keep failing to distinguish between what the law is and requires, from what you think it should be. Your assessment of what the law IS is simply flat wrong. What you think the law SHOULD be is entirely another matter. I've simply told you what the law actually holds.

You have simply told me what the law currently states, and I have argued that the current law is unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional, the current law is null and void to the Supreme Law of the Land.

At least we are in agreement that I am talking about the current state of the law, and you are talking about what you wish the law was as well as your opinion that the current state of the law is unconstitutional. We simply disagree about that. The current state of the law is constitutional, by definition. That definition has been provided by U.S. Supreme Court opinions. It remains fully constitutional unless and until it is reversed by the Supreme Court. Privately held opinions simply do not count. They are wholly irrelevant to the issue, and no more valid than someone's opinion that the moon is made of cheese.

Regardless if some SCOTUS officials deemed something Constitutional it means nothing when we the citizens weigh the issue. The PATRIOT Act is highly unconstitutional and violates nearly everything in the Bill of Rights. Is it constitutional just because some politicians were bribed and voted for it in Congress? So if you would agree that the PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional and violates our 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendments (maybe you don't agree) then this shows that just because something is ratified by a majority of politicians who do not represent the people means nothing to whether something is truly constitutional or not. All this would mean is that "We the People" were not vigilant in keeping our elected representatives in line and serving us.