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]

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.

Basically what you are saying is that public opinion means nothing even though this nation is to be governed by the people and for the people. You just threw out Freedom of Speech even though this right is one of the biggest game changers in politics today and always. Public opinion is what this country was founded on. If the citizens do not have a voice and the politicians are able to pass unconstitutional laws then we have nothing. Again, just because some decision was made in SCOTUS, does not mean it is truly constitutional. I'm sure that you can name many laws that violate the constitution. So are they constitutional just because they were passed? That seems to be what you are arguing here.

[Danmark]

Basically what you are saying is that public opinion means nothing even though this nation is to be governed by the people and for the people. You just threw out Freedom of Speech even though this right is one of the biggest game changers in politics today and always. Public opinion is what this country was founded on. If the citizens do not have a voice and the politicians are able to pass unconstitutional laws then we have nothing. Again, just because some decision was made in SCOTUS, does not mean it is truly constitutional. I'm sure that you can name many laws that violate the constitution. So are they constitutional just because they were passed? That seems to be what you are arguing here.

No. Public opinion is important, but it does not immediately convert to law. As you have pointed out, we have representatives that are intermediaries between public opinion and law. And we have judges that decide whether laws are unconstitutional or not.

I am not "throwing out" Freedom of Speech which I think is the cornerstone of our Constitution. I pointed out that it is not an absolute, but has time, place, and manner restrictions. There are no restrictions on the content of speech, as long as the words do not advocate breaking a law. One can be an accomplice to an illegal act by using words to encourage someone commit a crime.

Yes, there are cases, such as Citizens United, which I believe are wrongly decided and eventually will be overturned. The Heart of Atlanta case I have previously cited is not one of them. I also seriously doubt that the majority of the voters in the U.S. want to see it reversed, thus enabling shopkeepers and motel owners to deny accommodation to African Americans, Catholics, Democrats, atheists, or any other group based on the whims of their prejudices.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 90 by Nickman]
Perhaps it would be better to simply have some form of insurance that those of all backgrounds have reasonable access to everything.

Higher taxes for those who wish to discriminate, for example. I see what you're getting at with the right to not serve, and to some extent I agree, but for obvious reasons we can't just let every business do as they please. The government should try to ensure equality.

Though to some extent, seeing as the financial system of most major countries are primarily (if not uniquely) handled by the government in a variety of manners, one could just as easily make the argument that they withhold the right to deny or impose severe restrictions with regard to monetary service in a certain group.

I've always been for more public services, and I certainly believe all public services should be non-discriminatory, and that all services should be available for all, though obviously it's not practical to have almost every possible service available through the government. (Though I think every necessary service should be)

When it comes to healthcare however, seeing as it is intended to be a public service, I don't believe they should be able to deny it - but that's largely because I don't think it ever should've been done through private means in the first place. Healthcare is a necessary public service that the government doesn't seem to believe it can sustain on its own.

[Danmark]

Again, just because some decision was made in SCOTUS, does not mean it is truly constitutional. I'm sure that you can name many laws that violate the constitution. So are they constitutional just because they were passed? That seems to be what you are arguing here.

I am arguing that for practical purposes a law is constitutional when the Supreme Court says it is, even if you and I happen to disagree. A law is not unconstitutional just because you or I think it is. You and I can be wrong just as the Supreme Court may be wrong. Nick, what you are arguing is that the Constitution means whatever YOU claim it means. Why is your interpretation superior to mine, or to the Court's?

Back to the issue of interstate commerce and Heart of Atlanta, Jashwell's last post reminded me of another reason why property owners do NOT own their businesses and commercial properties absolutely, and should not:

They do not buy and sell in a vacuum. They are able to conduct business because of the infrastructure the government provides: roadways, public airways, police and fire protection. In other words, they are dependant upon the services of the government, in addition to the Constitution. By their use of the services the government provides, they have made a pact with the government whether they acknowledge it or not.

I suppose that if a business operated in it's own country, wholly owned and operated by the business and had no commerce with the United States, then it can do things the way it wants, irrespective of the U. S. Constitution. But the minute it seeks to buy or sell with customers or suppliers who live in the U. S., it becomes subject to U. S. law as a condition of doing business in the U. S.

[Nickman]

I am arguing that for practical purposes a law is constitutional when the Supreme Court says it is, even if you and I happen to disagree. A law is not unconstitutional just because you or I think it is. You and I can be wrong just as the Supreme Court may be wrong. Nick, what you are arguing is that the Constitution means whatever YOU claim it means. Why is your interpretation superior to mine, or to the Court's?

The only way that an interpretation can be superior is if it is fully in-line with the Constitution and (in this case) doesn't allow one group to take the rights of one's own property.

Back to the issue of interstate commerce and Heart of Atlanta, Jashwell's last post reminded me of another reason why property owners do NOT own their businesses and commercial properties absolutely, and should not:

They do not buy and sell in a vacuum. They are able to conduct business because of the infrastructure the government provides: roadways, public airways, police and fire protection. In other words, they are dependant upon the services of the government, in addition to the Constitution. By their use of the services the government provides, they have made a pact with the government whether they acknowledge it or not.

These services are required by the Constitution from our government and paid by those who use them in the form of taxes. These services are generally owned by the public. The buildings that property owners buy are not a part of those services. They are individually owned property. Thus, the rights of that property rest with the owner and trump those who do not own it, regardless if a public road reaches its front door.

The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate commerce in order to ensure that the flow of interstate commerce is free from local restraints imposed by various states. When Congress deems an aspect of interstate commerce to be in need of supervision, it will enact legislation that must have some real and rational relation to the subject of regulation. Congress may constitutionally provide for the point at which subjects of interstate commerce become subjects of state law and, therefore, state regulation.

Intrastate, or domestic, commerce is trade that occurs solely within the geographic borders of one state. As it does not move across state lines, intrastate commerce is subject to the exclusive control of the state.

The Commerce Clause was designed to eliminate an intense rivalry between the groups of those states that had tremendous commercial advantage as a result of their proximity to a major harbor, and those states that were not near a harbor.


The Commerce Clause is not a regulatory function that allows the States or the Fed to dictate property/business owner's rights. It was designed to keep regulation out of commerce unless someone's rights are violated. Last I checked, buying something is not a right if the owner doesn't want to sell. It becomes a privilege at the behest of the owner of the goods/services as provided to the customer.

[Danmark]

I am arguing that for practical purposes a law is constitutional when the Supreme Court says it is, even if you and I happen to disagree. A law is not unconstitutional just because you or I think it is. You and I can be wrong just as the Supreme Court may be wrong. Nick, what you are arguing is that the Constitution means whatever YOU claim it means. Why is your interpretation superior to mine, or to the Court's?

The only way that an interpretation can be superior is if it is fully in-line with the Constitution and (in this case) doesn't allow one group to take the rights of one's own property.

Back to the issue of interstate commerce and Heart of Atlanta, Jashwell's last post reminded me of another reason why property owners do NOT own their businesses and commercial properties absolutely, and should not:

They do not buy and sell in a vacuum. They are able to conduct business because of the infrastructure the government provides: roadways, public airways, police and fire protection. In other words, they are dependant upon the services of the government, in addition to the Constitution. By their use of the services the government provides, they have made a pact with the government whether they acknowledge it or not.

These services are required by the Constitution from our government and paid by those who use them in the form of taxes. These services are generally owned by the public. The buildings that property owners buy are not a part of those services. They are individually owned property.

I'm sorry Nick, but your opinion of what the Constitution says is not what the Constitution says. You continue to ignore the fact that no one owns property absolutely. We own certain rights in property only, particularly real property.

I suppose if you owned an island in the middle of the Pacific, one that no one else laid a claim on, you might for the moment own it absolutely. Maintaining that right would depend on your ability to defend your ownership right. As soon as another person or country with greater forces at its command decided to take your island, your right to it would go to zero. You may think this criminal or immoral, but that is the history of land. Essentially it comes down to who stole it last.

But, back to the U.S. Without the force of government both in law and in enforcement, your 'right' to your land would be useless. The continued ownership and use of your property depends on the government's willingness to defend your property rights from usurpation from others.

Therefore ultimately your statements: "The buildings that property owners buy are not a part of those services. They are individually owned property," are false in that the right to the property is not absolute, but depends upon the services of the government to to help you enforce your rights in regard to the property. Without the government's help, your 'rights' would be no more valuable than your your ability to defend them with arms.

In short, the idea that one owns property absolutely is a fantasy. It is just an idea that people assume is true, but upon examination is false.

[no1special]

[Replying to post 1 by bjs]

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

Christ would oppose it and so should Christians .

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 1 by bjs]

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

Christ would oppose it and so should Christians .

How do you derive from scripture that Jesus would oppose gay marriage?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by bjs]

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

Christ would oppose it and so should Christians .

Christ would not oppose it and neither should true Christians. Your claim to the contrary is not supported. I see the same spirit defending those accused in the question Jesus asked, "He who is without sin, throw the first stone."

[no1special]

[Replying to post 97 by KCKID]

How do you derive from scripture that Jesus would oppose gay marriage?

How do you derive from scriptures that Jesus would support gay marriage ?