The British prime minister has “come out” with a commitment to gay marriage, arguing that it is not despite being a conservative, but because he’s a conservative, that he favors it. He is not the only one to have voiced this idea, but of course he is by far the most influential since ideas in the heads of politicians are quickly transmuted into law. What David Cameron means (but cannot quite say) is that the blatant promiscuity of homosexual relations might be brought under control if homosexuals are encouraged to make vows of lifelong fidelity. To which I think the response should be: fat chance. Of course there are life-long homosexual partnerships, and these were often socially acceptable even before they were entirely legal. Just think of Benjamin Britten and Peter Pears, or Samuel Barber and Gian Carlo Menotti. But any attempt to reconfigure the institution of marriage ought surely to be founded on statistics rather than individual instances, and ought to consider what that institution means and has meant in the history of our communities. To base a radical change merely on wishful thinking is, in these circumstances, an evasion of responsibility. But here is the difficulty. Although the facts about homosexuality are well enough known, you cannot safely allude to them. You cannot discuss the radical difference between male and female homosexuality—the first tending toward promiscuity and sensual pleasure, the second toward emotional dependence and home building—without attracting irate accusations of “homophobia.” You cannot point to the effect on the emotional development of children, of a culture in which homosexuality is treated as a legitimate way of life, nor can you allude to the correlation between male homosexuality and pedophilia. Some writers have gone public on these issues—Jeffrey Satinover, for example, in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (1996)—and paid a predictable price for it. Others have simply turned a blind eye and hoped that it will all go away or decided that in any case, in our promiscuous world, it hardly matters who does what with whom. But it does matter, and it matters most of all not to you and me, who are grown up enough to deal with it, but to our children. This is where the real issue has been fudged in the European debates and is being increasingly fudged in America. Marriage is not about endorsing a sexual attachment between adults. It is about creating the conditions in which children can come into the world fully protected and with a fair chance of being loved. Marriage does not exist for the benefit of the present generation but for the benefit of the next. It is a rite of passage in which two people set out on a path whose meaning lies not in their present emotions but in their future family. As in all rites of passage, the meaning of marriage is not individual but social, and any attempt to rewrite marriage as a deal between the living is a negation of its real meaning, as a bond between the living and the unborn—a bond in which the dead too have an interest. If David Cameron really were as conservative as he claims, that would be the language he would use in giving voice to his views about marriage—the language of Edmund Burke. As for the relations between the living, it is not as if these are in any way hampered by the existing legal order. In most European countries there are already ways in which homosexual men and women can ratify their relations in the form of “civil partnerships,” which confer the legal benefits and burdens of marriage without implying the radical change of status that marriage has traditionally signified. The activists are not content with this arrangement, not because it does not provide the security that true love requires, but because it still implies that there is a difference between heterosexual and homosexual relations. So offended are they by this implication that they are prepared to level the charge of homophobia against anyone who gives voice to it. In the current climate of opinion in Europe, no politician, no journalist, and no churchman can risk inviting this charge. Like other “thought crimes,” homophobia lacks a definition and has no identity in law; you don’t know how to avoid committing this crime, since all lines of inquiry might suddenly turn a corner and land you in the midst of it. The only safe option is to keep your mouth shut, or else to join the crowd and shout “homophobia” in your turn at whichever victim has been currently singled out for persecution. We are already seeing this among the Church of England bishops, many of whom seem more anxious to avoid the charge of homophobia than to speak out on behalf of the biblical idea of marriage. I cannot help thinking that the decision of the Archbishop of Canterbury to step down is not unconnected to the inevitable martyrdom that his office would impose on him, were he to defend the Christian conception of sexual love. On the other hand, archbishops are made for martyrdom and ought not to avoid it. In a way, of course, the Christian view of marriage cannot really be changed by reforms of the secular law. When, in the wake of the French Revolution, the state began to take over the business of authenticating marriages, it did not affect the Christian view that marriages are made by the Church. Catholics still regard marriage as a sacrament—in other words, as a relation sealed in the presence of God, which cannot be undone merely by an agreement between the partners. The Anglican Church has never decided whether marriage is a sacrament or not; nevertheless it does not regard marriage as a secular institution, or a “church wedding” as merely a ceremonial addition to a deal whose terms are entirely exhausted by a legal contract. There is hardly a religion in the world today that does not regard marriage as an existential, rather than a contractual, move—a step out of this world of self-interested agreements, into the transcendental realm where commitments are eternal and consequences unforeseen. The reason for this is plain. Rites of passage are inherently religious occasions. They are the “points of intersection of the timeless with time,” the places in human life where the eternal meaning of what we are and do is made clear to us. Birth, coming of age, marriage, and death are metaphysical transitions, which concern not the individuals involved in them only, but the whole community of which they are a part. We all have an interest in them, and our desire to mark them with rituals and blessings is a deep sign of our commitment to each other and of our desire that the world should continue along its ancient and authorized path. That is why, for ordinary people, the introduction of gay marriage is not simply a matter of terminology but a decision that affects their whole outlook on the social world. It signifies the downgrading of marriage from status to contract. Marriage, conceived in this new way, loses its character as a social institution, through which the commitment to future generations is endorsed and made real, and becomes just another temporary negotiation. We can hardly deny that things have been moving in this direction for some time, and that easy divorce has made secular marriage into little more than a contract in any case. Why then make such a fuss about gay marriage, which simply completes a process that has been under way since at least the middle of the 20th century? I suspect that this is the argument that will eventually prevail, and it will naturally have the effect of finally excluding children from the equation. Moreover, once that argument has prevailed it will be difficult to prevent the extension of marital rights to “polyamorous” partnerships, or to incestuous relations. It is already somewhat surprising that bigamy and incest are regarded in most Western countries as serious crimes. Maybe we have to prepare ourselves for an entirely new social order, which may be neither social nor a true order, in which any kind of sexual relationship can be transformed into a marriage, simply by signing on the dotted line. My suspicion is, however, that this change, which will be announced as a great step forward for human freedom, will in fact be experienced as a loss of true commitments, and a disinheriting of children.
The rest is here:
Made in Heaven
In the past week, I’ve been called a bigot, a hater, had people wish I died, and had people wish Christians had died, been rounded up and killed, or experienced their own personal holocaust. All this came from proponents of gay marriage. The media won’t cover most of this. The media sees most stories as victims versus victimizers and those who support gay marriage are the victims. They get the positive media coverage. In reality, though, throughout this week I’ve seen a number of Christians engaged in as much hate filled rhetoric as gay marriage proponents, including the pastor in North Carolina who encouraged parents to beat up their gay acting sons. As a Christian, I cannot support gay marriage, nor can I accept practicing homosexuality as anything but a sin. At the same time, there are a lot of Christians out there who seem convinced they aren’t sinners. In fact, we are all sinners and as I have matured in my faith, I have a harder and harder time understanding how so many Christians can be so tolerant of so much sin, but treat homosexuality as some sin set apart from all other sins making it a worse sin than, for example, adultery. This is a political blog and I try to leave my theological ramblings for special occasions, but I think this needs to be said. Christianity is a religion premised on God’s love. We are to hate sin, but we are to love sinners. For non-Christians, that may make them rage about Christian hypocrisy, but it should not. I have gay friends. They all know where I stand on this issue. But they also know that I know that I too am a sinner. For me to love myself and hate them would just be sin on top of sin. We all, like sheep, have gone astray and I am no better than they are nor they better than me. Hearing a pastor encourage parents to commit violence on their sons because they may be gay is offensive to me. Hearing Christians refer to gays with slurs is offensive. At the same time, hearing gay rights proponents wish Christians would die is equally offensive. Hearing gay rights proponents derisively call a Christian a bigot for standing on principle is offensive. What many people tend to forget is that Christianity is not a religion premised on some of us getting to heaven and others not. Christianity is actually a religion premised on not one single person getting to Heaven. All of us are on the express train to hell. All of us. I no more belong in Heaven than the Pope or Billy Graham and they no more belong in Heaven than me. None of us belong there. We get there by God’s own grace given through our saving faith in Christ. Believing in Christ gets us a “get out of jail free” card, but that card does not mean we don’t belong in jail. Those of us who are going to Heaven view ourselves as passing through this place. But we have an obligation to fight for what we believe in and to stand up for our values. We know not just that society, over several thousand years, worked out that marriage between a man and woman is the best organization for society and we should not change that just because some people think it would make them happy or be fair. We also, as Christians, know that marriage is an institution set up by God where man and woman become one being designed to glorify God. That’s why we can’t support changing marriage’s definition. But as I defend marriage as it exists, and recognize that many opponents on this issue will see anything Christians say and do as examples of bigotry and hate, we Christians should reflect our values with love of our fellow sinners, not condoning violence. Liberals view the Golden Rule as they do the Commerce Clause — a theological blank slip to justify any action they want as the commerce clause is a constitutional blank slip to do whatever they want legally. Evangelical Christians should remember the Golden Rule and treat others with the love and respect we wish to be shown. But we should also know the limits of application for the Golden Rule and remember that sometimes loving others means saying no. The balance in an increasingly secular world is difficult for Christians to maintain. As the world comes down on our values, it is easy to react back with hostility. But as I noted on twitter the other day, for all the people calling me a bigot and saying I am out of step with the advance of history, my response is that I am not concerned about being on the right side of history. I am concerned about whose side I am on, on the last day of history. There will be a last day. And though I may lose in this lifetime, on the last day Christ wins and I through him. There are real rights and real wrongs and we should not be so eager to accommodate this world as to be silent on right and wrong. But we should not be so eager to show our separation from this world by pouring out contempt for others who, like ourselves, have fallen short of the glory of God. The balance is not easy, but let’s try not to go wobbly.
Original post:
Where Is The Balance?
RedState Morning Briefing May 11, 2012 Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge. 1. Washington Post Story On Romney Begins To Unravel 2. At Emory University, Darwin’s Bullies Smear Commencement Speaker, Dr. Ben Carson of Johns Hopkins 3. Obama’s new Ohio ad: just making stuff up at this point. 4. State Spending Not The Path to Growth 5. Where Is The Balance? ———————————————————————- 1. Washington Post Story On Romney Begins To Unravel So yesterday morning the Washington Post runs a story detailing what kind of a jerk Mitt Romney was in high school. This is a surprise, right? A high school kid being a jerk. This has never ever happened before. Why, you might well ask, would the Washington Post devote valuable time and space to writing about this event? And why, you might well follow up, is this worth posting about when everyone should be talking about the environment? The answer is easy. It builds a meme and it translates Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage from a liability into a perceived strength. [Editorial Note: The Washington Post , overnight, changed the story without noting any changes to the story] Please click here for the rest of the post. 2. At Emory University, Darwin’s Bullies Smear Commencement Speaker, Dr. Ben Carson of Johns Hopkins The serious problem of bullying in junior high and high school has received some overdue attention lately. Lee Hirsch’s documentary Bully is in theaters and highly recommended. But don’t think that bullying in academic settings is exclusively a phenomenon of adolescence. Adults also bully adults. That’s what is happening now at Emory University in Atlanta. You can be a brilliant, innovative pediatric neurosurgeon at a sky-scraping top medical school, in addition to being a generous philanthropist with an inspirational up-from-dire-poverty personal story, plus a Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, and a best-selling writer whose memoir was turned into a TV movie starring Cuba Gooding Jr. But in the hands of academic bullies, if you once shared your critical thoughts on evolutionary science and its moral implications — well, everything else about you suddenly dwindles to very little. Please click here for the rest of the post. 3. Obama’s new Ohio ad: just making stuff up at this point. Let me present to you the amazing amount of scrutiny that apparently needs to go into a Barack Obama campaign ad, just to understand what it actually means. Please click here for the rest of the post. 4. State Spending Not The Path to Growth I wanted to bring to your attention a short report released by The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions (full disclosure: I am the president) focused on state spending burdens and their connection, or lack thereof, to economic growth. Adam Schwiebert, The Diehl Family Fellow at the Buckeye Institute, put together a short policy brief that uses a measurement know as “state spending burden” – comparing combined state and local government spending as a percentage of private sector Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – to look at the connection between spending and growth. The resulting chart, shown below, highlights that Ohio has a higher level of spending than growth states like Texas, South Dakota and Colorado. Please click here for the rest of the post. 5. Where Is The Balance? In the past week, I’ve been called a bigot, a hater, had people wish I died, and had people wish Christians had died, been rounded up and killed, or experienced their own personal holocaust. All this came from proponents of gay marriage. The media won’t cover most of this. The media sees most stories as victims versus victimizers and those who support gay marriage are the victims. They get the positive media coverage. In reality, though, throughout this week I’ve seen a number of Christians engaged in as much hate filled rhetoric as gay marriage proponents, including the pastor in North Carolina who encouraged parents to beat up their gay acting sons. As a Christian, I cannot support gay marriage, nor can I accept practicing homosexuality as anything but a sin. At the same time, there are a lot of Christians out there who seem convinced they aren’t sinners. In fact, we are all sinners and as I have matured in my faith, I have a harder and harder time understanding how so many Christians can be so tolerant of so much sin, but treat homosexuality as some sin set apart from all other sins making it a worse sin than, for example, adultery. Please click here for the rest of the post.
Go here to read the rest:
Morning Briefing for May 11, 2012
When Barack Obama made his unsurprising announcement today that he has finally evolved far enough to endorse homosexual marriage, ironically an evolutionary dead end, he made two other interesting statements. First, he attributes his evolution to his Christian faith. This is sort of odd, speaking as a Trinitarian Christian, because it puts Christ in the position of disavowing himself. This is not surprising. Anyone who learned Christian theology from Jeremiah Wright is bound to have imbibed a substantial number of heresies. The most surprising statement was this: [W]hen I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf… Really. Our troops are fighting on his behalf? I had always imagined they were fighting on behalf of the nation.
North Korea is, to put it mildly, a “problem.” The so-called Democratic People’s Republic of Korea devotes much of its time to threatening other nations. Pyongyang spends money that it doesn’t have on nuclear weapons, missiles, and bizarrely choreographed and synchronized propaganda ceremonies. It has pioneered a system of monarchical communism, passing power from one idiot son to another. Worse, at least for the North Korean People, the DPRK has created a genuine gulag state, with a smaller but still murderous “gulag archipelago,” as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn famously called Joseph Stalin’s creation. The most important political challenge facing Washington remains the North’s nuclear program. But the ultimate objective is to relax Pyongyang’s grip over the suffering population. That the DPRK is repressive is hardly news. However, it is difficult for anyone in the West to imagine the full extent of repression in the North. The Committee for Human Rights in North Korea recently issued the second edition of David Hawk’s The Hidden Gulag: The Lives and Voices of “Those Who Are Sent to the Mountains.” The study is grimly enlightening, relying on satellite imagery and personal testimony, ever more abundant now that there are more than 23,000 North Korean escapees now living in the South. The publication is a critical attempt, observes Roberta Cohen, who chairs the Committee, to breach “the conspiracy of silence surrounding the camps.” The DPRK was a Cold War creation, established after Japan’s surrender in World War II left the Korean peninsula divided between hostile U.S. and Soviet client states. Moscow tapped Kim Il-sung to run the Soviet zone, which became formally independent in 1948. Kim learned well from Stalin, out-maneuvering internal opponents to win supreme power and creating a system of pervasive social control to terrorize the population. Kim’s horrifying twist to Stalin’s style was to punish three generations of a family for the “crimes” of any member. Children, parents, and grandparents routinely ended up in the North Korean gulag. The entire North Korean system is built on repression. Explains Hawk, a long-time human rights researcher, “these severe human rights violations occur in an environment of large-scale denial of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Nowhere else on earth — though perhaps Eritrea comes close — does the state so completely control its people. Everyone is at risk of brutal punishment. For instance, wrong-doing includes being on the losing side of a political battle or, notes Hawk, “skipping too many of the compulsory ideological education classes all North Koreans are required to attend, defacing or failing to take adequate care of photographic images of Kim Il-sung, complaining about conditions, expressing criticism of regime policies, or leaving the country without permission.” Wrong-thinking encompasses everything from being a Christian to being an orthodox Marxist who opposed monarchical communism. Wrong-class means having been a landlord or “privileged bourgeoisie” under the Japanese. Wrong-knowledge “includes the situation of North Korean students or diplomats who had been studying or posted in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s during the collapse of socialism, and who were recalled to the DPRK only to be immediately dispatched to labor camps to prevent their knowledge of the collapse of state socialism in North Korea’s allies from spreading to the North Korean population.” Finally, wrong-association includes having a close family member who falls in one of the forgoing forbidden categories.
