Chicago-based attorney John Mauck has presented an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court on behalf of the Manhattan Declaration in defense of marriage. Many have given up the defense of marriage as a lost cause. It is still not lost, and even if it were lost, would we not still be obligated to bear witness to the truth (and live it most especially) regardless of the cost or persecution?
The defense of marriage as a lost cause? Did not G.K. Chesterton (or perhaps it was C.S. Lewis) say that there are no “lost causes” because there are no “gained causes”? There is only being faithful to God’s word and will. That the rest of society ebbs and flows with a varying level of decadence should not affect a Christian’s witness in the slightest. We may find ourselves in different points of relationship to that society, from being praised by its leaders to being thrown in jail or being executed by them, but our witness shouldn’t change in either case. Because God, after all, is the same, yesterday, today and for ever.
What is the purpose of American civil law and the government that enforces those laws? What is its chief aim?
Does the law exist to delineate moral values? If so, which ones, and to what extent can the government go in enforcing those laws without infringing upon the reasonable freedoms of its citizens?
For example, if I believe as a Catholic that contraception is a moral evil (even when utilized by married couples), am I obligated as a voter or politician to work to criminalize the manufacture, sale and use of any form of contraception (even those that are not abortive in nature)? What about the freedoms of conscience of non-Catholic Christians who do not agree? What are their rights, if any?
In other words: I can see how a Catholic who firmly believes in the sinfulness of contraception can still choose to refrain from imposing this view on others. I’m not sure how gay marriage is any different.
Now, I’m certainly willing to acknowledge the rights of Christians to not be coerced into any positive action that will violate their conscience for the most part, but I’m not sure how granting civil marriage licenses to gay couples does this for the majority of citizens.
In other words: I can see how a Catholic who firmly believes in the sinfulness of contraception can still choose to refrain from imposing this view on others. I’m not sure how gay marriage is any different.
Just to point out that civil marriage buttresses natural social architecture. The recognition of a civil compact creates distinctions in law and provides for the assumption of obligations as well as entitlement which derive from status. It also promotes the use of language. The people who might like to ignore corrupted friendships in their formal and informal dealings are not permitted to do so. Ultimately, the people imposed on are members of the community who would rather be left alone.
Many have given up the defense of marriage as a lost cause.
David Blankenhorn and Rod Dreher. Dreher has always been a candidate for most likely to be fragged in the foxhole.
In Chu Lai in 1968, my Army unit had a company of (drafted) Marines as neighbors for awhile. We wondered why they got all the incoming and nobody was shooting at us, until the word came down that all the nighttime booms were due to the fact they were tossing grenades into their own officers’ tents…
Then they came across the wire and called out our NCOs for a fight. Fortunately, they came unarmed and left when one pissed-off lieutenant with more courage than brains pointed his gun at them. I guess they knew I was mad/scared enough to shoot.
There is no legislation that is devoid of morality. It is impossible to avoid legislating morality. I do believe it is a freedom in this country to speak freely and peacefully assemble. In other words, those who oppose the legislated morality of the day are free to voice their disapproval, but they are not free from being offended by the legislated morality.
Agreed!