It’s unusual finding a good, civil discussion about this issue. It was incredibly encouraging reading this.

When people have beliefs of right and wrong that are founded in morality, rather than ethics, it’s generally a very nasty conversation, since morality doesn’t always sit on very solidly on rational foundations.

But Will, you somehow moved beyond this inherent bias. It’s a testament to both your intelligence and to your empathy. And without empathy, intelligence alone is dangerous.

You’re a rare bird. I am impressed, and inspired, that others might one day allow themselves to see more broadly.

Though it’s probably a silly thing to say, since you are who you are, thank you for being so thoughtful and concerned enough to explore what the right thing actually might be. And further than that, to take that step into standing up for it.

Also, Will, good thing you voted correctly. It would have been a long flight from Zürich to smack ya in the back of the head. ;)

I had not seen Lessig’s video on prop 8, thanks for that link. I do find it interesting that he opposes prop 8 on a completely different ground, and he does make a very interesting argument.

also, just curious is you saw larry lessig’s video re. prop 8: http://blip.tv/file/1404208

an interesting argument about what exactly strengthens or protects marriage…

hope that if you didn’t vote early, you don’t have to wait in line too long tomorrow. take care.

It’s great that you started with your four presuppositions, because it’s really easy to see where you are coming from. And if they were all correct, then your argument may well hold. But I want to take issue with a couple of them :-)

In general, I do not believe that you can legislate morality.

That may be so. But it does not therefore follow that morality should not be reflected in legislation. God seemed entirely happy to have morality reflected in legislation during the time of the Old Testament. But that brings us on to the question of “the separation of church and state”, as it’s normally called.

My points on this question are these: firstly, a lot of American Christians (and I’m not saying you are one, although leading off your justification for the church’s witness with the First Amendment is a bad sign) seem to look to the US Constitution first and the Bible second to see how a country should be governed.

Secondly, the relevant clause in the Constitution says two things: 1) no established church (like the Church of England in the UK) - “establish” was a technical term at the time - and 2) no-one should be prevented from freely exercising their religion. It doesn’t say anything like “Anything the federal government or any of its agencies, appointees etc. does should have nothing to do with God.”

(I realise there are Constitutional interpretative minimalists, who take it to mean what it says, and maximalists, who take it to mean whatever they’d like it to mean which is vaguely related. My description of the two positions makes it fairly clear with whom I have most sympathy. And I don’t think Christians should buy into the maximalism.)

Thirdly, almost everyone seems to quote the story of Jesus and the coin with Caesar’s head on it as being Jesus’ endorsement of the principle of separation of church and state in exactly the way the person concerned defines such a separation. Yet careful exegesis seems curiously lacking.

It seems to me that the clear message of the parable is: Caesar has a claim on your money - a piffling trifle in the grand scheme of things - but God has a claim on your entire life. (And you Pharisees and Herodians who think you can trick me need to pay attention to that.) There is no “two kingdoms” theology here.

Having said all that then, I think that the premise of your fourth point is flawed. There is no way you can divide the world like “This is the way we run things when God is involved, which is ‘discriminatory’, and this is the way we run things when God isn’t involved, which is fair to everyone”. What exactly does that sort of view say about God?

Jesus is Lord of all, or he’s not Lord at all. There is not one single square inch of the universe over which he does not cry “Mine!”. And that includes the civil government and all the members thereof, and it includes the laws that they should write. The fact that not everyone agrees with this, and some seriously disagree, doesn’t make it not true.

Here are my issues.

1. I don’t think that Government should define marriage. I think that is treading on dangerous territory.

2. It is discrimination to say that you can’t marry due to your particular sex practices. (What is next, you can’t marry if you don’t have sex in the missionary position?!)

3. I agree that I believe homosexuality is a sin, but why is it that christians harp on this one so much. The Bible talks a whole lot more on divorce and yet our churches are full of divorcees.

4. Lastly, I think that it comes down to a violation of civil rights and humanity when you deny a person what most of us consider the right to live. (Of course this is highly influenced by my view that all people, disabled included, are human beings and should be afforded the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.) It is not right to tell a gay couple that is committed to each other that they can’t visit in the hospital if their loved one is sick or that they don’t have any legal rights, or that after their partner dies they are entitled to nothing.

I think that Christ loves everyone equally. By putting that kind of language in the constitution you are stating that the rest of us “sinners” are entitled to more human rights than “those” sinners. No one would think of immpossing the same kind of law for an addict, or an adulterer, or a lier.

From 1850 to 1977, California’s marriage statutes used gender-neutral language, without reference to “man” or “woman,” in providing that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a
civil contract to which the consent of the parties capable of making the contract is necessary.

To me the above is as far as the government should go. Beyond that and it should be up to the churches to decide.

What this discussion has proven so far, and how I’d like to continue to steer it, is that we don’t need to agree on everything. I’m not sure that anyone who has commented has entirely agreed with what I believe, and that’s okay… in fact that’s the point. It seems we do however all agree that governmental law should be non-discriminatory, and that the legal unions between two people should be separate from religious unions between two people (whatever labels you want to attach to each).

I think the path to convincing conservatives to vote NO on prop 8 is not to try and convince them that they are being intolerant and should accept homosexuality as a morally acceptable lifestyle. I promise you won’t win that argument, because it is based on an individual’s personal beliefs about homosexuality. I think a better approach is to help them realize that they have every right to their view, but that the California Constitution is not the appropriate forum for it… the church is.

It must also guarantee everyone the right and opportunity to express their love and commitment however they choose.

No on Prop 8 isn’t about compelling any Church to change its definition or recognition of marriage. I don’t think I would support that. No in Prop 8 is about giving all Citizens equal rights under the law.

I’m for fairness and will be voting No on Prop 8.

Thanks to Will and all the commenters for such a civilized discussion. It’s a nice treat to find a welcoming place outside the standard echo chambers. Civilized discussions like these are what keeps America on the path towards being a evermore perfect union.

It’s always dangerous for an atheist to trade scripture with a committed christian but hey ho.

I have questions about the church’s pix-and—mix attitude to enforcing the ‘homosexuality is an abomination’ line. The principal passages that deal with homosexuality in the Bible are Leviticus and the writings of Paul.

I think we can safely assume that the church has taken a somewhat relaxed attitude to most of the abominations in Leviticus. Hence the prawn cocktails and cotton-polyester cassocks at my local church. These abominations face the same penalty as homosexuality and yet are relaxed.

Likewise with the writings of Paul in Corinthians and Romans he refers to homosexuality as an abomination. However, he also gives the same penalty to women with short hair and men with long.

This for me is the problem of the church. If the church is deciding to stand firm on some abominations but laughing others off when the biblical strictures are the same, we can say that the position on homosexuality is not based upon the bible but instead some later prejudice.

One might reference Sodom and Gomorrah, though I think using the mass gang rape of two tourists as the basis for denying a committed consensual relationship between two people is rather spurious.

Even post-bible, the church’s relationship with homosexuality has been variable. The early Roman church used to punish monks for homosexuality, but the punishment was equivalent to missing curfew. Hardly the grave sin it is now seen as.

Given the fact that more than 40 species have been recorded as engaging in homosexual activity, I find it hard to believe that God would find homosexuality an abomination for humans but ok for seagulls.

For me, I’d go with Emerson. To think that God can be pinned down, unchanging in the pages of a book or by the words of mortal men, is to kill God and make him pointless. Instead, a direct communion based upon observation of the world and true morality is the closest way to touch god.

but that’s just my opinion :)

Great book on homosexuality and the church if you fancy it: A Church at War: Anglicans and Homosexuality