[CS-FSLUG] PD: Gay marriage

[Aaron Patrick Lehmann]

I've been thinking about this subject, and I find myself conflicted.  On the
one hand, homosexuality is an abomination and a sin against not only God but
also the sinner's own body.  On the other hand, what is "sin" to our
intentionally atheistic government?  On the other hand, if homosexuality is
endorsed by our government, could this lead to difficulty for pastors/preists
who discriminate by not marrying homosexual couples?  On the other hand, do I
really want to set a precedent for government definition of marriage?  Do I
want the bounds of sacred ceremonies set by a group of men and women who are
likely to bend with the wind of whatever popular sentiment they think will get
them the most donations and votes?  On the other hand, since at some point,
laws must be made, and they must be made to some end, should I not work toward
making law toward the most Godly standard I can?

I guess what it boils down to is this:  I'm a state's rights person.  I believe
that any extra federal authority is an evil, and only in the event that it is
the least evil available should it be utilized.  In order for me to determine
if an ammendment blocking homosexual marriage is a lesser evil than (civil)
homosexual sexual marriage, I'd have to know the philosophical and practical
ramifications.  As part of my stream-of-concious-maundering e-mail, I'll go
over possible things that could happen as a result of this.  This will take the
form of comparisons to other things that have happened.

"How have laws affected morality?"  is my first question.  After all, one worry
I have is that if homosexual marriage is supported by our government,
Christians may in a few decades be considered bigots, and not merely prudes.
My first thought was to look at something that had been legal, and accepted,
until it was rendered illegal due to health reasons.  

Morphine and cocaine came to mind.  Since morphine was accepted until it was
illegalized, and its use is now taboo, I thought to look into that to determine
how government action had changed popular morality.  However, after a little
poking on Google, I found http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/ophs.htm,
which indicates that it was public revulsion at the increasing incidence of
"opium drunkenness" that lead to narcotic prohibition, in the same Prohibition
wave that led to the 18th ammendmant, so that was out.

Next I thought of abortion.  Since the Roe v. Wade decision, there's seemed to
have been a major change in public opinion, from the belief that abortion was
murder to the belief that abortion was a choice that should be available to all
women.  However, another Google search turned up this page
(http://www.vitalsignsministries.org/vsmchurchhistory.html) on the history of
Church thought on abortion which indicates that Christians have pretty much
always stood against abortion, and the rest of society was in favor of it.
This URL (http://users.telerama.com/~jdehullu/abortion/abhist.htm), a summary
of a couple of abortion histories, indicates that the cutoff for abortions in
Europe was at the quickening only until it was discovered that there was life
before there was motion.  At that point, strong anti-abortion laws were fairly
quickly passed.

It seems from these two quick lookups that morality has dictated law, and not
the reverse.  So I don't have to worry about this law leading to a universal
hatred of Christian bigotry.  If this is interesting to anyone but me, I'll
continue writing as I try to figure out what I think about this.

Aaron Lehmann
-- 
Sometimes you stay the course;
Sometimes the course stays you.