1) I'm not an expert at law, so my attempts to explain things from a legal perspective are probably incomplete at best.
2) The issue of gay marriage has been debated at length in the bloggernacle, from both moral and legal perspectives. I don't really have much to add to that.
3) Even though my intentions were not to spark controversy, I had a feeling my opinions might, and the goal of my blog is not to rehash endless debates.
So in the end I didn't post it, but I would like to throw these questions into the mix of perspectives currently being explored elsewhere:
1) I agree with the church, from a moral perspective, in its stand against gay marriage. I oppose gay marriage and would vote for a constitutional amendment against it. However, given that currently there is no such amendment, is it going against the church to question the constitutionality of banning gay marriage? In other words, can we separate the moral arguments and legal arguments? Can I say: "X is morally wrong, but it is unconstitutional to ban it?". Or, if I want to be in line with the church, do I have to conclude that judges that side with gay marriage must be wicked?
2) At what point to we recognize that we are fighting a losing battle? Is it obvious at this point that it is only a matter of time before we lose, both in the court of law and the court of public opinion? Is there still hope for victory, or are we only fighting to prolong the inevitable? If it's the latter, is it wrong to advocate a scorched earth policy (ie. get the government out of marriage entirely)?
(Note: If the subsequent comments get too controversial, I'll start deleting them and/or closing comments. As I've already stated, by goal is not to bring the debate occurring elsewhere onto this blog. I've already tempered my own opinions to try to avoid that. I'm really only interested in the specific questions I asked above.)
Continue reading at the original source →