Marriage at the High Court (post 1)

Previous Article
Prayers for Rogate Sunday
Comments (8)
  1. Sarah Estell says:

    ” In other words, as is typical of our time, the challengers’ vision of marriage is not a self-sacrificing institution designed to provide an optimal setting for raising children and structuring society, but is a self-centered institution used to secure society’s approval of intimate relationships.” I can’t even begin to imagine how you come to that warped conclusion. Could it be – shockingly – that same sex couples want to raise children? Want to be in a loving, supportive relationship with the person that they love? Why is opposite sex marriage for the purpose of “being fruitful and multiplying” but same-sex is all about being selfish? Expand your worldview a bit and you might find that there are plenty of opposite sex couples who decide not to have children or, like my husband and I, cannot have children. We adopted as a way to form our family. My marriage is no less than anyone else’s marriage simply because while our parts are “compatible” they don’t work properly.

  2. Sandy says:

    Well said. Marriage is defined in God’s word as a union between a man and a woman

  3. Dan says:

    I wish we would stop using the word “ban”. No state literally “bans” people stating vows for one another. Please use the phrase “the state only recognizes” marriage between a man and a woman. There is a big difference. The word ban implies against the law, there is no law that states two men or two women cannot get married. We all assume that it is only a marriage if a secular government grants a license, there are thousands of men/women marriage without licensing.

  4. Graham says:

    Your writings here are a great example of why so many people are choosing a secular life today over a religious one. For instance, when you state, “the challengers’ vision of marriage is not a self-sacrificing institution designed to provide an optimal setting for raising children and structuring society, but is a self-centered institution used to secure society’s approval of intimate relationships,” you come off as extremely dismissive. Can you tell me how you came to such a conclusion? Have you interviewed same-sex couples as to the reason why they decided to be married? Have you amassed data that shows homosexual couples to be self-centered rather than self-sacrificing? How can you claim to know what the secular view of marriage is, when you are not secular yourself?
    Some more questions regarding your claim that children “are the most obvious, natural gift of marriage.” If a couple is found unable to bear children, should they be allowed to marry? If an elderly man and an elderly woman, both long past child-bearing age, ask to be married, should they be prevented from doing so, since they are incapable of having children?
    As to your claim that “as late as 1990, not a single jurisdiction recognized the right of homosexuals to marry;” are you really arguing that because something has been illegal or frowned upon for an extended period that it should continue to be illegal and frowned upon because it’s always been that way? What is your view on women’s rights? Should women be allowed to take leadership positions in the church? From my understanding, women have been ordained as Lutheran pastors since at least the 1970s. But how did this happen, since before that time, there were zero women pastors for nearly 2,000 years. Using your logic, women should not be ordained, as women were disallowed from doing so for a thousand-plus years.
    I understand that religious institutions such as the Lutheran Church are threatened by the progress made in the homosexual civil rights movement that has gained much momentum in the last decade or so. But tell me, how have legal gay marriages in states such as California affected the marriage rates in the Lutheran Church (or any other church, for that matter)? Are Lutheran Churches folding because of gay marriage? How exactly does gay marriage affect Lutherans personally?
    Your view of marriage is myopic to your own religion, but you must remember that not everyone shares your religion, and thus, your religious laws do not apply to everyone. In this country, we have freedom FROM religion as much as we have freedom OF religion. This country was founded as a secular country, but a secular one wherein citizens are free to practice, or not to practice, whichever religion they desire. In fact, the founders made it quite specific that the new country they helped to create would be secular in nature, with no religious litmus test for its leaders, and no national religion.
    While you are free to define marriage as you wish in your own church, you are most definitely not free to define marriage to those of us who wish to worship in our own ways, outside the realm of traditional religion. If you need further proof that marriage has always been a secular institution, I would encourage you to try getting a divorce from a pastor or priest. You cannot, and not simply because pastors or priests wouldn’t grant a divorce on religious grounds, but because the state does not recognize the right of that pastor to grant a divorce. Marriage in this country has always been of a secular nature, first and foremost. Marriage in this country bestows upon the married couple certain rights as regards to tax law, to medical law, to family law, that are not bestowed upon couples who are not married. This is in rather clear violation of the 14th Amendment’s language of Equal Protection. I look forward to your discussion of the 14th Amendment as it relates to your religious views on this matter.

  5. Carol Sherrill says:

    Beautifully done. Thank you for the references that will help nicely in discussions. I totally concur with the reason for these selfish demands. Looking forward to your next writing. LCMS member.

  6. Michael Anthony says:

    Your article is great but your discussion doesn’t answer the questions the justices are taking on. You are merely stating the LCMSs definition of a marriage according to scripture.

    How do you answer the questions facing the justices? If you were the state of Tennessee how would you defend the constitutionality of your states law?

  7. Alice Pierce says:

    I agree with all that I just read. Best wishes at your High Court appearance

  8. Steve says:

    I like the comment regarding the self-centered attitude of the gay marriage debate. It provides a perspective for the actions of pro-gay marriage I had no thought of even though it is obvious.

    Great post, I am anxious to read the next one.