Prof George would be a wonderful speaker at SVS. Much better than the ABC.

My fear exactly. That’s why I think our present “disunity” is a blessing in disguise.

Well, let’s say the courts sanction homosexual unions as a legal marriage. It still isn’t a marriage, it’s a homosexual union regardless of what the law says. What this means in real time is that the culture has entered such a state of abject moral confusion that it cannot possibly stand; the devolution is so complete that collapse is inevitable.*

The witness to my assertion is simple: all cultures the world over recognize marriage as between male and female (albeit some cultures allow for multiple females). We Christians understand this to mean that the proper ordering of human relationships is written into the very fabric of creation (the “order of creation”); it precedes any discussion of civil and ecclesiastical marriage.

What to do? Reasonably minded people need to just say no. In the 31 of 31 states where voters were given a voice, that is just what they did.

*(Here too you see the timeliness of the Manhattan Declaration.)

And now, as cases in Texas and Colorado show, homosexual activists are “married” in Massachusettes are seeking “divorce” in other states as a means of establishing their “unions” as legally equivalent to marriage in states that do not recongize them as such.

The only way for the Church to protect herself against the legal requirement to “marry homosexuals” is to separate the sacrament from the legal definition of marriage.

Is there any reaon for them to be the same?

Shoot, in Kansas all that is required for a legal marriage is for a male and female of legal age and not already married to agree to be married and then tell everyone they are. Left over from pioneer times, but still the only legal requirements.

Here too watch out for the law of unintended effects. If we create a separate legal category for homosexual unions (spousal rights for two non-married individuals), my hunch is that few homosexuals would take advantage of the law beyond the first few months,* but heterosexual couples who don’t want the the responsibility or commitment of marriage would welcome it.

*”Civil unions” are more about removing the moral onus against homosexual behavior than anything else. If homosexual pairing was normative, you would see more of it than you do.

Chris, yes, you are exactly right. Thank you.

Michael,

This is the gist of the argument, as I see it:

If the law is based upon the recognition that we are creatures of God in community (a fading ideal), should it not reflect and therefore proscribe certain types of behavior that de-humanizes those who participate in it thereby weakening the community as a whole?

What we have happening now is the ‘law’ based solely on individual will. That is the fundamental barbarism of which Fr. Greogry speaks. Anarchy and the violent society of which George speaks will become the norm. Total loss of freedom will be the result.

When we so ‘compassionately’ argue for the rights of those who willfully and repeatedly violate their own humanity, we are arguing for the destruction of both their freedom and ours. We are arguing for the destruction of their souls and our own.

And I would add, that as Orthodox Christians we take a stand on these issues because we truly love those men and women who are buying into a lie and denying their created human nature (in the image and likeness of God), in their quest to find happiness and joy without the moral law, without God, and without acknowledging eternal truths.

God, in his infinite wisdom and love, brings into existence all of reality as a reflection of his goodness. He fashions mankind, male and female, in his own image and likeness. Human beings, therefore, are nothing less than the work of God Himself; and in the complementarity of the sexes, they are called to reflect the inner unity of the Creator. They do this in a striking way in their cooperation with him in the transmission of life by a mutual donation of the self to the other.

George, reason and logic are dependent for their truth on the assumptions upon which they are based. I find the assumptions from which Dr. Bouteneff and others seem to reason to be questionable. I also don’t get all quivery in the face of a well reasoned argument. As a old friend of mine used to say: “The devil is the most reasonable being in existence”

“Surely you will not die…”

No part of Christianity is reasonable unless one accepts the person of Jesus Christ as one of the Holy Trinity Incarnate into His creation taking on our nature in the process out of love for us.

Reason, in and of itself, is an idol.

Classic case in point: Until relatively recently (70’s), my state, Kansas, had laws on the books that prohibited liquor by the drink. In other words, one could not go to a restaurant and have a glass of wine or liquor of any kind. Only 3.2 beer was permitted. Private ‘bottle clubs’ were wide-spread.

The sheriff of my county did not like the law. His remedy was to enforce it exactly as written. He started arresting all sorts of people for violation of the law and prohibited airlines flying over Kansas from serving alcoholic beverages while in Kansas airspace. He was widely derided, but the law got changed. The last vestiges of Kansas prohibition have past away and the bootlegging that went with it.

The point is that one does not solve the problem of lax enforcement of assualt by passing hate crime laws. One just works diligently for equal protection under the law.

I can grant access to my medical records and give authority for health care decisions to anyone I want. All that is needed is a health care power of attorney and a HIPPA authorization. These days, even spouses need them.

If these legal designations are not honored by a health care provider, no new laws are needed. A simple enforcement of existing law is sufficient.

Housing. Is there a ‘right’ to housing? Certainly in a just and ordered society people are housed. However, to force folks to sell or rent specific houses to specific people is different.

Job discrimination: it is economically stupid to restrict oneself to an available talent pool, but if the owner of a business chooses to do so is that something that needs to be addressed in law? If it is pervasive then perhaps on a temporary basis to restore rational balance, but always and forever just because someone wants a specific job and feels they have been denied the job because they are different than the owner?

We make all kinds of laws that restrict and prohibit behavior that has far less serious consequences on the body politic than abortion, adultery, fornication, homesexual activity, polygamy and the like. We enforce individual autonomous choice against the community all the time (except when government wants something). The government is looked on less like the institution it is guarding the integrity of the community as a whole and rather more like just another individual that needs is rights enforced–and they have all the guns.

The less we have a common commitment to an understanding of ethical and righteous behavior, the more laws are passed. The more laws the less freedom.

The nilihistic narcisism that we seem to prefer (and secularism endorses) cannot continue. Anarchy, oligarcy, and tryanny and their accompanying demogogery always follow. No manner of ‘rational’ defense of such behavior actually makes it right. Dr. Bouteneff, et. al. ought to rationally follow the logical conclusions to their rather lukewarm statements on the proper Christian approach to the public issues. All of the issues are ultimately anthropological in nature and therefore Christological (since He does have our nature by virtue of His kenotic Incarnation).

Just a thought.

For a wonderful portrait of just who Professor George is I would encourage people to read The Remarkable Mind of Robert George

Professor George and his gift of clear thinking would also be a breath of fresh air in light of the Rowan Williams Receiving an honorary doctorate.

Amen! Michael, thank you for all your comments.

This is simply a lie.

“Those Orthodox Christians who believe that the country is not currently ready for an unequivocal ban on abortion are not “pro-choice.” They remain deeply against abortion. They seek to only to be realistic (pastoral) as to how to minimize and eventually eliminate abortions in a genuine and enduring way.”

I do not believe this is true. First of all, I do not know what you mean by “genuine and enduring way”. But more importantly, conceding the legislative/court fight until such time as the public has been persuaded en masse that abortion is evil, seems very much like a defeatism with an ulterior motive: It will probably be much more palatable to the liberal colleagues and acquaintances of such people that they are not committed to any legal attempt to overturn the current law on abortion. Such liberals might say to themselves, “Well, it’s nice that they believe in their little religion but are also not like those troublesome Christians who want to legislate morality. They can ‘persuade’ all they want so long as they are not interested in coercing until sometime way down the line, if ever.” Being as how “pro-choice” and “pro-life” are inherently political terms and were coined in response to the abortion debate, I have to consider someone who is not interested in pursuing the legal struggle, if they believe in political participation at all, as being pro-choice. Otherwise, we’re necessarily also stating that politicians who privately oppose abortion but publicly vote against pro-life legislation or judges are also not pro-choice.

I do not believe the country, if it were put to a referendum and were constitutionally permissible, would outlaw abortion. This is no argument whatsoever though in favor of my personal lack of support for anti-abortion legislation. Otherwise, you’re saying that the voice of the people somehow trumps our own personal responsibility. It’s not just about education and persuasion. It’s about being a political force, however small, against abortion by supporting its eventual ban.

Fr. Thomas Hopko’s argument falls into a trap laid by the gay rights lobby.

“Homosexual people must have the same access to housing, employment, police protection, legal justice, tax benefits, and visitation privileges at institutions that all members of society possess and enjoy.”

Based on what, their status as discrete individuals or their status as two people in a homosexual sexual relationship? If it’s the former, fine. If it’s the latter, no matter how many words you pour on to the subject seeking to rationalize it, you are endorsing homosexual sexual activity.

My best friend can’t get access to the same medical information as a spouse could. Nor can he get insurance benefits, etc. This would be so even if we were roommates. What difference is there between my relationship with my best friend and a homosexual relationship? The only – – I repeat, only – – reason to support such a delegation of rights previously reserved for a married couple is that you acknowledge the moral legitimacy of homosexual relationships.

“This is especially important today, when the safety of homosexual people and their children largely depends on legal and social recognition and protection.”

Have the laws against assault been repealed?