Destruction of the Institution of Marriage

In his “Gay Marriage and the Constitution” Wall Street Journal opinion piece, David Boies is not only wrong about the Constitution, he is wrong about God.

Recently, Ted Olson and I brought a lawsuit asking the courts to now declare unconstitutional California’s Proposition 8 limitation of marriage to people of the opposite sex. We acted together because of our mutual commitment to the importance of this cause, and to emphasize that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens.

…But, in fact, the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians is as much a God-given characteristic as the color of their skin or the sexual orientation of their straight brothers and sisters.

I agree with HotAir commenter “youngturk”:

Okay, I haven’t read all of the comments but I see three serious problems with Bois’s statement:

1. When he says,

“But, in fact, the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians is as much a God-given characteristic as the color of their skin or the sexual orientation of their straight brothers and sisters.”

that is ignorance or demonstrating lack of research at best and lying at worst because I know several men and women who were in the gay lifestyle and no longer are, haven’t been for years/decades, and many of them happily married now;

2. as much as gay activists would like to wish it were so, there is not a shred of scientific evidence that has ever proven than people are born gay (if such scientific proof existed it would be thrown in our face daily); and

3. following Bois’s logic, any number of two or [more] people who are “in love” should have the right by law to get married. Which is what gay activisits really want: the destruction of the institution of marriage.

youngturk on July 21, 2009 at 12:05 AM

The destruction of the institution of marriage is a common objective of many of those who rebel against God and His Word. For example, it is one of the Communist Goals:

#40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

Promotion of easy divorce has already been achieved over the last few decades. In my opinion, gay marriage does not encourage easy divorce, and David Boies is using that as a strawman argument to easily knock down. Let me say it again: I do not believe gay marriage encourages heterosexual divorce.

But gay marriage does discredit the family as an institution.

Children are conceived by, and are best raised by, the union of one man and one woman.

That is the way God designed it to be. But David Boies says:

But, in fact, the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians is as much a God-given characteristic as the color of their skin…

Oh, really?

If that’s a “fact”, as Boies claims, where’s the proof that sexual orientation is as much a characteristic of DNA as skin color?

If Boies wants to use the words “fact” and “God” in the same sentence, then why is he silent about what the Bible has to say about “truth”, “God”, and homosexuality?

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

Romans 1:26-28

Homosexuality is not “a God-given characteristic”. It is a “vile passion“, “against nature”, “shameful”, “error” for which “penalty” is “due”, and the act of “a debased mind”.

That’s what God has to say about homosexuality. That’s a fact. And God’s Word is truth.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

John 3:16-17

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

John 14:6

David Boies is not only wrong about God, he is wrong about the Constitution.

this cause… is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens.

If Boies really believes that the founders who wrote the Constitution would support gay marriage under “equal protection and due process to all citizens”, then perhaps he should go back and review the laws in colonial America, where homosexuality was punishable by death, and the laws specifying capital punishment specifically referenced Bible verses. See the post “Biblically Correct, Not Politically Correct” and the comments which follow it.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Destruction of the Institution of Marriage

  1. Math says:

    Bible thumping again? yawn. It’s just a book man, written by man to control man. If the people who wrote it knew it is still working to this day, they would be laughing their ass off.

  2. Jesus said He is the truth. I believe Him. Many have set out to disprove Him, only to have their research lead them to believe He is who He says He is.

    You are unable to disprove that Jesus is who He says He is.

  3. Math says:

    Argument from ignorance. A fallacy. Of course I can’t prove he’s not who he is. But can you prove he is who he is? Of course you can’t. You’ll quote me the bible, because you think it’s the absolute truth. Then I’ll ask you to prove me the Bible is the absolute truth, and then who knows what you’ll come up with. In other words, you can’t prove it definitely.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

  4. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    I would have thought that a conservative like yourself is all about personal freedoms, and limited government interference in personal life. I’m surprised that you are advocating for legislation that states what people CAN’T do.

  5. Jonah says:

    Hah. Thought I’d check in to see how this blog was holding up. Some things never change, I guess. Red is still implicitly condoning the execution of gay people, and Math is still combating such ideas as ineptly as possible.

    If I may speak briefly on the latter: Math, what are you doing, my man? Hate is the problem here, not religion. As the Episcopal Church proved last week (and Conservative Judaism a few years ago, and Reform Judaism ages before that), religious faith in no way requires gay-bashing. And really, do you expect to get anywhere with Red by first convincing him that God doesn’t exist? I know you’re a “missionary atheist”, but save the hard stuff for later!

    Alright, enough of that. I’m off again.

    Cheers,
    Jonah

    PS: Oh, and that Wade fellow is a hoot. “Verbose mode”! Too bad he and I weren’t regulars at the same time; he seems like a fun sparring partner.

  6. Math says:

    Jonah, good to see you back. To be honest, I don’t really care what Red (or you for that matter) think about anything. I come here strictly for the entertainment, not on a mission of any sort or out of any personal conviction. I know Red is beyond reasoning, I still like to point out the silliness he believes in. It fascinates me what some people will believe in, and the lengths they will go to defend it despite evidence, reason, logic and common sense. Surely you didn’t have any hope of talking some sense into him when you were here either?

    And I disagree with your assessment, I think religion and hate go hand in hand. Red quotes the Bible to justify executing the gays, the jihadists quote the Quoran to justify blowing themselves up, the Crusaders used it to justify the slaughter of the innocent, etc. Religion is the source of most hate. Some religions just brew more of it than others.

  7. Ryan says:

    Ha ha – it’s like a reunion here. I take a brief look at the comments here once a week or so – just to make me less depressed about the other right wing blogs. Nothing changes, but it’s irresponsible to let this garbage go unchallenged.

    Mr Pill, you can make crazy things up about Obama all you like – that’s your right as a voter and a citizen. But this is hate. Pure unadulterated hate towards a percentage of the community of human beings who were born different than you. If you don’t think homosexuals are born that way, then you have never met one.

    Your God, if he existed, would be ashamed of you.

  8. Jonah says:

    To be honest, I don’t really care what Red (or you for that matter) think about anything. I come here strictly for the entertainment, not on a mission of any sort or out of any personal conviction.

    That was always our big difference, wasn’t it? I was here to change minds. I gave up on that mission the day Red decided killing was okay.

    This hasn’t changed, but I still don’t think there’s any hope for him. I won’t be sticking around much.

  9. Math says:

    Jonah: there is a saying I like: choose your battles. It was clear to me from the beginning that the one here was a losing one. All that is left to do is to hang around if it amuses you, and leave if it doesn’t. That’s all there really is to this blog. Read lunacies and fiction, and have fun with the ones who write them.

  10. Frin says:

    Have you seen this video Mr Pill? Its a real hoot – I think you’ll get a kick out of it.

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/239147/wed-july-22-2009-kevin-nealon

  11. But can you prove he is who he is? Of course you can’t.

    It fascinates me what some people will believe in, and the lengths they will go to defend it despite evidence, reason, logic and common sense.

    You won’t read any of it, but there is plenty of evidence that demands a verdict.

  12. “…this is hate…”

    And that opinion is exactly why those who are trying to pass “Hate Crimes” legislation want to use it to ban the Bible and silence Bible-believing Christians.

    It’s not hate, it’s truth. God is love, and Jesus is the truth. Jesus forgives a multitude of sins, but then tells us to repent (turn from) those sins.

    Boies claims as “fact”, without a shred of evidence, that homosexuality is “a God-given characteristic”.

    God says homosexuality is not “a God-given characteristic” but rather a “vile passion“, “against nature”, “shameful”, “error” for which “penalty” is “due”, the act of “a debased mind” and “not fitting”.

    That’s not hate, it’s God’s loving truth.

    And those who can’t handle the truth try to silence those who speak it.

    Which, again, is why those who are trying to pass “Hate Crimes” legislation want to use it to ban the Bible and silence Bible-believing Christians.

  13. Math says:

    The Muslims believe that them getting 72 virgins in paradise for becoming martyrs is the Allah’s loving Truth as well. You expect us to believe your Truth. Would you be willing to believe their Truth?

  14. Math says:

    I should rectify, I meant extremist Muslims, not all of them.

  15. The extremist Muslims believe that them getting 72 virgins in paradise for becoming martyrs is the Allah’s loving Truth as well. You expect us to believe your Truth. Would you be willing to believe their Truth?

    Truth is absolute, not relative.

    The truth is that their prophet is dead, while my Savior died and rose again, proving that He is who He says He is.

    My Redeemer lives.

  16. Math says:

    If he lives where is he today? Or did he die a second time?

    Truth is relative when it comes to faith. The truth that the sky is blue is absolute, because everyone sees the same sky. Truth that requires faith can only be absolute to the eyes of the believer.

  17. If he lives where is he today? Or did he die a second time?

    No, he didn’t die a second time. He ascended into Heaven. But shortly after God the Son ascended, God the Holy Spirit descended, and is present here to this day.

    If you want evidence of the living God at work on the Earth today, read about the transformation He has made in the lives of these women. No worldly social program has ever achieved the same results. You can’t argue with a changed life.

  18. Ryan says:

    Oh wow, people changed their lives. That never happens without Jesus.

    Now, instead of wasting their lives with whatever problem they had before, they can waste their lives hoping for an afterlife that will never come.

    If that’s the “evidence” you have for God, then you are wasting your time. This life is all you have bud.

  19. “This life is all you have bud.”

    Let’s assume for a moment that you are right.

    I would assume that if you are a caring person, you would want these women with eating disorders, mental illness, abuse, unplanned pregnancies, etc. to get the best treatment possible, right?

    Why is it that no secular program, in either the private or public sector, has come anywhere near the success rates achieved by the programs at Mercy Ministries? Graduates of secular programs have a history of falling right back into their old habits, and many end up dead or in jail. Meanwhile, graduates of Mercy’s programs have a history of going on to live productive, fulfilling lives.

    Why is that?

    Even if you believe Jesus Christ is not real (or at least not the son of God), you can’t argue that these girls’ faith in Jesus Christ produced very real results.

    Real results, produced by real faith, is evidence of an unseen but very real God.

    Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

    Hebrews 11:1

  20. Neil says:

    Great post.

    The funniest thing about someone like Boies refer to God is the silence that you hear from the “separation” crowd. You know, the ones who accuse you of pushing their religious beliefs on everyone whenever a view you advocate in the public square aligns with your religious views.

    Why isn’t Boies guilty of “forcing” his (transparently false) religious beliefs on people?

    The silence is amusing because it demonstrates that the liberals just use anti-religious bigotry to try and silence their opposition. I have yet to see them complain about pro-gay / pro-abortion churches.

    When I debate non-believers on abortion or oxymoronic “same sex marriage” I never use religious arguments. It is always fun to point that out once they reflexively demonstrate their bigotry and falsely accuse me of doing so.

    Here are some good reminders to use the next time someone accuses you of forcing your religous beliefs on others (it works on the pro-abortionists as well):

    1. That First Amendment thingy. We’re allowed to let our religious views inform our political views whether you like it or not.

    2. My religion tells me that stealing, perjury and murder are also wrong. Do you object to me letting those views inform my political views, or just the views you don’t like?

    3. Lots of churches are pro-gay all the way, such as the UCC and the Episcopals. I don’t recall you objecting to their advancement of the pro-gay cause. Shouldn’t their religious views be hidden from the public dialogue?

    4. You are begging the question and assuming what you should be proving. You claim that we are denying “rights” to gays but you must change the definition of the word in question to draw that conclusion. But the debate is whether to change the word and give them a new right; you cheat and pretend that we’ve already changed the word and given them the right and then insist that we’re denying this existing right. Sadly, pro-gay apologists commit this fallacy so reflexively that I doubt you realize what you are doing.

  21. Neil says:

    If that’s the “evidence” you have for God, then you are wasting your time. This life is all you have bud.

    And the evidence you have for this is . . . .?

  22. Neil says:

    As usual people seem to have missed the point of the post and launched into their fact-free religious bigotry.

    The main point is that the pro-gay fellow introduced God into the equation with what he deemed to be a statement of fact. Therefore, he was claiming God exists and has done certain things. If you don’t think there is a God then you are arguing against Boies.

    The burden of proof is on Boies to demonstrate where he gleaned these “facts” about God and to back them up. If he is attempting to use the Bible then he couldn’t be more wrong.

    100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.

    100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.

    100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).

    0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

    If you say there is no God then you disagree with Boies and his rationale for oxymoronic same-sex marriage. You used the wrong reasons but at least you came to the right conclusion about gay unions.

  23. Neil,

    Thank you for your comments. You make some EXCELLENT points!

    The only suggestion I have for improvement (which, with your permission I will make as an edit) is to the first sentence in the last paragraph of the comment above… I would fix two typos and change it to:

    If you say there is no God then you disagree with Boies and his rationale for oxymoronic same-sex marriage.

  24. Jonah says:

    Hi Neil. I don’t think we’ve met.

    100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.

    What do you mean by this? There are, of course, numerous verses referencing men with several wives, and these men are not all bad. Are you merely pointing out that each “marriage” comprises a man and a woman, though a given person may have multiple marriages? Or is there some verse where God declares polygamy to be less than ideal?

    You probably know a lot more about the Bible than me (which is natural; though I still consider myself a Jew, I don’t actually believe in God), so I’m interested in hearing your responses here. I might learn something yet.

    At any rate, I think this whole discussion about Boies’s use of “God-given” is missing the point. Like “Anno Domini” or “goodbye”, “God-given” is a term lots of us secular types use. Why we choose to use it is another discussion (I think it tends towards the literary rather than the psychological), but the point is that it shouldn’t necessarily be interpreted literally. Simply think of it as a lofty synonym for “innate”, and you’re much less likely to end up on the wrong track.

    And for what it’s worth, I myself am not sure I agree with him. I believe that taste in sexual partners, like taste in food, is both innate and learned. Unlike the latter, I’m not convinced that the former can be changed a la Steingarten (The Man Who Ate Everything is a pretty sweet book, by the way), but I I don’t begrudge so-called “ex-gays” their decision to “give up” homosexuality.

    You claim that we are denying “rights” to gays but you must change the definition of the word in question to draw that conclusion.

    I’ll admit there’s some semantic fuzziness going on here. I haven’t actually been convinced that the marriage debate is anything but semantic fuzziness, to be honest. But in the case of Lawrence v. Texas or hate crimes statutes? Yes, I believe privacy and freedom from violence are rights.

    0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

    They’re also pretty harsh on the menstrual cycle, but I haven’t seen too much concern over that one from the religious right.

  25. Neil says:

    Hi Red Pill — feel free to fix any typos. I usually just let them stand on my blog but whatever you like is fine.

    Hi Jonah — I think you picked up correctly on the word “ideal” in my comment. I think that careful Bible study will demonstrate that is accurate (just see Genesis 1 and 2 for starters). The Bible is a thoroughly honest book in noting all sorts of sins, even of the “heroes” of the faith (e.g., David). That doesn’t mean it approves of the behavior described therein.

    I tend to agree on the innate / learned combo given a precise application of the innate part. Some people have innate characteristics that may seem stereotypically gay but they aren’t gay at all. Others may have those characteristics and are rejected by key relationships because of it (i.e., macho dad mocking sensitive, artistic son).

    I take it you are a cultural Jew and not a religious one. I had many Jewish friends growing up (and have enjoyed reconnecting with them on Facebook). They are virtually all culturally Jewish but not religious at all.

    Peace,
    Neil

  26. Jonah says:

    (just see Genesis 1 and 2 for starters)

    Okay, fair enough. I was sort of hoping for a more explicit reference (Adam and Eve are not literally “married”, are they?), or a specific reference to the ills of polygamy, but you take what you can get.

    I take it you are a cultural Jew and not a religious one.

    More or less, yeah. I was pretty regularly involved with a synagogue growing up (and still am to a lesser extent) and had a bar mitzvah there, but it was a humanistic synagogue. As I explained to curious friends, a common metaphor is that orthodox Judaism is the trunk of a tree, conservative Judaism is the branches, and reform the leaves. In that setting, humanistic Judaism is a swing hanging from a branch: not technically part of the tree, but we’re still connected to it and enjoying the scenery.

    And I know it seems silly, but I’d really like to hear a response to the menstruation thing (Leviticus 18:19, in particular). Since Leviticus 18 is the primary (at least chronologically) source for Biblical condemnation of homosexuality, I’ve never understood why the much sillier condemnation of female biology gets ignored. This may be a tired subject for you, but I haven’t gotten an answer to it before.

    Thanks for indulging me.

    Best,
    Jonah

  27. Neil says:

    That is a fair question about Lev. 18:19 (You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness). I wonder about that as well. It is the only verse in Lev. 18 that seems out of place. The others all relate to sins that are obviously universal.

    Do you recall any teachings on that one from when you were growing up?

    I analyzed Lev. 18 in detail in flaws of the shellfish argument but that is one verse I need to research more.

    Hey, maybe that is one of the pro-woman verses, as in God expected all men, both Jews and Gentiles, to give women a break once a month ;-) .

  28. Jonah says:

    Do you recall any teachings on that one from when you were growing up?

    Hah. My congregation was founded by a gay rabbi. We didn’t spend all that much time talking about Leviticus 18.

    Hey, maybe that is one of the pro-woman verses, as in God expected all men, both Jews and Gentiles, to give women a break once a month ;-) .

    I know you meant this in jest, but I’d be a poor feminist if I failed to point out that this is a strongly anti-woman passage. First because it regards normal biology as “uncleanliness”, but more strikingly because it treats sex as something initiated solely by men, with women as unwilling participants, rather than the mutually consensual act that it should be. The fact that the Bible treats the former as ideal is one of the reasons I have trouble putting faith in its words. To that end, my best guess is that Leviticus 18 was simply written by people who didn’t understand biology as much as we do today.

    I think you’ll like my second-best guess more: it’s an early condemnation of calendar-based birth control. It’s not entirely accurate (the lowest chance of conception occurs, as I understand, just before menstruation), but it’s reasonably close. It would also be rather funny if this were true, as such methods were the only accepted form of birth control by the Catholic Church for a long time. And I’m sure one could have a field day with the idea of the Bible condemning a method that wasn’t discovered by man until several thousand years later, but I’ll leave that part to you.

  29. Neil says:

    That’s an interesting thought on the calendar-based birth control, and it would be ironic indeed if true!

    To that end, my best guess is that Leviticus 18 was simply written by people who didn’t understand biology as much as we do today.

    Well, aside from begging the question about the ultimate author of scripture, the writer knew that life was in the blood. And, among other things, he knew that there were a fantastically high number of stars (analogous to the number of grains of sand), whereas most ancients even thousands of years after that thought there was just over 1,000. The Bible is not a science textbook but it gets very “lucky” when addressing such things as those and the Big Bang.

  30. Jonah says:

    I wouldn’t say I was “begging the question” per se, as it was stated as a guess. You and I both know that the traditional understanding for logical fallacies quickly falls apart when one is discussing religion. By its very nature, faith runs into conflict with the language of proof and logic. See Math’s invocation of argument from ignorance above, for instance: is not that fallacy exactly what faith is?

    And, among other things, he knew that there were a fantastically high number of stars (analogous to the number of grains of sand), whereas most ancients even thousands of years after that thought there was just over 1,000.

    Interesting argument, and again one I hadn’t heard before. Mind pointing me to the verse(s) in question?

    I’ve enjoyed this dialogue. Even though your views are similar to Red’s, I like that you’ve refrained from rehashing old points in favor of showing me genuinely new ones (or new to me, at least). Perhaps you’ll see me in the comments section of your own blog some time.

  31. Neil says:

    Re. stars — Here’s one of the spots: Genesis 22:17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore.

    For more see http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/stars-sand-and-how-to-read-the-bible/

    I concede that some Christians are sloppy with their use of the term “faith,” but I disagree with the notion that faith runs into conflict with proof and logic. That is not the biblical definition of faith at all. See the book of Acts, for example, which has 13 presentations of the Gospel. None point to blind faith. All point to evidence and logic.

    The Bible applauds the use of reason.

    I saw this quote by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason this morning: “Why consider faith and reason at odds? The opposite of faith is unbelief, not reason. The opposite of reason is not faith, but irrationality.”

    BTW, I think you’d like their site (www.str.org and podcast). You will probably disagree with their conclusions but they are very clear thinking and winsome in their approach.

    Feel free to visit my site (though I’m not here to pimp traffic and apologize to Red for all the links — I want to respond more thoroughly but I’m in the middle of moving (ack!) and am kinda stressed and taking blogging shortcuts). I like opposing views and dialogue and we get plenty of that, but I much prefer people with your tone vs. the shrill Dawkins / Hitchens types (not that they visit, but a self-described “raiding party” from Dawkins site visited once and it wasn’t terribly productive).

    All the best,

    Neil

  32. Jonah says:

    I don’t mean to suggest that religion is inherently illogical, and I certainly wouldn’t refer to them as opposites. But wouldn’t you agree that when we make decisions about whether we believe God does or does not exist, we aren’t acting with the same rigor as one would with mathematical proof? Deductive arguments are the ones for which logical terminology is usually reserved. Inductive or empirical reasoning generally falls short.

  33. Neil says:

    I guess I’d say we use the same rigor but with different kinds of evidence.

  34. Feel free to visit my site (though I’m not here to pimp traffic and apologize to Red for all the links…

    No need to apologize, Neil… I enjoy your contributions here, and have no issue with you linking back to more detailed posts on the subject matter on your own blog. You are responding to questions, not “pimping” your site.

  35. The destruction of the institution of marriage is a common objective of many of those who rebel against God and His Word. For example, it is one of the Communist Goals:

    #40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

    I have independently verified, via a law school library, that the above is in fact shown in the 109 Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s