Monday, March 14, 2005

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

California (well at least San Francisco) has taken the first step in redefining marriage. I hate to say this, but we should expect this kind of thing now-a-days. When no higher law than the majority opinion exists, there is really no meaningful argument against redefining marriage. In the name of "Separation of Church and State," all references to God will be removed--this definition of marriage between one man and one woman is just the most recent reference to be challenged. These last few testimonies to our great heritage in Christianity must be torn down, and in its place we'll erect magnificent towers to Humanism. Men must worship something. If it isn't the true God, then it might as well be men.

The liberals will say this is just natural progression of civil rights. A quote from the article:
Nevertheless, the plaintiffs and their lawyers said Kramer's ruling was a milestone for California, akin to the 1948 state Supreme Court decision that made California the first state in the nation to legalize interracial marriage.

The difference here is that God has not said that interracial marriage was wrong, so this was good to strike down laws that burden men more than the Law of God (Someone extrapolating the laws about Israel marrying Gentiles to this law has missed the New Testament. What God forbids is not interracial marriage, but really inter-religious marriage--but that is another subject). On the other hand, much is said about homosexuality (I’ll let you search for the references on the vast Internet yourself). It worries me when we think we know better than God.

The sadistic side of me likes some of the rulings regarding the responsibility of debt, etc. that have been applied to same-sex unions though.
Since Jan. 1, same-sex couples registering as domestic partners in California are granted virtually all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, including access to divorce courts, the ability to collect child support and the responsibility for a partner's debts.

People that live in blatant sin are not likely to respect other moral laws either. They are likely to indulge in risky behavior--at least this responsibility will make them pay a bit more for their actions.

Perhaps the appeal will work though. The groups opposing gay marriage have a good argument:
Two groups opposed to gay marriage rights, The Campaign for California Families and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, argued that the state has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples as a way of encouraging procreation.

This is of course a major part of God’s definition of marriage.

I’m not really known to be an optimistic person (as those who actually know me can attest to), but overall I think there is cause for hope here. Psalm 11 doesn’t end with verse 3 and the answer it provides to its own question is not what you would expect. The Psalmists assumes that the condition proposed by the question will never come to pass. The foundations can’t be destroyed because God is still on his throne!
Psalm 11:3-7
If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?
The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD's throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men. The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup. For the righteous LORD loveth righteousness; his countenance doth behold the upright.


At 5:28 PM, Blogger Ecthelion said...

another thing to add to the worries - i expect that you must be legally married to adopt from a lot of institutions, and if gay marriage comes to be, they're going to be picking up adoptable children like hot cakes. i fear for the next generation if that's what things come to! may God's kingdom come quickly!


Post a Comment

<< Home