Gay “Marriage”: Autonomy, Yes! God, No!

creation, creator, creature, genesis

 

creation, creator, creature, genesis

First, a little background. When we look back to our country’s founding, we take pride in the reasons for its formation; a “bad king” and his parliament that exercised their power improperly within the American Colonies. Because of these acts of omission and commission from the isolation of 3,000 miles away from London, anger began to develop.

Full of Righteous Anger

We gave our reasons for the anger in the Declaration of Independence document:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

This dissent from the centuries long, well established, monarchist way of life in Europe turned into war and then into victory. It was a dissent from the centralized power far away. We did not like many, many things the ruling class imposed and they were listed in the declaration.

How Did We Justify Revolution?

Armed rebellion is and was a drastic way to exempt a people from the laws that were enacted by a legitimate body of legislators. A body that refused to amend it’s goals. Absolute rule throughout history often rested with a single person, but since the Magna Charta’s first signing there was a hint that lowly individuals should have more importance in the grand scheme of nations and principalities.

The leaders that formulated our Declaration of Independence could have just said something like:

We just don’t like what you have done. We are very angry with you so we are declaring ourselves independent from you. 

True, but a rather weak statement at the time. Not much to use when trying to sway a superior power or deny its control over you. It is a statement only declaring the personal autonomy of a group. There is absolutely no authority behind this appeal alone to give it any power. After all, parliaments and kings, or some kind of governing leadership, is necessary to keep the peace and provide protection and well being to a people. A structure was in place for the colonies and many believed it was sufficient.

How could the existing structure of ordered civilization trying to balance needs and wants possibly please everyone?

What is Autonomy?

According to the  Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, autonomy is:

Put most simply, to be autonomous is to be one’s own person, to be directed by considerations, desires, conditions, and characteristics that are not simply imposed externally upon one, but are part of what can somehow be considered one’s authentic self.

The central figure in promoting the moral and personal autonomy of individuals was Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) whose body of work conincides with our late colonial and revolutionary time period, but not yet fully analyzed and determined to be a concept greater in authority than God himself, as it has become today.

The justification for rebellion appealed to a human design by our Creator and His laws:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,…

Then gave them another shot of a higher power with this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…

Fast Forword to June 26, 2015 A.D.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has decided in Obergefell v. Hodges (linked with cases from three other states) that homosexual “marriage” will be allowed (under the law) in all 50-states. This ruling is a dramatic change in human interaction since the beginning of humanity, following a trend that started in 2001 in the Netherlands. This order has behind it the ability to force compliance by use of arms within the United States.

It was the result of a decision by ONE justice. If any one of the majority had voted the other way the opposite decision would have been reached. It was a tie breaking vote symbolizing the split in the country as a whole.

Why Decide This Way?

The majority decision itself tells us. Although it takes about 37 pages out of 103 in the entire document, we can distill the essential reasoning. The complaint was that homosexuals were excluded from marriage in violation of the 14th amendment to our constitution. The applicable section states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (emphases mine)

Then the court applied this reasoning to that amendment:

The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy…Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make…This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation. (emphases mine)

Therefore, the case basically rests on the authority of the individual to marry based on their own autonomous desire to do so. This desire cannot be denied by requiring the marriage partner to be of a specific gender.

Why Not Appeal to God for His Authority?

Because His authority will not support this cause. It has become enough to appeal to autonomy in moral questions because the worship of autonomy alone has given it this power. God is not needed both in law and morality we have found a more appealing way.

There are only two places where God is mentioned in this entire document and they both are in Justice Thomas’ dissenting opinion:

Our Constitution—like the Declaration of Independence before it—was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty, not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded from—not provided by—the State. Today’s decision casts that truth aside. In its haste to reach a desired result, the majority misapplies a clause focused on “due process” to afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible understanding of the “liberty” protected by that clause, and distorts the principles on which this Nation was founded. Its decision will have inestimable consequences for our Constitution and our society.

We, as a new nation recognized our nature under God, are being given the special charge of marriage to produce and raise a family. Justification in this case rests solely on a desire that cannot be supported by an appeal for any historical support. Desire has become the paramount “right” that has no foundation except for desire itself. A circle of faulty reasoning that locks out God from any credit for creation hence also proper use of our bodies.

Autonomy has become our God.

How do I know?

The Supreme Court of the United States said so!

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on google
Google+
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on pinterest
Pinterest

30 thoughts on “Gay “Marriage”: Autonomy, Yes! God, No!”

  1. Now we call evil good and good evil. If you don’t you better shut up or you will be silenced. Canada
    legalized same-sex “marriage” 10 years ago and now it’s a hate crime to say or
    write anything critical of it. You can be brought before a Tribunal and fined…Coming
    soon to a country near you.

    Yes, some of us laugh at the antics of vice on
    parade. “But as we laugh we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond:
    and on these faces there is no smile… When
    our Lord vanishes from the household shrines of the West, the drums are muted
    and men worship abstractions — as they do today — new idols. But behind them
    there is an awful power, and it is not of this world.” Hilaire Belloc, The Barbarian
    http://www.catholicforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14432-Hilaire-Belloc-Defender-of-the-Faith

    1. This rabbi understands our place in creation. His warning is also a Catholic warning because it is derived from the same source.

      Pushback must be applied relentlessly until our leaders, including appointed ones, become once again conscious of their place in creation. Understanding starts with an appreciation of history which should then drive the conscience to abhor through example, self elevation.

    2. Don’t be fooled by this guy, H.L., he’s a darling of the Jim Bakker televangelist
      Day Star show(man) who has a 1 800 number scrolling under his name as he trolls
      for $$$. His shtick is to milk end time signs and wonders and package them to
      the mostly bible thumpin’ audience who believe in seed pledges that Jesus promises
      to pay the donor back in spades.

    3. I caught his reference to Jesus as messiah, not very Jewish. But, his warning carries the same message that I try and bring here. I am not a personality follower in this matter.

      Anyone who recognizes the destruction that occurs when we human beings elevate ourselves above a higher power is a welcome voice. As I alluded to, he paraphrases Catholic teaching.

    4. He’s part of the ‘Jews for Jesus’ generation and I laud the bridge he tries to
      build, the gap between Judaism and Christianity. This mess won’t be understood for at least 50 years and either it will end in ruin or mediocrity. Off to the garden
      on a beautiful summer day. Take care.

    5. He is about 2,000 years to late. But you know the old saying, “Better late than never.”

      Your garden can be a wonderful refuge. Enjoy it.

    6. I have to correct myself. Jesus was certainly Jewish and the Christ. When we think of Judaism today we tend to only refer to the nonbelievers that continued from those days.

    7. This rabbi cuts right to the core. I would like to hear this kind of speech from some of our pulpits sometimes.

  2. The job of SCOTUS, whether we agree with the outcome or not, is to decide cases of merit on the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution with all its amendments does nor ever mention or reference God. The authority of our government flows from the people. It is government for the people, by the people (even though we all know government is under the authority of corporate entities). 63% of Americans favor gay marriage, we the people….civil government does not rely on anyone’s conception of God. It simply relies on the Constitution and how 9 old men and women interpret it.

    1. The Constitution does mention God – “Year of Our Lord;” but nowhere in it are the words “separation of church and state”.

    2. A,D, is a convention to communicate the fact that the year is post Christ birth…it’s a numerical convention, even used by atheists. It is now C.E. I never stated that the Constitution spoke to the wall of separation…various court decisions do! Blame Jefferson for that phrase in his letter to the Anabaptists!

    3. Phil-I am and have been offended by those who sought to change the age old use of AD to CE. Very offended. Not all Jews etc would be offended by CE = Christ Era; but you can bet that the loud public ones offended would carry the day. This false ideology of “offense” [and the trojan horse of “bullying”] is what was used to stifle the truth about so many things, including perversions, that are now to some “the law of the land.” Freedom of speech has been flushed so that those who would proclaim truth can be silenced and so that there is no debate in which the truth can be made known. I will continue with BCE = Before Crhist’s Era and CE – Christ’s Era. In fact, this is true. Guy McClung

    4. You’re welcome. May I please have a map to your 40 acres for when everything goes to heck – I will bring my own toilet paper and sardines.

    5. I am afraid that I have promised my optimum population density already, many two-by-two, but if you change your offer to smoked oysters from sardines I may reconsider.

    6. Not out of the question. It depends on if a majority of the court is ready to use their unique form of “Right Identification”. This may have been derived from some sort of Voodoo ceremony. Maybe using VooDoo sticks and seeing what happens when they converge. Or, sort of like a Ouija board spelling out new rights.

      “In any particular case one Clause may be thought to capture the essence of the right in a more accurate and comprehensive way, even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.”

    7. The Court doesn’t even define what marriage is now. Children are not a big part of the decision, nor is permanence or monogamy. Al Kresta says that it appears that marriage is now whatever the adult presenters say it is.

    8. I am afraid you are wrong here. The majority opinion relied on as supposed right. If it did not come from our government then the only other place it could have come from is God, as was declared initially and as all our basic rights were recognized to come form. Because we want something does not make it a right it makes it reverence for autonomy.

      Where have you been Phil, haven’t had your dissent for a while?

    9. Relied on the 14th amendment, equal protection clause. It came from a consititutional interpretation; as in government rights come from the We the people. I have been here, mostly on the gay marriage debate but spending more time with my son who never does well in warm weather,,,percussions, nebulizing, suctioning, etc. I’ll try harder to work on dissent, but there are too many Republicans in the race to battle their ideas. It’s an all consuming project. Hope you are well!!!!

    10. Justice Thomas and I disagree with you in part.

      “the majority misapplies a clause focused on “due process” to afford substantive rights,”

      Right cannot be taken away because of the equal protection clause of the same amendment. But, a right has to exist first. That is where due process clause comes in. The court was not commissioned to create rights.

    11. I will ignore your ad hominem attack. Then believe the majority opinion. I assume you agree with them.

      “The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs”.

      Notice the use of the word autonomy.

    12. Actually, I believe in prayer in terms of sending the energy of the universe for healing…so it’s welcome…energy heals and maintains the life force. Thanks…

    13. Here’s the latest…the problem with the SCOTUS decision is that it legalizes gay marriage but doe not ban discrimination against gays in housing, employment, etc. It’s. in my opinion, the right decision, but poorly written.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *