I have to chuckle whenever I here about new government programs because those in government often only see the short term effect of what they are doing. For instance, “cash for clunkers,” while supposedly great for the environment, was not great for the used car industry! The current debate between Greg and Dan is a similar example in that they  seem to be arguing over whether or not the destruction of marriage was intentional or not. While Greg and Dan continue to debate over whether or not Dan is a functionalist, I would argue that the death of marriage was not an intended result of the last forty or so years of government policies on marriage but it was the result.

Functionalism would  render what the government thought it was doing as irrelevant, but it is relevant. I’m not entirely sure that the government intended to kill marriage with lose policies anymore than they intended to reward marriage financially. What may have been well intentioned had unintended results. I have the same compassion for our government thinking it was helping that I do for natives who think dancing brings rain. What we need to be careful of is not becoming natives ourselves and assuming that government can bring marriage back. In the given climate, we might have a better chance dancing for rain.

And yet, given all that we have discussed on this blog, that does not mean that we can simply sit back and do nothing. Government policies should not be our only strategy for restoring marriage to its correct place. However, we cannot ignore government policies either. Government interaction should be part of our efforts, but we need to have reasonable expectations. It needs to be a piece, not the whole. As Greg said earlier, government is not culture, but it is a part of culture. Thus, it must be part of what we do.

Marriage may be dead, or at least in its death throes, but as Maggie Gallagher of the National Review has reminded us, we can’t stop trying to revive traditional marriage. We just need to remember that government policies are just part of a successful method of cultural change.

The Pastor in me simply cannot contain itself anymore. I have to speak to this issue of the homosexual mindset.

In one of the most used scriptures in the book of Romans, the Apostle Paul speaks about homosexuality at the end of chapter 1, verses 18-32. While this passage has been used to declare that homosexuality is wrong (which is certainly taught by these verses), we forget Romans 2:1 where Paul says “you, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” A shocking statement since I am not a homosexual.

But Paul’s point is that I AM a homosexual. Paul chose homosexuality because it is the most obvious outworking of a selfish way of thinking that wants what is wants regardless of what God says. In fact, it rejects God and the truth for what it wants–to worship and serve itself. And Paul is saying that we are all homosexual in thought and philosophy if not in practice.

Nowhere is this more visible than in the current state of heterosexual marriage in this country. We stand and condemn gay marriage while at the same time allowing a degradation of heterosexual marriage in no-fault divorce, wanton adultery, abuse, abandonment, and the like. Regardless of what our political institutions may declare about gay marriage in the future, we have a real self-worship problem in our society and in our heterosexual marriages.

Many previous posters have pointed out this problem, that gay marriage is simply the end, not the source of the problem. Our selfish, self-worshipping, self-seeking mentality is the problem and we see this played out in the current state of all marriages. We want what we want when we want it.  Why then are we so shocked when homosexuals do the same thing? We have the same thought pattern!

Paul’s words in Romans 1 are not a declaration that homosexuality is wrong. That is actually assumed by his words. Rather, he is accusing us all of being homosexuals, even if we are in heterosexual marriages!

We live in a society that does not simply legislate marital relationships but rewards them. Married couples in this country file taxes together, receive social security benefits, and can be insured together. The United States government should not be viewed as a  ‘sex police,’ what the government is involved in is granting legal and financial recognition to marital relationships. The intent is not meant to create incentives for marriage but to financially assist married couples. The unintended result, though, is that one is rewarded for being married, a reward that gay couples would like to benefit from as well.

The opposite has happened in Australia where the tax code actually hurts married couples. I’m afraid I have no data other than reports of missionaries to that country who state that even couples in the church do not seek legal marriages because of the financial repercussions. Instead, they simply cohabitate. Was this the goal of the Australian government? Probably not. Was the United States trying to encourage marriage? I don’t think so, but in attempts to financially assist couples who got married they indirectly rewarded and incentivized marriage.

Consider that tax credit for children. Is this fair to those couples who do not have children? Probably not. However, childless couples do not have the financial expenditures that couples with children do. The government was not attempting to reward couples with children as much as to financially assist them.

This seems to be the issue at the heart of the gay marriage question. Should gay couples receive the same financial breaks and rewards as non-gay marriages. What Dan and Greg seem to be suggesting is that government institutions are rewarding marriages because marriages are good for society, but I’m not sure that this is the government’s way of thinking. I’m guessing that the government has simply made a tax decision unrelated to anything other than financial assistance.

The real political question is really whether or not gay couples need financial assistance and tax breaks like other married couples. Social security benefits support one person if a spouse dies so as to assist with the loss of child care, home care, etc., not loss of wages. A gay couple has no need of this support because they normally do not have children and the loss of one partner does not have a huge impact on the other financially. From a pure economic perspective, the issue of gay marriage should not really be one of reward, but of necessity. Do gay couples need assistance? I think not.

Our conversation has been focused upon the morality, social expediency, and such of marriage and gay marriage. Gay marriage has become a discussion of agendas. It seems that the real question for fiscal policy should be why gay couples need a financial benefit. You don’t here me demanding I should get social security?!

Dan Kelly’s fantastic post raises an important issue about the role of government in legislating morality. There is a marked difference between government passing moral laws and government passing laws to create a moral swing in a particular direction. It is ironic that conservatives decry ‘activist’ judges when they are liberal, but then expect judges to legislate morality even when it goes against public opinion. While in some cases this can be applauded, such as prohibiting murder even if public opinion is in favor of it, conservatives often place too much faith in their government to enforce certain morals. Dan’s post on gay marriage is an excellent example. The issue is not government’s decision about gay marriage but the moral climate of this country that has neglected the institution of marriage. A government prohibition of gay marriage is not going to suddenly cause people to respect marriage. However, a culture that does respect marriage would be expected to prohibit gay marriage. Christians and conservatives (not necessarily the same thing) should realize that political activism is insufficient to bring about cultural change. In most cases, cultural change leads to political change, not vice versa. The work of upholding marriage takes place over the backyard fence, not Washington. Greg, I think someone should write a book on how we really change culture.

Saying “do justice” to a judge is almost as dangerous as saying “be moral,” take for instance the ongoing homosexual marriage debate that is raging in our country. Gay marriage is a rather important debate, even perhaps a watershed issue, because it is contrary to a morality which many in our nation adhere to while at the same time being decided by political institutions. Many Americans view homosexuality as inherently immoral, while political powers seek not to determine the morality of the issue but the financial and legal ramifications of its acceptance.

For the political institutions of our country, the issue is not one of morality but one of popularity and legality. The internet is abuzz with the news that recent polls reveal several states may be ready to legally approve gay marriage and overturn recent bans. But what does that do to moral consensus? Does a populist approval of a practice mean that the moral consensus is that homosexuality is not immoral? Is it popular vote that determines what is and is not moral consensus?

This is perhaps one of the largest challenges in establishing moral consensus because what is popular is not always moral. It was once popular to hold Africans as slaves and drown suspected witches and it is still popular to kill unwanted unborn children. Neither popularity nor politics determine morality, nor should they attempt to do so. While we would wish that politicians recognized certain behaviors as immoral in making their decisions, they should not see their decisions as affecting the morality of an issue. Legalized behavior may still be immoral, as much as moral behavior may be against the law of the land.

So what does all of this do to moral consensus? First, all of this means that it is necessary to determine the group of people with whom we are attempting consensus. Universal acceptance of a given statement of morality is highly unlikely. We cannot have consensus with everyone, but we should not limit the group to people we already agree with or we risk tunnel vision. For instance, our view of the immorality of gay marriage may cause us to overlook the fact that it is quite odd for the government to give tax incentives to people who own a thirty dollar marriage license. We are not creating a cloister but attempting to create change in America. This necessitates other people from different viewpoints being involved.

Second, popular vote may be reflective of moral thought, but people need to be taught that morality and popularity are not the same thing. Most people have no foundation for morality other than popularity. In order to consensus to be reached, moral foundations must at least be similar or of the same genre, such as the belief that moral absolutes do exist. Rather than simply finding the people with similar foundations, foundations can and should be taught in order to create consensus.

Third, in order for moral consensus to have an affect, it must affect the masses and politics. True, politics should not attempt to dictate what is moral. However, the dictates of true politics should be moral. Moral consensus cannot be established to give elites something to brag about or be held in a cultural vacuum. Rather, moral consensus must make an impact upon political institutions in order to cause laws and guidelines which are moral.

The next few years will be an interesting glance into American morality and the political system as Americans attempt to argue the morality or immorality of a political question. Should our country financially recognize an immoral lifestyle? And if it does, what does the task of moral consensus look like when it is in the popular minority.