Well Played

In the clamor over the debate about what marriage is and what it should be and whether or not it's time to redefine it or even whether or not we are seeking to redefine it (because it would appear that no one before the court is arguing that we are; they're just arguing that everyone should have "it"), I've noticed the absence of a line of discussion. Have you?

In my examination of the alternate view of 1 Cor 6:9, I was comparing translations for the phrase, "homosexuals" (or the like). I came across one from the Weymouth New Testament which said, "any who are guilty of unnatural crime." The Weymouth New Testament was published back in 1903 to be "a succint and compressed running commentary". And Richard Weymouth, the translator, classified "homosexual behavior" as "unnatural".

Now, now, Richard, tut, tut! We are not going there. We are not to discuss this! The question is not whether it is "unnatural". Indeed, the question is not even if it is immoral. The question is can we have it?

Have you noticed? No one is appealing to the Supreme Court regarding Natural Law and the immorality of homosexual behavior, let alone the biblical morality of it. Indeed, everyone knows that the Bible is opposed to the behavior. We're just not allowed to talk about it. Well, sure, we can talk about it, but it is not permitted in the public square. "Moral" is not a question we're allowed to discuss, and never in terms of Christianity.

I suppose it's to be expected, but I suspect that most people won't like the outcome. The collateral damage could very easily be extensive. The law of unintended consequences is sure to come into play here. Consider this.
At the top of the Supreme Court of the United States there is an image carved dead center. It is Moses holding the Ten Commandments. The obvious message? Moses and the Ten Commandments are at the center of our legal system. Indeed, the premise upon which our rights are based is a "Creator" who has given all humans inalienable rights. We all assume humans are valuable, but that isn't based on the god of the public square -- Science -- but on the biblical argument that humans are made in the image of God. Science alone would tell us that humans are another animal species that deserves neither more nor less value than your average everyday squirrel. Property rights, laws against theft, assumptions about "good" and "evil", so very much of our society is constructed on the back of Judeo-Christian values. But today they're not allowed out in public to determine values that will hold our society together.

Morality is dead; long live ... what? What are we allowed to replace it with? I'm pretty sure that those who would prevent us from discussing the question in terms of morality would not be willing to fail to discuss the morality of stealing their wallets or shooting their children. Those are immoral! Don't touch those! So we're required to drop morality and explicitly biblical morality when it offends them but retain it with a vengeance when they like it. I'm not so sure it's a position that can remain very long. Are they willing to give up Thanksgiving and Christmas? Will we do away with weekends since those were primarily established for Jews and Christians to have their day of worship? Will society acquiesce to allowing polygamy, polyamory, or other relationships, agreeing that a ban was just a carryover from Christianity? How far will we go?

Still, here we are, me included, debating the definition of marriage from a purely rational and historical position without any reference to "natural relationships" or "immoral behavior" because that has been banned. The courts won't hear it. The public won't hear it. We're not going there. I don't know how the courts will rule on the question, but I can say that the "gay rights" crowd have made a victory here that most of us haven't noticed. We're no longer discussing what's right and now discussing what we can tolerate. Well played, gay rights advocates, well played.