BreakPoint with Charles Colson
Commentary #040524 - 5/24/2004
Free-for-All: How Same-Sex 'Marriage' Is Breaking Down the Rule of Law

The same-sex "marriages" taking place in Massachusetts are a perfect example

of the breakdown of the rule of law in our society. Not only did the courts
rebuff the legislature and ignore the will of the people in imposing same-sex
"marriage" in Massachusetts, but their example has also encouraged disregard

for the legal process all across the state among other Massachusetts government
officials.

Before the same-sex "marriage" law took effect, Governor Mitt Romney
announced
that same-sex couples from other states would not be allowed to marry in
Massachusetts, since their marriages wouldn't be legal in their home states.
But in several cities, officials who believe that Romney's stance is
"discriminatory" are marrying out-of-state couples anyway. The WASHINGTON
POST
reports, "Romney has threatened legal consequences against clerks who do not
follow his guidelines. He said licenses issued to out-of-state couples would
be 'null and void,' a stance that is expected to be challenged in court."

To his credit Governor Romney is following the law and obeying the court when
the court handed down a judicial coup d'etat, basically by a 4 to 3 vote
telling the legislature it had to enact same-sex "marriage" statutes. Then
when the legislature passed a constitutional amendment against same-sex
"marriage," which cannot take effect until 2006, the court refused to stay
its order. That's judicial tyranny, and though it must have hurt the governor
and the legislature, coequal branches of government, they obeyed the law --
not so across the state of Massachusetts with the clerks, however.

What they are doing is very much like what happened a few months ago when
the mayor of San Francisco issued same-sex "marriage" licenses in direct
violation of state law. It's also like what county officials in Benton County,
Oregon, have been doing since March. They're refusing to grant any marriage
licenses because, again, they believe that allowing only heterosexuals to
marry is discriminatory.

As I said at the time of the San Francisco debacle, when government officials
won't uphold the rule of law, a nation begins to slide into anarchy. The mayor
broke the law because he thought it was "wrong" and discriminatory. Well, if

we all broke laws simply on that basis, how long would this country survive?

It's true that some Christians have practiced civil disobedience in cases where
they believed the law to be wrong. But there's a difference: Those Christians
believed in a higher law given by God and believed that the particular law they
were disobeying went against that higher law. They weren't single-handedly
trying to create and enforce new laws based on their own personal ideas of
right and wrong.

What we're seeing in Massachusetts and across the country is the result of a
postmodern rejection of truth. If there is no transcendent moral law, and all
laws are subject solely to human whim, then what's to stop people in positions
of power from making up the law as they go along? As we continue to flout that
higher moral law in this country by adopting practices like same-sex
"marriage,"
I think we're about to find out just how dangerous it can be to live in the
middle of chaos. We need a Federal Marriage Amendment now.

For printer-friendly version, visit
<a href='http://msg1svc.net/servlet/Gateway?p=pfm&u=2830&et=T&s=100708' target='_blank'>http://msg1svc.net/servlet/Gateway?p=pfm&u...0&et=T&s=100708</a> and simply click
on Today's Commentary at the top of the homepage. The printer-friendly link is
on the left-hand column.

Copyright &copy; 2004 Prison Fellowship THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT.
THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. "BreakPoint with
Chuck Colson" is a daily commentary on news and trends from a Christian
perspective. Heard on more than 1000 radio outlets nationwide, BreakPoint
transcripts are also available on the Internet. BreakPoint is a production
of The Wilberforce Forum, a division of Prison Fellowship: 1856 Old Reston
Avenue, Reston, VA 20190.

FURTHER READING & INFORMATION
David Crary, "Same-Sex Couples Marry in Massachusetts," Associated Press,
18 May 2004.
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20040518/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...us/gay_marriage</a>


Jonathan Finer, "Gay Couples Line Up for Mass. Marriages," WASHINGTON POST,
17 May 2004.
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31655-2004May16.html' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004May16.html</a>

Pam Belluck and Warren St. John, "With Festive Mood, Gay Weddings Begin in
Massachusetts," NEW YORK TIMES, 17 May 2004. Free registration required.
<a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/17/national/17CND-GAYS.html?pagewanted=1' target='_blank'>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/17/national...ml?pagewanted=1</a>

David D. Kirkpatrick, "Backers of Gay Marriage Find Tepid Response in Pews,"

NEW YORK TIMES, 16 May 2004. Free registration required.
<a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/16/national/16MARR.html?th' target='_blank'>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/16/national.../16MARR.html?th</a>

"Mayor defends same-sex marriages," CNN.com, 22 February 2004.
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/22/same.sex/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/22/same.sex/</a>

BreakPoint Commentary No. 040517, "Follow the Leader?: Same-Sex 'Marriage,'
Massachusetts, and the Rest of Us."
<a href='http://www.pfm.org/BPtemplate.cfm?Section=BreakPoint_Commentaries1&CONTENTID=12460&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm' target='_blank'>http://www.pfm.org/BPtemplate.cfm?Section=...tentDisplay.cfm</a>


BreakPoint Commentary No. 040226, "An Epidemic of Lawbreaking: San Francisco's
Gay 'Marriages.'"
<a href='http://www.pfm.org/Content/ContentGroups/BreakPoint/BreakPoint_Commentaries/20041/February1/An_Epidemic_of_Lawbreaking.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.pfm.org/Content/ContentGroups/B...Lawbreaking.htm</a>


BreakPoint Commentary No. 031119, "Leave It to the Courts: Judicial Power and
the Redefinition of Marriage."
<a href='http://www.pfm.org/Content/ContentGroups/BreakPoint/BreakPoint_Commentaries/20031/November_2003/Leave_It_to_the_Courts.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.pfm.org/Content/ContentGroups/B..._the_Courts.htm</a>


BreakPoint Commentary No. 030117, "Fighting Unjust Laws."
<a href='http://www.pfm.org/Content/ContentGroups/BreakPoint/BreakPoint_Commentaries/20031/January_2003/Fighting_Unjust_Laws.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.pfm.org/Content/ContentGroups/B...Unjust_Laws.htm</a>


Call 1-877-3-CALLBP to request the complimentary Marriage Amendment information
packet.

Also available is the BreakPoint's "Speak the Truth in Love" resource kit
($25),
which includes CDs, booklets, articles, and more to help you speak effectively
and compassionately on the issue of homosexuality and marriage.
<a href='http://www.pfm.org/Template.cfm?Section=Browse_by_Category1&Template=/Ecommerce/ProductDisplay.cfm&ProductID=294' target='_blank'>http://www.pfm.org/Template.cfm?Section=Br...m&ProductID=294</a>


See BreakPoint's resource page on the sanctity of marriage.
<a href='http://www.pfm.org/BPTemplate.cfm?Section=Issues_and_Research_Pages&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=81&ContentID=12175' target='_blank'>http://www.pfm.org/BPTemplate.cfm?Section=...ContentID=12175</a>


Mitch Muncy, ed., THE END OF DEMOCRACY? (Spence, 1997).
<a href='http://www.pfm.org/BPtemplate.cfm?Section=PF_Store&template=/Ecommerce/ProductDisplay.cfm&ProductID=210' target='_blank'>http://www.pfm.org/BPtemplate.cfm?Section=...m&ProductID=210</a>

DrTorch Wrote:It's true that some Christians have practiced civil disobedience in cases where
they believed the law to be wrong. But there's a difference: Those Christians
believed in a higher law given by God and believed that the particular law they
were disobeying went against that higher law. They weren't single-handedly
trying to create and enforce new laws based on their own personal ideas of
right and wrong.

What we're seeing in Massachusetts and across the country is the result of a
postmodern rejection of truth. If there is no transcendent moral law, and all
laws are subject solely to human whim, then what's to stop people in positions
of power from making up the law as they go along? As we continue to flout that
higher moral law in this country by adopting practices like same-sex
"marriage,"
I think we're about to find out just how dangerous it can be to live in the
middle of chaos. We need a Federal Marriage Amendment now.

You know, you had me until right there. See, I agree that laws need to upheld and adhered to, and that unconstitutional laws need to be ruled as such by the judiciary. I also believe that just because it's in the constitution, it doesn't mean that it's a good idea - see prohibition and the need to repeal it.

But if you're going to argue about laws and upholding them, you can't tell me that Christians can adhere to the ones they want simply because they believe in a higher law. That's bull, and that's what this country was supposed to be founded on - freedom of religion and the separation of religion from the government.

Of course laws have some moral beginnings to them in many cases - it doesn't take much to recognize that killing someone infringes on their rights. But allowing a gay couple the same legal protections of insurance, pensions, social security, etc as heterosexual couples is quite a different issue - your God may have told you that it is wrong, but my God (or lack thereof - remember, we're all supposed to be equal here) good give a rip about the makeup of a legal couple is.

My Catholic upbringing taught me to be compassionate and serve the needy, not ***** about them being freeloading welfare abusers. It's the disconnect between what is taught and how those taught act that drove me away from the catholic church. There's too much use of religion when it is convenient for my taste.

HuskieDan Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:It's true that some Christians have practiced civil disobedience in cases where
they believed the law to be wrong. But there's a difference: Those Christians
believed in a higher law given by God and believed that the particular law they
were disobeying went against that higher law. They weren't single-handedly
trying to create and enforce new laws based on their own personal ideas of
right and wrong.

What we're seeing in Massachusetts and across the country is the result of a
postmodern rejection of truth. If there is no transcendent moral law, and all
laws are subject solely to human whim, then what's to stop people in positions
of power from making up the law as they go along? As we continue to flout that
higher moral law in this country by adopting practices like same-sex
"marriage,"
I think we're about to find out just how dangerous it can be to live in the
middle of chaos. We need a Federal Marriage Amendment now.

You know, you had me until right there. See, I agree that laws need to upheld and adhered to, and that unconstitutional laws need to be ruled as such by the judiciary. I also believe that just because it's in the constitution, it doesn't mean that it's a good idea - see prohibition and the need to repeal it.

But if you're going to argue about laws and upholding them, you can't tell me that Christians can adhere to the ones they want simply because they believe in a higher law. That's bull, and that's what this country was supposed to be founded on - freedom of religion and the separation of religion from the government.

Of course laws have some moral beginnings to them in many cases - it doesn't take much to recognize that killing someone infringes on their rights. But allowing a gay couple the same legal protections of insurance, pensions, social security, etc as heterosexual couples is quite a different issue - your God may have told you that it is wrong, but my God (or lack thereof - remember, we're all supposed to be equal here) good give a rip about the makeup of a legal couple is.

I recognize that this part is a huge swerve, open to criticism. But after serious consideration, I think it's very valid.

If you hold that the material is all there is, and that morals establish the rule of law, then you must obey them or you're:

1. A total hypocrite; and

2. Headed toward anarchy.

Those who claim a higher standard at least have a philosophical basis for doing so. Presumably, they'll be judged by this higher standard.

As for the separation of church and state, I'd question your interpretation. It was originally designed to keep the gov't out of religion. Consider all the vestiges of religion left in government (Chaplins, prayers, references to God, etc) that the founding fathers let remain. But, that's an issue for another time. And, I'd rather read books on the subject b/c it gets messy fast.

DrTorch Wrote:Those who claim a higher standard at least have a philosophical basis for doing so. Presumably, they'll be judged by this higher standard.

See, I have a philosophical basis for my beliefs, I just haven't had it afforded not-for-profit status yet. That doesn't make me more worthy of being able to ignore laws as I see fit, nor should it when afforded not-for-profit status.

These people's belief that they'll be judged by a higher standard are the problem in this argument. You can believe what you'd like, but we do have rules to abide. Remember - when a priest molests a young boy, it's a sin....but it's also a felony. Just because it's a sin, doesn't mean you get out of the felony part.

I agree with what you've said about abiding by the rules and laws, but DO NOT, under any circumstances (and this is directed more at Charles Colson, since he wrote it), claim that selective law abiding is OK depending on why you do it, yet rip the stance you don't like. Either you abide under all circumstances, or you do have anarchy, no matter why you've chosen not to abide.

I consider it human decency that gays be afforded the same legal spousal rights as heteros. I could care less if "the church" wants to recognize it or not. It's a slippery slope, no doubt, but we're talking about legal protections. How God wants to sort it out later really isn't my concern.

Ignoring the rule of law for whatever reason is unacceptable.

What makes one religion any more valid than another? Can you provide me with irrefutable proof that Jesus rose from the dead? No. Can you provide me with irrefutable proof that angels actually did speak to Mohammad? No. Indeed, no religion can provide proof of any of its fundamental tenets. If it could, there would be no need for faith. Faith, by definition, is the belief in something without scientific evidence to support that belief. So, what makes one religion more valid than another? Nothing.

If that premise is correct, then shouldn't a religion that preaches human sacrifice go ahead and practice it?

Of course, even in the same religion, there is rarely agreement among its practitioners. How does God feel about tax cuts? How does God feel about socialism vs. capitalism? Got any religious texts to back up your nonsense? Nope. Even if you do, there are plenty of passages within the same text that can be used to justify literally anything. (I'm an admitted atheist and any Christian Conservatives that want to test this theory with me, have at it because I probably have as much if not more religious training as anyone on this board unless you majored in it). As Joan Baez said, "do it in the name of heaven you can justify it in the end."

History provides no example of any culture where a religious document was the highest law that did not rapidly devolve into a theocratic dictatorship. None. Never. What's worse is that these theocratic dictatorships are typically extraordinarily cruel governments. Think Taliban. Think Iranian Mullahs. Think Spanish Inquisition.

The United States was founded on the rule of law rather than on the rule of men. Thus, governmental officials are constrained to act within those laws regardless of their personal beliefs. So too are all citizens required to obey those laws.

I'll give civil disobedience its due. It is a legitimate form of protest as long as those doing so recognize that it is also legitimate to prosecute them and send them to jail for violating the law. I recall reading a Supreme Court case one time where a civil rights group ignored an obviously unconstitutional ruling from a judge. Hell, the judge admitted it was unconstitutional but said he had an electorate to which he was responsible and the civil rights group could appeal it. The civil rights group ignored his ruling, violated it, and were held in contempt. They appealed the contempt proceeding by saying they were not bound to follow an obviously unconstitutional ruling. The Supreme Court correctly disagreed and said their proper remedy was not violating the ruling but appealing it. (Apologies for any inaccuracies because it's been 12 years since I read that opinion and I'm not going to take the time to look it up again).

Local officials who ignore the laws in their states are no more in the right than was Roy Moore except to the extent that they own up to it, admit they are engaging in an act of civil disobedience, and are prepared to accept the consequences.

One final note. Let's be careful what we're talking about here. If a government official starts issuing "marriage certificates" that won't be recognized by the state, that may or may not be an illegal act. It all depends on what the law says in that state. What would be illegal would be if a local official refused to issue a certificate when a couple met all the state mandated requirements for marriage. Thus, the only example I've seen of obviously illegal activity by local officials are from those in Oregon who are refusing to issue licenses to anyone.

MAKO Wrote:What makes one religion any more valid than another?&nbsp; Can you provide me with irrefutable proof that Jesus rose from the dead?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; Can you provide me with irrefutable proof that angels actually did speak to Mohammad?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; Indeed, no religion can provide proof of any of its fundamental tenets.&nbsp; If it could, there would be no need for faith.&nbsp; Faith, by definition, is the belief in something without scientific evidence to support that belief.&nbsp; So, what makes one religion more valid than another?&nbsp; Nothing.

On the contrary Mako, the field of apologetics is a well established one. If you're a skeptic, you can always claim "no irrefutable proof". Heck gravity could stop in the future since there's no proof what will happen then.

But, if you want apologetics for Christianity, it's available in abundance. Frankly, I believe there is much merit to it, and it certainly trumps many other religions on many counts: from origins, historicity and prophecy.

Quote:If that premise is correct, then shouldn't a religion that preaches human sacrifice go ahead and practice it?

Excellent point. An obvious point that refutes the whole notion of "tolerance" because of a lack of internal consistency, and requires much more effort to discern the founding fathers' "original intent" than is given in the classroom, by the media, or is pursued by your typical college student.

But, as for tax cuts...and socialism etc. Those are really straw men for the current discussion.
Civil disobedience does have its place. And I'd disagree w/ the Justice who said "wait for an appeal". Honestly, any justice who admittedly rules against the constitution has committed treason.

Quote:Ignoring the rule of law for whatever reason is unacceptable.

I saved this for last. While it's a firm, solid stance, it also lacks any substance. Just why is it "unacceptable"? I see no basis for ethics or law w/o a higher standard, and you've certainly not provided any.
I've been interested for a long time to hear a sound argument defending these, w/o an appeal to a higher authority.

Quote:I saved this for last. While it's a firm, solid stance, it also lacks any substance. Just why is it "unacceptable"? I see no basis for ethics or law w/o a higher standard, and you've certainly not provided any.
I've been interested for a long time to hear a sound argument defending these, w/o an appeal to a higher authority.

My choice of wording, i.e., "unacceptable" was probably injudicious. Perhaps I should have said that violating the law must always carry with it a punishment. But, let me give you my argument why no appeal to any supernatural being is necessary to establish an ethical society. For purposes of simplicity, we're going to imagine a small, pre-industrial society of, say, 2,000 people. We'll also be somewhat sexist and imagine that the men do most of the work outside the home while the women keep the home and raise the children.

Most of the men will be engaged in agriculture of some kind. Some may raise corn. Some may raise cattle. Whatever. Although not absolutely necessary (you can make your own plow for example) a few may have specialized skills such as blacksmiths or carpenters. What is necessary for this society to function?

First and foremost, the men must be able to leave their homes in the morining and feel confident that they won't get killed in the field and when they return home, their families and belongings will still be there. That allows them to focus on their production rather than worry about safety for themselves or their families. So, we have our first two laws. 1. Don't kill. 2. Don't steal.

Next, there must be some formalized method of dispute resolution. Naturally, most disputes will be worked out by the people having the dispute but some won't. How are those disputes to be resolved? Well, you could give each party a sword and tell them to fight to the death but, obviously, that method of dispute resolution will reasonably quickly deplete the society. Furthermore, the people in the society must view the dispute resolution mechanism as fair. That give us our third law. 3. Don't lie in court.

Last but not least, the dispute resolution mechanism must also establish a monopoly on punishment for violating laws. Again, this prevents so-called revenge or honor killings. So, our final law. 4. The court system has a monopoly on unresolved dispute resolution.

That's it. With these four laws, our society can function. Assuming all are rational people, they will realize that they give up some degree of freedom but the vast majority will also realize that these laws are in their long-term self interest. The guy who raises corn realizes that it is in his self interest to grant these protections to the guy who raises cattle because he sells his corn to the cattleman.

You will note that there is no necessity to resort to a supernatural being. The laws can all be established through either rational societal reasoning or, more crassly, through pure self interest. The society might enact many other laws but all have their basis in these four. Beat somebody up because they stole your corn? Well, you are guilty as well because you violated the law that says the established dispute resolution mechanism is the only way to settle unresolved disputes. Beat somebody up just for the hell of it? Well, you are guilty because, for at least some period of time, you stole from them their ability to be productive. Come up with any example of unethical conduct and you can relate it back to these four laws.

And there's nothing supernatural about any of them.

MAKO Wrote:

Quote:I saved this for last. While it's a firm, solid stance, it also lacks any substance. Just why is it "unacceptable"? I see no basis for ethics or law w/o a higher standard, and you've certainly not provided any.
I've been interested for a long time to hear a sound argument defending these, w/o an appeal to a higher authority.

My choice of wording, i.e., "unacceptable" was probably injudicious. Perhaps I should have said that violating the law must always carry with it a punishment. But, let me give you my argument why no appeal to any supernatural being is necessary to establish an ethical society.

On the contrary Mako. While this speaks to the univeral reasonableness of the 10 commandments and Judeo-Christian law/tradition, it is simply pragmatism.

And there is no evidence that this is better than some Tsar coming in and exploiting the people for as long as he can get away with it. Sure, he'll keep folks alive b/c it's no fun being a dictator over a group of 1...but he can steal (or overtax), act as a judge and rule however he likes, and have an occasional public killing to keep the unruly in fear.

You'll have to do better....

DrTorch Wrote:And there is no evidence that this is better than some Tsar coming in and exploiting the people for as long as he can get away with it.&nbsp; Sure, he'll keep folks alive b/c it's no fun being a dictator over a group of 1...but he can steal (or overtax), act as a judge and rule however he likes, and have an occasional public killing to keep the unruly in fear.

Sounds like the guy who was governor of Texas when I was living there. :D