For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 2 Tim 4:3-4
Shane Vander Hart
· 9 months ago
The Apostle Paul so well describes what is going on here with the supporters of this measure.
Mike
· 9 months ago
What a beautiful day. Justice always wins.
Shane Vander Hart
· 9 months ago
Oh yes, love trolls coming by. Have you read this blog ever before today?
Honestly could care less about non-Iowan liberal opinion - they are the ones who financed this mess. And yes I know you do not live in Iowa - I checked your IP.
Mike
· 8 months ago
Unless Iowa City doesn't count as Iowa, you are wrong. Native Iowan. Born and raised just out of Dubuque. Either my IP is messed up or you are lying.
Shane Vander Hart
· 8 months ago
Nope your IP is messed up. Mine sometimes shows as Louisville, KY. My bad.
Mike
· 8 months ago
Oh, and one more thing. I've read your blog quite often. I like to know how the other side sees things.
Chicagobluesgirl
· 9 months ago
Watching our moral-less,incompetent leader(s) and the evil spreading state by state, I feel we are the frog in the pot of boiling water moving toward spiritual death with each temperature increase. But some of us recognize the impending doom before us. Are we helpless to stop it? Is this a calculated step toward the end, toward Jesus' second coming? Yes, Bush made the point that the states decide this issue. But how can the rest of us stop it from spreading?
Shane Vander Hart
· 9 months ago
Chuck Hurley hit the nail on the head about "who is crazy now?" Because people who resisted the amendment process before said that this would never happen.
Need to get amendments started BEFORE things go to court. The earliest we can vote is 2012, and now we have a state senator wanting to turn Iowa into a gay marriage Mecca. Ugh.
Sambo
· 9 months ago
What a beautiful day. Justice AND EQUALITY always wins.
For those of you 'shaking your head in disbelief', don't worry - this has nothing to do with YOUR marriage. Chill. Rejoice in the fact that a large number of God's people just became happier and more equal under God.
Shane Vander Hart
· 9 months ago
Hi welcome to the blog, I love it when trolls come by. So far I have yet to hear a dissenting voice from Iowa comment here.
I'm sure they are happy, but marriage isn't a equality issue, they had the same right to marry as I do - to a person of the opposite sex, which is how God defines it.
They may have civil permission, but that doesn't equal God's blessing.
RickD335
· 9 months ago
I noticed that the wording said civil marriage. Should the church wake up and realize that there is a difference between civil and religious ceremonies - and then act on that difference by not participating in what it cannot abide - it would not be a bad thing. In fact, those who do not recognize God should only be entitled to civil marriage, not a church wedding, in the first place.
Sorry, Sambo - I respectfully disagree that "a large number of God's people just became happier and more equal under God." Under man's law? Certainly - the laws crafted by man are frequently unequal, poorly written, and try too often to solve one problem while unintentionally creating others - Nebraska's Safe Haven law is one recent example that comes to mind. Under God's law, however? Sorry, I don't see support for that position in scripture - anywhere.
Shane Vander Hart
· 9 months ago
I'd rather see it called a civil union, not marriage. Not that I'm thrilled about that concept either.
RickD335
· 9 months ago
Nor am I thrilled about it, but as a practical matter one could see this train coming from a long ways away. Civil law and church doctrine are not, and never will, be identical - and frankly, I'd prefer that the church be the church and not some church/state hybrid where those who believe in God (and those who believe God - the distinction is quite real) have to kowtow to the state in all things. Marriage in the church should be reserved for those who believe, not for those who want use of the facilities and can pay the fees. All those who wish to be married without making their commitment and vows to God as well as to their partner should have access to marriage by Justice of the Peace or other state-nominated officials.
A problem arises when we have to consider how the state will recognize those married in and by the church if the church will not recognize those whose marriages do not conform to a scriptural model - but if the church does not separate itself from the state's reach, then what difference can we make?
Sambo
· 8 months ago
RickD335 wrote: "Sorry, Sambo - I respectfully disagree that "a large number of God's people just became happier and more equal under God." Under man's law? Certainly - the laws crafted by man are frequently unequal, poorly written, and try too often to solve one problem while unintentionally creating others - Nebraska's Safe Haven law is one recent example that comes to mind. Under God's law, however? Sorry, I don't see support for that position in scripture - anywhere."
In that case, drive through the next stop sign you see. I mean, seriously - why abide by ANY of man's laws then?
My point was the inequality of gay men & women not being able to have the 1000+ items of legal protection that marriage brings has now been amended and, in my humble opinion, God would be delighted about this based on what we read about all of us being equal, and by the way Jesus treated all mankind.
Here's a sobering thought: Are you aware that the life partner of a same-sex couple cannot visit their loved one in hospital, even if they were on their death bed? Are you aware that a woman can go bankrupt because her girlfriend's finances are inaccessible when she dies? Do you really want your taxes to 'bailout' these folks who are unprotected just because they are same-sex?
RickD335
· 8 months ago
To use your specific example, scripture says nothing about traffic laws, while it speaks explicitly about homosexuality.
Christ treated us all as equal, true - He loves all of us, regardless of who we are, what we do, who we sleep with - but I do not go along with the idea that love means approval.
As I said in a follow-up to a response to Shane, I believe that the church and the state should separate, and I do not mean a trial separation. The state will permit things that fly in the face of sound teaching and that are flatly prohibited in scripture, and the church should not be a party to these new legalities.
Men want to marry men, and women women? The state says it violates civil rights? There are higher laws, and the church should not be forced by prevailing cultural norms to bow to the lower law.
I am aware of the human suffering you describe, Sambo - I cannot help but be aware of it - but I cannot support the lifestyle, or the preference, or whatever. Change the civil laws to accommodate and address the inequalities, and inequalities will still be present if not newly created - but do not force the church to accept it by legislation. That is not hate, by the way - love isn't always easy to accept as it is.
Kansas Bob
· 9 months ago
While I may not agree with the ruling based on my religious perspective I totally understand the thinking of the court on civil grounds. Maybe you can address the civil aspect when you blog about this Shane.
Shane Vander Hart
· 9 months ago
Covered it a little bit in the update.
Kansas Bob
· 9 months ago
I appreciate what you said Shane but in reality the state has defined marriage for a long time.. and for a long time that definition worked.. until gay people wanted to legally commit themselves to each other like hetero do.. it is a difficult one to argue from a civil perspective.
For me it would be better if the state only defined civil unions.. but really what difference would that make in the end.. a rose by any other name is still a rose.. calling it a civil union doesn't really make it any less of a marriage.
Mel
· 9 months ago
i am sorry this has happened in your state, hopefully it can get on the ballot though.
Shane Vander Hart
· 9 months ago
I just wish we didn't have to wait until 2012.
Tiffanie
· 9 months ago
ok, so say we ban gay marriage in all 50 states. it's totally illegal blah blah. what will that do? will it stop homosexuals from having monogamous and long-lasting, loving relationships?
will that pave the way to banning divorce and salvaging the value of marriage in our society?
will that get the 10 commandments put into the constitution or jesus' picture on the $100 bill?
i don't understand what the end goal is here.
Shane Vander Hart
· 9 months ago
Tiffanie,
Homosexuals that have monogamous, long-lasting relationships are in a very small minority.
No it won't, and I'm not for banning it, but rather not make it so easy to get one, and no banning it won't increase the value of marriage.
How will gay "marriage" help? It won't. It'll make it worse. Then what's next? Seriously? Do we bring polygamy back? Do we allow incestuous relationships? What if I wanted to marry Mac my mini-daschund? Should that be allowed? I mean seriously where do we draw the line here?
Didn't know anybody was pushing for the 10 commandments into the constitution or Jesus' picture on the $100 bill - hey I'll partner with you fighting those things.
Argon
· 8 months ago
As the court noted in its ruling, current marriage laws do not take into account the long-term suitability of applicants or seek to determine whether any marriage is likely to last. It seems that if the public was truly concerned about marriage stability, they would work to pass laws that allow pre-screening interviews or tests (like a driver's license) prior to granting a state-sanctioned marriage.
Honestly, I'm sure we could a more predictive means of screening for long term marriage suitability among those who seek a license. Are there other minorities or groups of people who are likely to divorce? For example, anyone under 21 years of age? Blacks? Hispanics? Jews? Third-generation farmers? Socio-economic status? Religious affiliation? ZIP code?
Sambo
· 8 months ago
Shane wrote: "Homosexuals that have monogamous, long-lasting relationships are in a very small minority."
Please provide evidence to suggest this is the case. Unless you've surveyed every gay man and woman, I have no idea how you would know this. I'm not being facetious, just looking for what gave you this impression.
Also, I don't appreciate being called a troll, but I guess that's how you have chosen to spread God's love. I'm not sure He would be impressed with that, but so be it. I simply stumbled upon this blog when researching some reactions, I'm sorry that you feel that even though this is a public blog, the PUBLIC can't comment.
Finally, even if you give me a valid reason why you feel gay relationships can't be long lasting and monogamous, have you thought the fact that gay men and women CAN'T marry might have something to do with that? How about you look at some stats from The Netherlands or Spain, countries that have had no issues with gay marriage?
Argon
· 8 months ago
Of course, one should actually consider the subset of those who wish to marry. Personally, I expect divorce rates among gays to be at least the same as heterosexuals. Then again, my brother-in-law has been with his partner for a least three decades and they're looking forward to retiring to an old Wisconsin farmhouse not too long from now.
ECM
· 9 months ago
Congrats, tiffanie, on your impressive deployment of myriad strawmen to buttress a virtually non-existent argument.
Sambo
· 8 months ago
Shane wrote: "How will gay "marriage" help? It won't. It'll make it worse. Then what's next? Seriously? Do we bring polygamy back? Do we allow incestuous relationships? What if I wanted to marry Mac my mini-daschund? Should that be allowed? I mean seriously where do we draw the line here?"
Absolutely absurd and void of logic. It's insulting that you somehow relate a homosexual relationship to incest or bestiality. Again, look at Spain, The Netherlands, Canada, Massachussetts and Connecticut - no dogs marrying humans there, and their societies have not collapsed.
How about demonstrating some love by accepting Iowa's decision for what it is. It will never affect YOUR marriage, so the Christian thing to do would be to stop spreading this hate (yes, it's hate) and moving on to your own relationship with God.
Amanda S.
· 8 months ago
Sambo, please explain why marriage between two closely-related persons (incest) should be prohibited.
Argon
· 8 months ago
Amanda S., why don't you offer your explanation as well? How close is too close, and why?
Amanda S.
· 8 months ago
As a Christian, I refer to Leviticus 18. (In short, because God said.) But because of separation of church and state, that is not an acceptable reason. At this time in human history, I cannot think of one secular reason. Can you?
Argon
· 8 months ago
Leviticus is interesting. A lot of Old Testament laws can be viewed as codifying health practices (shellfish?), establishing relationships between the tribe and God or supporting tribe coherence & stability. The latter includes relationships between tribe members and the means of resisting assimilation into surrounding cultures by maintaining differences in practices or dress (e.g. not wearing coats of many cloths). Leviticus 18 spends a lot of time outline what intimate relationships Israelites cannot have among their relations, particularly blood relatives. It describes these taboos as bringing disgrace to other members of the family. Some rules seem linked to family harmony but others may correspond with genetic closeness.
Now what might be God's reasons behind these proscribed acts? In some instances (perhaps not all), might one be able to find some common ground with those who aren't Israelites but perhaps Buddhists instead?
Amanda S.
· 8 months ago
God's reasons (anyone's god(s), for that matter) are apparently irrelevant now. There's no point in finding common ground. You know, separation of church and state. So, I ask again. Why should it be prohibited? I'll give you a hint. Take a look at this article: http://www.slate.com/id/2064227/
Argon
· 8 months ago
Finally get back to you, Amanda... I do not think searching for a common ground is pointless or even futile. It's definitely a worthwhile exercise, IMHO, even if it doesn't work out.
We share a common biology and we're also social beings. Together, these features do a great deal to constrain us to experiencing similar feelings and ideas. One interesting thing we've found is that during early development, humans seem to inherently reveal similar core tenets (or guiding a sense of what is good or bad). What varies over time and across cultures is which core ideas are given precedence over others. So, if a situation arises where moral ideas "A" and "B" come into conflict, the choice of favoring A or B depends on the culture. It's not that one culture lacks morality, it's that they've got a different prioritization. Humans and their societies really aren't as wildly different as may appear on the surface. Most 'moral' disputes between conservatives/liberals & other cultures comes down to slight differences in the ordering of moral hierarchy.
The case then simplifies to seeking common values and debating why one moral principle should overrule another in any particular (or general) case. Some cases will never get resolved completely or to the satisfaction of all.
-------------------- You cited the case of first cousin marriage, which I don't believe is forbidden in Leviticus yet is banned or restricted in many states. So why did states create those laws? Probably a mixture of genetics issues, which explains why exceptions are sometimes made for infertile couples, and social preference. It is true that first cousins having children is not as risky as once thought and so that's a good strike against that particular prohibition. However, more closely related individuals have much greater risks of having children with genetic problems. So, on that level, I think one could find common ground across religious beliefs for opposing those arrangements.
With one caveat... In the future, it might be possible to reduce the risk through genetic screening and certainly for now, couples could adopt children or simply not have kids. This could circumvent the problems with genetics. We currently don't prevent other couples with known, high-risk genetic issues from having children and so there is a problem of asymmetric application of principles.
Myself, I don't attempt to justify prohibitions against sibling matches as long as it involves adults, consent and no abuse. I personally find it completely unappealing but that's not an opinion I would legally impose on others. I tend to be libertarian in matters involving love and the bedroom.
The slow drip of change is wearing down the stone of religious opposition.
The outrage, where it exists, is due to unrealistic expectations that human rights can be denied to homosexuals forever on religious grounds, in a society governed by secular laws.
Shane Vander Hart
· 9 months ago
There practical, familial, and societal arguments to be made here as well.
Sure I'll give you my main objection is due to marriage being defined by God, but that isn't what is being presented in Court.
By the way, point to where in the Constitution it even talks about marriage will ya?
Argon
· 8 months ago
Those arguments about "optimal families" and such have been made. The court noted in its statement that such considerations were *not* written into current laws regarding who can get married. In fact, the state allows perfectly wretched couples to marry. If one is proposes that the optimization of family structures is something which the state should seriously confront in the legal definition of marriage then why not address that *specifically*?
Tim
· 8 months ago
There's another reason the opinion won't be appealed to the SCOTUS - it can't be.
The decision was decided under the Iowa Equal Protection Clause, not the Federal one. The opinion notes that while Iowa generally follows federal equal protection rules, it is able to depart from them when it wants to.
PEE
· 8 months ago
I think this is just Gay!
shelly bilsborough
· 8 months ago
why are Christians NOT outraged about the amount of adultery committed by OTHER CHRISTIANS everyday, and all the divorces (I do til death do us part) WHY DON'T THESE PEOPLE LOSE THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS?
Shane Vander Hart
· 8 months ago
Who says Christians aren't concerned about these matters? I think you are making a mighty big assumption there. We can't take away something we don't give.
All Comments
Honestly could care less about non-Iowan liberal opinion - they are the ones who financed this mess. And yes I know you do not live in Iowa - I checked your IP.
Need to get amendments started BEFORE things go to court. The earliest we can vote is 2012, and now we have a state senator wanting to turn Iowa into a gay marriage Mecca. Ugh.
For those of you 'shaking your head in disbelief', don't worry - this has nothing to do with YOUR marriage. Chill. Rejoice in the fact that a large number of God's people just became happier and more equal under God.
I'm sure they are happy, but marriage isn't a equality issue, they had the same right to marry as I do - to a person of the opposite sex, which is how God defines it.
They may have civil permission, but that doesn't equal God's blessing.
Sorry, Sambo - I respectfully disagree that "a large number of God's people just became happier and more equal under God." Under man's law? Certainly - the laws crafted by man are frequently unequal, poorly written, and try too often to solve one problem while unintentionally creating others - Nebraska's Safe Haven law is one recent example that comes to mind. Under God's law, however? Sorry, I don't see support for that position in scripture - anywhere.
A problem arises when we have to consider how the state will recognize those married in and by the church if the church will not recognize those whose marriages do not conform to a scriptural model - but if the church does not separate itself from the state's reach, then what difference can we make?
In that case, drive through the next stop sign you see. I mean, seriously - why abide by ANY of man's laws then?
My point was the inequality of gay men & women not being able to have the 1000+ items of legal protection that marriage brings has now been amended and, in my humble opinion, God would be delighted about this based on what we read about all of us being equal, and by the way Jesus treated all mankind.
Here's a sobering thought: Are you aware that the life partner of a same-sex couple cannot visit their loved one in hospital, even if they were on their death bed? Are you aware that a woman can go bankrupt because her girlfriend's finances are inaccessible when she dies? Do you really want your taxes to 'bailout' these folks who are unprotected just because they are same-sex?
Christ treated us all as equal, true - He loves all of us, regardless of who we are, what we do, who we sleep with - but I do not go along with the idea that love means approval.
As I said in a follow-up to a response to Shane, I believe that the church and the state should separate, and I do not mean a trial separation. The state will permit things that fly in the face of sound teaching and that are flatly prohibited in scripture, and the church should not be a party to these new legalities.
Men want to marry men, and women women? The state says it violates civil rights? There are higher laws, and the church should not be forced by prevailing cultural norms to bow to the lower law.
I am aware of the human suffering you describe, Sambo - I cannot help but be aware of it - but I cannot support the lifestyle, or the preference, or whatever. Change the civil laws to accommodate and address the inequalities, and inequalities will still be present if not newly created - but do not force the church to accept it by legislation. That is not hate, by the way - love isn't always easy to accept as it is.
For me it would be better if the state only defined civil unions.. but really what difference would that make in the end.. a rose by any other name is still a rose.. calling it a civil union doesn't really make it any less of a marriage.
will that pave the way to banning divorce and salvaging the value of marriage in our society?
will that get the 10 commandments put into the constitution or jesus' picture on the $100 bill?
i don't understand what the end goal is here.
Homosexuals that have monogamous, long-lasting relationships are in a very small minority.
No it won't, and I'm not for banning it, but rather not make it so easy to get one, and no banning it won't increase the value of marriage.
How will gay "marriage" help? It won't. It'll make it worse. Then what's next? Seriously? Do we bring polygamy back? Do we allow incestuous relationships? What if I wanted to marry Mac my mini-daschund? Should that be allowed? I mean seriously where do we draw the line here?
Didn't know anybody was pushing for the 10 commandments into the constitution or Jesus' picture on the $100 bill - hey I'll partner with you fighting those things.
Honestly, I'm sure we could a more predictive means of screening for long term marriage suitability among those who seek a license. Are there other minorities or groups of people who are likely to divorce? For example, anyone under 21 years of age? Blacks? Hispanics? Jews? Third-generation farmers? Socio-economic status? Religious affiliation? ZIP code?
Please provide evidence to suggest this is the case. Unless you've surveyed every gay man and woman, I have no idea how you would know this. I'm not being facetious, just looking for what gave you this impression.
Also, I don't appreciate being called a troll, but I guess that's how you have chosen to spread God's love. I'm not sure He would be impressed with that, but so be it. I simply stumbled upon this blog when researching some reactions, I'm sorry that you feel that even though this is a public blog, the PUBLIC can't comment.
Finally, even if you give me a valid reason why you feel gay relationships can't be long lasting and monogamous, have you thought the fact that gay men and women CAN'T marry might have something to do with that? How about you look at some stats from The Netherlands or Spain, countries that have had no issues with gay marriage?
Absolutely absurd and void of logic. It's insulting that you somehow relate a homosexual relationship to incest or bestiality. Again, look at Spain, The Netherlands, Canada, Massachussetts and Connecticut - no dogs marrying humans there, and their societies have not collapsed.
How about demonstrating some love by accepting Iowa's decision for what it is. It will never affect YOUR marriage, so the Christian thing to do would be to stop spreading this hate (yes, it's hate) and moving on to your own relationship with God.
Now what might be God's reasons behind these proscribed acts? In some instances (perhaps not all), might one be able to find some common ground with those who aren't Israelites but perhaps Buddhists instead?
http://www.slate.com/id/2064227/
I do not think searching for a common ground is pointless or even futile. It's definitely a worthwhile exercise, IMHO, even if it doesn't work out.
We share a common biology and we're also social beings. Together, these features do a great deal to constrain us to experiencing similar feelings and ideas. One interesting thing we've found is that during early development, humans seem to inherently reveal similar core tenets (or guiding a sense of what is good or bad). What varies over time and across cultures is which core ideas are given precedence over others. So, if a situation arises where moral ideas "A" and "B" come into conflict, the choice of favoring A or B depends on the culture. It's not that one culture lacks morality, it's that they've got a different prioritization. Humans and their societies really aren't as wildly different as may appear on the surface. Most 'moral' disputes between conservatives/liberals & other cultures comes down to slight differences in the ordering of moral hierarchy.
The case then simplifies to seeking common values and debating why one moral principle should overrule another in any particular (or general) case. Some cases will never get resolved completely or to the satisfaction of all.
--------------------
You cited the case of first cousin marriage, which I don't believe is forbidden in Leviticus yet is banned or restricted in many states. So why did states create those laws? Probably a mixture of genetics issues, which explains why exceptions are sometimes made for infertile couples, and social preference. It is true that first cousins having children is not as risky as once thought and so that's a good strike against that particular prohibition. However, more closely related individuals have much greater risks of having children with genetic problems. So, on that level, I think one could find common ground across religious beliefs for opposing those arrangements.
With one caveat...
In the future, it might be possible to reduce the risk through genetic screening and certainly for now, couples could adopt children or simply not have kids. This could circumvent the problems with genetics. We currently don't prevent other couples with known, high-risk genetic issues from having children and so there is a problem of asymmetric application of principles.
Myself, I don't attempt to justify prohibitions against sibling matches as long as it involves adults, consent and no abuse. I personally find it completely unappealing but that's not an opinion I would legally impose on others. I tend to be libertarian in matters involving love and the bedroom.
Interesting story here:
http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=1865
The outrage, where it exists, is due to unrealistic expectations that human rights can be denied to homosexuals forever on religious grounds, in a society governed by secular laws.
Sure I'll give you my main objection is due to marriage being defined by God, but that isn't what is being presented in Court.
By the way, point to where in the Constitution it even talks about marriage will ya?
The decision was decided under the Iowa Equal Protection Clause, not the Federal one. The opinion notes that while Iowa generally follows federal equal protection rules, it is able to depart from them when it wants to.