FMA Scuttled
As you know by now, the Federal Marriage Amendment was voted down by the Senate. While I support the amendment, I was not surprised to see it voted down.
This subject has prompted Joshua Claybourn to post about Christian Libertarianism:
There are some important questions that I think one must ask when considering it. How many hearts will the amendment change, and how will it change them? Do the amendment's supporters expect people to view the debate or provision and conclude that homosexual unions are in fact wrong? I'm guessing no heart will be convinced of that through an amendment, but I'm positive that countless hearts will be hardened by a party and, indirectly, a faith that isn't accurately portrayed in this debate.[...]The state should not be called upon to bring about the virtuous life. The price is subservience to the state. Many will view this as a cop-out or shirking from God's wishes, but I am a libertarian precisely because I wish to protect traditional values and culture from the state. San Fransisco's mayor Gavin Newsom is a wonderful example of the problems that can befall a church that so closely ties its precepts to a secular state. It's time for the church to consider its own marriages apart from a secular state.
I appreciate a lot of the things Josh is saying in his post. I'm totally opposed to the idea of a theocracy or the church getting bound up in political matters. However, Josh falls into the error that is typical of libertarians -- that changes in values and the culture occur in a vacuum and don't effect anyone else.
An example of this is a statement recently made by libertarian talk show host Neal Boortz -- a statement I've heard other bloggers echo. He said that if gays "marry", it doesn't have the slightest effect on your own marriage. And that is true...now. But what about the future? What about what marriage will mean, say, fifty years from now? Libertarians are very often "here and now" thinkers. This gives credence to Mark Shea's often-made statement that libertarianism is for selfish people with no children*.
Josh seems to be saying that the church can be sealed-off from the rest of society -- that how society or the state views marriage doesn't have to affect the way the church views marriage. But society does affect the churches. Why else are so many churches falling into apostasy? Also, if the church is walled-off from the rest of society, then how is this "changing hearts and minds" supposed to take place? I see this leading to a church that is completely ineffectual and irrelevant. (Actually, this is already happening despite the fevered hysteria from certain quarters about the "Religious Right".)
As for the state...what if churches that refuse to "marry" gays start getting charged with discrimination and "hate crimes"? The gay marriage proponents say that this won't happen, but once again I ask, what about the future?
If gays want to have completely secular legal arrangements, such as civil unions, that would give them legal rights that a marriage would give a straight couple, I honestly would have no objection to that. It would be a purely legal matter, a matter of the state. But why the insistence on "marriage"? Why change the very definition of marriage?
Considering that many straight couples have the same view of marriage -- that it's just a vehicle for attaining certain legal rights and financial advantages -- perhaps Josh has a point. Let those people, whether they be straight or gay, have their civil unions. Save marriage for those who see it as something more than a legal arrangement.
*Although, to be fair, a libertarian could just as validly point out that statism, whether it be from the left or right, often uses "for the children" as its rallying cry.
Update: Josh has corrected me regarding one of my statements in this post.
Update 2: Eric Seymour answers Josh: Why Christians should support the FMA.
You write, "Josh seems to be saying that the church can be sealed-off from the rest of society..." With all due respect, I'm saying the exact opposite. I'm saying that the church has sealed itself off for far too long, and when it hasn't sealed itself off, it's given the responsibility to the state. It's time for the church to reclaim its position in the center of society.
You go on to write, "But society does affect the churches." This is true, but it's sadly far too true. Churches should be affecting society, and they're not. That is their God-given purpose, and the modern church, in general, is failing in that regard.
I'm not the typical libertarian who wants to sit back and let whatever happens happen. Rather, I say the church should be doing this without government intrusion, and any attempt to force the belief through the government is dangerous indeed.