In his posting, Mere Orthodoxy » The (Mis)Use of C.S. Lewis by Christian Libertarians Matthew Anderson claims that I misuse Lewis writings on the governments role in Marriage since he was speaking of divorce. This of course is true, Lewis was speaking of divorce. But his reasoning was what I focused on. His reasoning (which he backed up with a thought experiment with two examples not one it is easier to ascertain his intention) seemed to be that one ought not seek to legislate their religious beliefs.
Anderson does not address any of my other arguments in his post and my Lewis argument was only intended to show that it is possible to be a traditional Christian and not believe it is the governments job to do everything your interpretation of scripture tells YOU to do.
As far as claiming that it is politically conservative to oppose gay marriage, let me remind you that that is very recent revisionism (Reagan's second term). Barry Goldwater and Reagan '76 and '80 were vocal with respect to social tolerance. Reagan spent a lot of time during his campaigns outreaching to libertarian publications and WFB (rest in peace) founded national review to bring together Republicans and Libertarians since they shared the same conservative ideals.
Lastly, it is positively Marxist thinking to think that our laws should reflect the majority. We do not live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional republic, thus our laws should represent our constitution. We elect representatives whom are charged with upholding the constitution. This may not sound very familiar to anyone as we have lost our way, but the founding fathers sought to protect us from this tyranny of the majority. With regular church attendance down to roughly 20% of the population, we Christians should be very grateful and not seek to redefine the constitution when it suits our purpose.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Scott,
A couple comments.
First, my aim was simply to clear up the record on Lewis's opinions on marriage.
Second, I think you misunderstand my position on homosexual marriage. I do not oppose it on religious grounds, which is why I don't think the Lewis passage applies here. I don't think it's the government's job to enforce Scripture. I think that politically, it's in the government's best interest to protect and promote the nuclear family and traditional marriage. There are sociological reasons for this, but also philosophical reasons for this, none of which are taken directly from Bible verses.
Third, it is politically conservative to oppose homosexual marriage. It may not be Republican, which is the designation that more appropriately fits your examples. But Buckley's conservatism certainly would have opposed it. We stand athwart history and yell stop at this novelty along with all the rest.
Finally, I am not a marxist, nor have I ever heard such a democratic position referred to as such. While we may be a "constitutional republic," it's quite clear from the Federalist Papers that the checks and balances are in place to mitigate factions and allow the majority to institute laws. I, for one, am deeply opposed to fitting the constitution to our fancy. But then again, I don't really see how anything I wrote leads you to conclude that I am interested in changing the constitution (though a Defense of Marriage Amendment is certainly plausible constitutionally to me, even if it will never fly politically).
I hope that clears things up. Thanks for the great comments and questions--you're a fun guy to have around Mere-O! : )
Thank you for your response. I really enjoy the discussion and hope we can continue to look at differt perspectives in a thoughtful and loving way. That being said, a few comments.
1. I hope I don't come across arrogant enough to actually speak for Lewis on this new matter. I simply think that the logic he uses is worthwhile to the current debate.
2. Its funny but most thoughtful Christians such as yourself seem to always start by clarifying that they do not oppose same sex marriage on religious grounds. I have yet to have anyone who is not a Christian argue against it though. Just an interesting thought. I see no reason for the gov't to protect and promote the nuclear family. In fact, it seems to me in every area the gov't tries to "protect and promote" we end up with more problems. I agree with you on the sociological and philosophical reasons I would imagine. I just disagree that the gov't can or ought to do anything worthwhile or meaningful about it.
3. Buckley may have opposed it, but as he did with the civil rights act of 64 and drug criminalization, I think he would have changed his mind. Taft, Buckley and Goldwater most certainly are a good reference for conservativism. His quote was about changes in our government moving away from the constitution, not passing new laws to stop social change. He stood opposed to new laws even when they were for positive social change (ie civil rights act). He, like Goldwater believed that gov't should seek the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum amount of people.
4. The federalist papers were very clear that the gov't had no right to intervene in areas not specifically outlined in the constitution. In fact, the federalist papers make it clear that ever the bill of rights was a bad thing as it potentially expanded the areas in which the gov't could act. http://www.scottoverpeck.com/2008/06/federalist-number-84-may-28-1788.html
The checks and balances are meant to prevent unconstitutional laws. Like ones that prevent the free practice of religion or the ones that allow the suspension of the grand writ of habeous corpus.
I hope to continue a fruitful and fun conversation with you. Feel free to poke in here once in awhile and tell me I am a heretic as well. I have certainly received enough of those emails. Not nearly enough comments though.
Post a Comment