Advocates of legalizing same-sex marriage and other experimental public policy argue that it is the true expression of tolerance. However, many others have countered that such changes in public policy have real consequences that actually are intolerance, treading on other citizens' values. Public policy actually makes demands on other citizens, not merely tolerance. When laws are put in place, government isn't neutral anymore; laws give government the right to step in and exert it's power to mandate a certain view of family.
Here's a relevant example of that from the U.K.
Social services remove young children from grandparents and arrange adoption by gay couple
Social services have removed two young children from the care of their grandparents and arranged for them to be adopted by a homosexual couple.
The five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister were being looked after by their grandparents because their mother, a recovering drug addict, was not considered capable.
But social workers stepped in after allegedly deciding that the couple, who are aged 59 and 46, were "too old" to look after the children.
They were allegedly stripped of their carer's rights and informed they would be barred from seeing the children altogether unless they agreed to the same-sex adoption.
The distraught grandfather said: "It breaks my heart to think that our grandchildren are being forced to grow up in an environment without a mother-figure.
"We are not prejudiced, but I defy anyone to explain to us how this can be in their best interests.
"The ideal for any child is to have a loving father and a loving mother in their lives."
Social services have removed two young children from the care of their grandparents and arranged for them to be adopted by a homosexual couple.
The five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister were being looked after by their grandparents because their mother, a recovering drug addict, was not considered capable.
But social workers stepped in after allegedly deciding that the couple, who are aged 59 and 46, were "too old" to look after the children.
They were allegedly stripped of their carer's rights and informed they would be barred from seeing the children altogether unless they agreed to the same-sex adoption.
The distraught grandfather said: "It breaks my heart to think that our grandchildren are being forced to grow up in an environment without a mother-figure.
"We are not prejudiced, but I defy anyone to explain to us how this can be in their best interests.
"The ideal for any child is to have a loving father and a loving mother in their lives."
I wonder, what are we 'tolerating'? I can only assume by tolerance they mean tolerance towards a same-sex couples desire to be wed. But if they're tossing in the amplifier, "True Expression of", well then I dont know what to make of that declaration, may I even go as far as to say its false.
Posted by: Cybpyly1.nn-And the Techno-gods | January 29, 2009 at 04:10 PM
How is this different from "government intrusion" in the anti-abortion position you support ?
How do you expect "non-believers" to discern a difference in your position in support of government intrusion against abortion, and the positions you protest above ?
If the people in a democracy place a government in office that changes laws against your opinions, why do you object ? Are you against democracy ?
Posted by: B. Stewart | January 29, 2009 at 05:02 PM
B. Stewart: re your first question, I think that's the point... to quote the article, "When laws are put in place, government isn't neutral anymore."
Because laws are not neutral, we must recognize that the pro-choice position is not pro-"choice", it's pro-abortion. You have governmental "intrusion" (whether by directly interfering or by directly preventing others from interfering) either way.
It's not that the author opposes democracy (as opposed to the people fighting against Prop 8, a democratically-passed measure); he is arguing what the people should do in their democracy. To use an extreme example, if everyone votes Hitler into office, it's not anti-democracy to oppose the actions of Hitler.
Posted by: Naturallawyer | January 29, 2009 at 05:21 PM
B., it's the government's job to protect human life. It's not the government's job to decide whether or not parents are too old and then take away their children accordingly.
Posted by: Amy Hall | January 29, 2009 at 05:24 PM
I disagree. It isn't the government's job to "protect life". In a "democracy" the government's job is to do the will of the majority, even if that will is self-destructive.
People will debate ad nauseum about what constitutes government intrusion.
Such debates - from either side - do nothing to further the Kingdom of God.
Posted by: B. Stewart | January 29, 2009 at 05:50 PM
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...."
The government gets it's power from the people, from their consent. However, there are certain rights (given by an authority greater than the people or the government) that are "self-evident" that the government exists to protect. Life is one of the biggest. Historically, in our democracy, there is a law above the government, above the masses, that we're to submit to in order to be just.
Secondly, it's a biblical idea to seek the good of the nation in which we're living. For example, Jeremiah 29:7 says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare." In the welfare of our country, we will have welfare. We're also to do justice and love mercy (see Micah 6:8). Therefore, looking out for the good of the weakest is most definitely one thing Christians should be doing in the course of their lives.
Posted by: Amy Hall | January 29, 2009 at 06:17 PM
B. Stewart,
If by the first sentence alone, we can observe that such an institution is not the tolerance they may lead it on to be. But in saying that, isint any official ruling intolerant of something? Its just a matter of what that something is. Poorly worded at best, intentionally deceptive at worst.
Posted by: Cybpyly1.nn-And the Techno-gods | January 29, 2009 at 06:34 PM
Well said Amy.
B. Stewart said: "In a 'democracy' the government's job is to do the will of the majority, even if that will is self-destructive."
Not necessarily so in a representative democracy, or in a republic. While the story above is from the UK, note that America threw out democracy a long time ago. We are ultimately ruled by nine unelected officials who pretty much rule by fiat, and who certainly can't be said to be exercising the will of the people.
Posted by: Naturallawyer | January 30, 2009 at 12:07 AM
> We are ultimately ruled by nine
> unelected officials ...
We are ultimately ruled by our own collective idolatry of the pronouncements of those nine judges. The fact is, the majority of us regard those pronouncements as Supreme above all else.
We let them rule us thus, even when it's "against our will."
Posted by: Mike Westfall | January 30, 2009 at 06:06 AM
Romans 13:1-7
It has the answers.
Posted by: St. Paul | January 30, 2009 at 06:20 AM
"...note that America threw out democracy a long time ago. We are ultimately ruled by nine unelected officials who pretty much rule by fiat, and who certainly can't be said to be exercising the will of the people."
We've never been a pure democracy unless you include local decisions made at New England town hall meetings.
We have the privilege to live in a cleverly crafted democratic republic with three branches of government each carefully balanced against the machinations of the others.
I daresay if we lived in a pure democracy there would be no legal rights for women, minorities, and non-Protestants.
Posted by: Giles Corey | March 17, 2009 at 09:15 AM