However, given that I was taken to task this evening on Facebook by two “confessional Lutheran” gentlemen over my critique of their arguments, I’ve invited them to respond here with their arguments supporting the repeal.

Let’s see if they show up.

In the meantime, here’s a video featuring Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass).

Clip HT: Blue Collar Philosophy.

A social trend which has had a tremendous impact upon bioethics is the separation between sex and reproduction made possible by contraception. Why not separate reproduction from parenthood? This is the possibility explored by Daniela E. Cutas, of the University of Gothenburg, and Lisa Bortolotti, of the University of Birmingham, in a recent issue of the journal Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology.Why should artificial reproduction be privileged over natural reproduction, they ask. It is inconsistent to demand that the welfare of the child be a criterion for assisted reproduction, but not for natural reproduction.

“What we should not promote and respect are accidental parenting unaccompanied by critical reflection of its exercise, the ostentatious display of reproductive capacities, unquestioned bad parenting, or blind conformity to the pro-reproductive culture,” they claim.

This reasoning leads them to float some radical possibilities for the future of parenting:

Breaking up the “pro-reproductive culture”

Compulsory contraception, regardless of personal convictions. “Enforcing contraception infringes upon people’s liberties. But we should not forget that preventing individuals from receiving assistance to become parents is also an infringement of liberties.”

Confiscating children after they are born from incompetent parents: “For as repugnant as [it]… might seem, the benefits of having some regulation over natural reproduction and subsequent parenting… are not to be dismissed lightly.”

Compulsory parenting education: “the main purpose of parenting education should be to impress upon prospective parents that parenting is not the prerogative of an individual; and that it should not be viewed just as the means to achieving personal fulfilment when other aspects of one’s life are less than satisfactory.”

The legal debate about gender and parentage has increasingly relied on empirical data from the social sciences claiming to show how children fare in different familial arrangements.

“Although the most recent studies provide support for the diversity approach and evidence from the social sciences might be valuable on a range of issues, looking to these data to resolve whether gender should matter in the law of parentage is misguided, regardless who momentarily holds the upper hand,” Appleton says.

“Studies looking at sexuality, gender performance and family characteristics are fraught with value judgments, and findings about overall well-being are often met with counter-evidence, among other problems.

“Such studies also often reflect the marginalization of nontraditional families under the prevailing legal regime, including the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage in most states,” she says.

Appleton says that parentage rules are important because of the authority and responsibility that family law invests in those individuals deemed parents and the relative lack of legal status and protection accorded to non-parents.

She discusses her support for the diversity approach to the law of parentage and the problems in constructing a legal regime based on empirical findings in “Gender and Parentage: Family Law’s Equality Project in Our Empirical Age,” a chapter in the forthcoming book, What is Parenthood?

CHEN Wei-yih has posed for a set of photos in a flowing white dress, enlisted a wedding planner and rented a banquet hall for a marriage celebration with 30 friends. But there is no groom. Chen will marry herself.

Uninspired by the men she’s met but facing social pressure to get married, the 30-year-old Taipei office worker will hold the reception next month in honor of just one person. “Age 30 is a prime period for me. My work and experience are in good shape, but I haven’t found a partner, so what can I do?” Chen said.

Poor lady. I feel sorry for her. The “wedding” won’t be legal, of course, but neither would a divorce.

Let’s hope that she can keep herself together.

[On Monday] the Ninth Circuit took the first step in doing the right thing for the people of California and the tens of millions across the United States who not only believe in true marriage but also in the rule of law.  ‘Tony Perkins praises the Ninth Circuit’ is not a headline I thought I would ever live to see, but even the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit understood the chaos Judge Walker had recklessly unleashed.

“The next step for the court, if it wants to keep its streak of sobered judgment, is to throw out Judge Walker’s entire ruling.  Ultimately, we are confident that the courts will recognize marriage, as correctly defined, has never violated any constitutional provision.”

Part of Walker’s shoddy reasoning includes the attempt to analogize past irrational bans on interracial marriage and contemporary bans on same-sex marriage. If part of “real” marriage includes the possibility of procreation, then there is no analogy. An interracial (aren’t we beyond this language?!?) male-female couple, normally, possesses all the right accoutrements for procreating a child. Here’s CNN quoting part of Walker’s rationale:

“Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre,” he added. “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”

Don’t even get me started on the contemporary sociological definition of “gender.” “Gender” is society’s construct of roles and behaviors based on “sex” (male or female); gender is not “sex,” per se. Note how there is no rational recognition of the physical reality of sex differences, the societal fruits of marriage, or the societal harms caused by illegitimate sexual activity in Walker’s reasoning.

(Special Note: Do not use the word “gender” unless you are going to explain the sociological definition, which is what is being used in many quarters today.)

Such reasoning only seeks to legitimize, via the state, preferred sexual pleasure. Behold, The Abyss!

This issue isn’t at all about “rights” or “equality,” y’all. It is about legitimizing illegitimate sex, and all that comes with it.

The churches–any of them who wish to remain able to practice their faith in relative freedom–will have to seriously consider getting out of the business of acting as “duly recognized” agents of the state in legalizing marriages. The alternative will be inevitable lawsuits charging “discrimination” for disallowing church weddings, a diminution of our constitutional right to free worship, and a further emptying of church coffers as settlements and fines are levied.

After I tried passing through the line of protesters, a young policeman forbade nearby my entrance to the actual pro-traditional marriage event, saying, “We’ve had a lot of trouble. . . I can’t let you go in there.” The “trouble” must have occurred before I arrived. I showed the officer my ID and explained who I was. Following that exchange, he allowed me to pass.

There were about three speakers, the names of whom I didn’t catch. The crowd was supportive, but subdued. I don’t think that the mood was due to the balmy weather; St. Louis has cooled off to a “very warm” since a storm passed through yesterday evening. It was, nevertheless, surreal to say the least, on a variety of levels. First, it was my first experience to be in the “minority” at a public event with so many protesters nearby. Second, every time a motorist passed by and honked, the protesters would raise up a loud cheer, which sometimes made it difficult to hear the speaker.

I picked up a “One man, one woman” tee-shirt, which I plan to wear to work tomorrow. By the way, before I left I introduced myself to Mr. Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage. This nice young fellow bragged to an acquaintance nearby, “Yeah, we just had number six [children].” The acquaintance replied, “Well, we’re still trying to catch up with five.”

Gotta love Catholics when it comes to kids! Would that orthodox Lutherans would follow suit.

Here is a picture of Mr. Brown and I after the event. Apparently, invoking the name of Todd Wilken is strong kung fu.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, in a 136-page ruling, said California “has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions.”

“The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples,” Walker wrote. The ruling struck down Proposition 8 as a violation of federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.

Of course, the judge’s statement above completely ignores nature. Parsed, only “moral and religious views form . . . the basis for [traditional marriage]” is what he is saying. The irrationality of this statement is simply stunning.

The Times reports further that the judge stayed his order until Friday, allowing for the filing of appeals. No word yet when or where same-sex marriage licenses will resume in The Golden State.

Although it pertains to the Kingdom of the Left, or God’s left-hand rule (how God orders His creation through His Law), marriage is not an adiaphoron. Severe punishments fall upon those who disregard or disdain God’s institution of marriage–one man and one woman for life. Here’s Philip in the Apology.

Defense of the Augsburg Confession XXIII:55:

Accordingly, at this time, marriage ought to have been especially defended by the most severe laws and warning examples, and men ought to have been invited to marriage. This duty pertains to the magistrates, who ought to maintain public discipline. [God has now so blinded the world that adultery and fornication are permitted almost without punishment; on the contrary, punishment is inflicted on account of marriage. Is not this terrible to hear?] Meanwhile the teachers of the Gospel should do both; they should exhort incontinent men to marriage, and should exhort others not to despise the gift of continence.

Image: Philipp Melanchthon, by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553). Source: Wikimedia Commons. Public domain.