John Wesley convinced me that improper action is ultimately rooted in some kind of theological problem. Perhaps the call for Marriage Amendments comes from the fact that so many on the Christian right have a lousy theology of the state? A lousy theology of marriage? Both?
From what I can tell, the strongest case for government in Scripture is Romans 13 - but that passage suggests that the purpose of government is to punish the evildoer. I think many Christians read "evildoer" as "sinner". But, from my very rudimentary understanding of Greek, that's not the case. The two are different Greek words. "Sin" typically comes from the Greek "hamartia" which means "missing the mark". It tends to place the emphasis on the fact that sin is self-originated. "Evil", at least in Romans 13, is from "kakos" - which often implies doing harm/injury to someone else.
While I don't think that Romans 13 actually provides an argument that we need government to do these things (it's one thing to say that an institution serves a purpose and another to say that only that institution can serve that purpose), it is interest to me that going back to the Greek suggests that Romans 13 is really only giving justification to a libertarian government that punishes things like murder, rape, theft, and fraud...
I've seen this idea (or a similar one) bouncing around, more typically (?) in the form of suggesting a "civil union" sponsored by the government that would give the same rights the marriages currently have - and having that be the only recognition for any sort of couple of what the couple might consider a marriage situation (i.e., it would replace the "marriage" idea in government entirely). The suggestion is, I think, grounded in the fact that the biggest problem with having government so closely tied to marriage is that it affords people certain benefits - tax breaks, hospital visitation rights, and so on. And THESE are, in some sense, the inequality being imposed on same-sex couples, as the world sees it. From what I can see, the call seems less to be to redefine marriage, and more to recognize that these couples have "in the same way" devoted their lives to each other, and as such should receive the same governmental benefits. (I might be misunderstanding, of course - this is not a specific discussion I've had with people arguing
( ... )
The first is the REASON for the governmental benefits - the government gives people benefits for what it perceives to be behavior beneficial to society.
Is this desirable, though? Should we have the government punishing people for being single (which is, effectively, what a higher tax burden does)?
Because the rest of these - visitation rights, for instance - seem like they could be extended between any consenting parties without too much trouble. Why shouldn't I be able to designate people to function as family for the purpose of seeing me in the hospital?
I see your point with, for instance, adult-child relationships - but I think the same safeguards that would hinder any minor in entering into a major legally-binding contract would apply there. So, typically, parental consent - and if parental consent is a non-issue in a particular case, I feel like that's a case that's already about as bad as it could be.
Should we have the government punishing people for being single (which is, effectively, what a higher tax burden does)?That's the question I think I agree we should be asking - and I'm not sure how I come down on the answer. There are already financial advantages to living with other people (whether those are roommates or romantic partners), so the bigger question in my mind is whether the government should be incentivizing people who are already living together (or thinking of doing so) to get married (alternatively, punishing people for not committing). And... quite possibly, the answer is no. Do we really want people to get married when the only difference and motivation is tax breaks? Probably not. On the other hand, would it be more stable for our (the collective) children to live in married homes, more healthy for our society if people continued to see marriage and commitment as the logical endpoint? Probably. Whether we actually GET those things is perhaps to be argued - considering divorce rates and failures to recognize
( ... )
On the other hand, would it be more stable for our (the collective) children to live in married homes, more healthy for our society if people continued to see marriage and commitment as the logical endpoint? Probably. Whether we actually GET those things is perhaps to be argued - considering divorce rates and failures to recognize marriage for what it is even now. My concern is that these trends will only increase if we make the difference between saying you're married or not merely a statement with no societal ramifications aside from perception.
On the other, other hand, when you use incentives to encourage behavior or mitigate risk (even unintentionally), more people will behave that way, a phenomena known as "moral hazard." FEMA, for example, says "We'll replace your house if it's destroyed in a natural disaster," which reduces the risk of living in an area prone to flooding, earthquakes, etc., and as such, developments are more likely to form in those area, to extreme cost when those disasters inevitably happen. The same could
( ... )
Comments 16
A few thoughts come to mind, though...
John Wesley convinced me that improper action is ultimately rooted in some kind of theological problem. Perhaps the call for Marriage Amendments comes from the fact that so many on the Christian right have a lousy theology of the state? A lousy theology of marriage? Both?
Reply
Hm. I'm not sure I'd agree that the problem is always theological, but maybe we're just using different senses of "improper ( ... )
Reply
Reply
From what I can tell, the strongest case for government in Scripture is Romans 13 - but that passage suggests that the purpose of government is to punish the evildoer. I think many Christians read "evildoer" as "sinner". But, from my very rudimentary understanding of Greek, that's not the case. The two are different Greek words. "Sin" typically comes from the Greek "hamartia" which means "missing the mark". It tends to place the emphasis on the fact that sin is self-originated. "Evil", at least in Romans 13, is from "kakos" - which often implies doing harm/injury to someone else.
While I don't think that Romans 13 actually provides an argument that we need government to do these things (it's one thing to say that an institution serves a purpose and another to say that only that institution can serve that purpose), it is interest to me that going back to the Greek suggests that Romans 13 is really only giving justification to a libertarian government that punishes things like murder, rape, theft, and fraud...
Reply
Reply
Is this desirable, though? Should we have the government punishing people for being single (which is, effectively, what a higher tax burden does)?
Because the rest of these - visitation rights, for instance - seem like they could be extended between any consenting parties without too much trouble. Why shouldn't I be able to designate people to function as family for the purpose of seeing me in the hospital?
I see your point with, for instance, adult-child relationships - but I think the same safeguards that would hinder any minor in entering into a major legally-binding contract would apply there. So, typically, parental consent - and if parental consent is a non-issue in a particular case, I feel like that's a case that's already about as bad as it could be.
Reply
Reply
On the other, other hand, when you use incentives to encourage behavior or mitigate risk (even unintentionally), more people will behave that way, a phenomena known as "moral hazard." FEMA, for example, says "We'll replace your house if it's destroyed in a natural disaster," which reduces the risk of living in an area prone to flooding, earthquakes, etc., and as such, developments are more likely to form in those area, to extreme cost when those disasters inevitably happen. The same could ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment