The Simple Facts of a Simple Amendment
- Print print this page
- Discuss 78 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
By Robert L. Deucher
Special to The Pilot
"M arriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts." (Proposed Article 14, sec 6.)
The natural law is immutable, and cannot change; it is written in the human soul. This is the framework that provides a brief and objective review of the numerous personal, emotional and political arguments about the marriage amendment for our state.
It is a simple and objective truth that only the most strident atheist can attempt to ignore. Social scientists, political scientists and philosophers can share common ground that certain truths govern our existence. The natural law, as reflected by virtually every society and countless religions, has implicitly maintained the union of a man and woman as its primary societal unit.
In this regard, positive laws (i.e., man-made laws) need to flow from and support the natural law.
Those that do will create a society that will seek the common good while promoting individual liberty. At the same time, the natural law dictates that some positive laws are firm and distinct, without any middle ground of compromise.
Western civilization has developed positive laws based on a Judeo-Christian philosophy. As a modern example of this, polygamy was outlawed in every state in our union in the 19th century, thereby enforcing the constitutional rights of states to define marriage.
The definition of marriage has been an assumption until the present age, when confusion about individual liberties has reigned supreme.
The state of North Carolina statute in 1996 states that marriage is essentially defined as one man and one woman. This had bipartisan support, including state Sen. Perdue (now governor), state Sen. Cooper (now attorney general) and state Rep. Hackney (previous speaker). Why would such prominent leaders now reverse positions and inject confusion?
Most readers will be surprised to find that this is not "Amendment One." In fact, North Carolina is currently governed by its third constitution, ratified in 1971. Between 1971 and 2004, 28 amendments were brought to the voters.
Certainly our legislators did not err in mislabeling this "marriage amendment" (see Senate Bill 514). Rather, this was injected by contrarians to confuse the voters with fear that they are violating a document for the first time.
The amendment is factually a defensive rather than an offensive procedure. The current law is under legal challenge in Asheville as unconstitutional, and it will continue to be assailed in future years.
Of note, the Williams Institute of UCLA, in support of same-sex unions, cites that a minuscule 0.12 percent of U.S. households are same-sex couples with children.
Yet it has been suggested that this amendment is a costly waste for our state, whereas the exact opposite is the fact. The state will need to repeatedly defend its 1996 statute at taxpayer expense for these few. If passed, the amendment will then be solidified, whereby only we the people can change it by another vote.
The amendment defends the religious liberties of all. If same-sex marriages were permitted, faith-based adoption agencies would be forced to comply against their beliefs or close. This is factually happening in Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., and Illinois, where orphans become victims. Religious liberty must be protected and not discriminated against.
Claims of intolerance are incorrect when such groups as Courage (see couragerc.net) support people of same-sex attraction in a Christian way. Fundamental human dignity is not reduced to sexual expression.
The genetic argument is less relevant to the discussion. Genetics of other conditions are better substantiated, yet do not lead to a redefinition of societal institutions.
Finally, arguments regarding legal, medical and financial benefits to partners can be pursued through contract law. Advanced directives, wills and contracts remain untouched as noted in the amendment.
Single people and people cohabitating are not affected by this law. Rather than distorting the definition of marriage, a more courteous and appropriate avenue is to work with employers and agencies who determine the regulation of benefits.
To vote for the marriage amendment is to comply with the natural law; to adhere to our Judeo-Christian view of positive law; and to preserve religious liberties for all in our society. It is not discriminatory, since it follows this hierarchy.
Robert L. Deucher, M.D., who describes himself as "a father of 12 with one wonderful wife," lives in Vass.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
Bentpan 1 year ago
Dr. Deucher, thank you for what is far and away the most accurate, well thought out article, I've read on Amendment One.
visigrad 1 year ago
"Fundamental human dignity is not reduced to sexual expression." Thank you for your reasoned article....and for this statement in particular. I hope folks will consider the above quote deeply. I personally know people who are drawn to those of their own sex who resent being 'labeled' because of their sexuality. It is important for those confused readers to understand that simply being in favor of the Marriage Amendment does not prove or even in the least way imply hatred for another. All life is sacred and must be respected.
blake 1 year ago
I have never before seen the use of natural law to try to restrict the rights of others in society. Historically, they have been used as justification to rise against tyranny and spread liberty. I find it highly ironic that those "most religious" and least likely to believe in evolution are using social Darwinism. I believe you have a confusion between "natural law" and what is considered the law of nature or "survival of the fittest." It is the latter that you are fallaciously promoting.
SoPinesNo1 1 year ago
Wonderful article.
jimt 1 year ago
Well said blake. Maybe the good doc will tell us what the natural law basis for instituting and then setting the level of the Capital Gains Tax is? Or maybe he can help us determine whether or how to regulate "fracking" in keeping with the natural law? Should the natural law apply at the State or County level; or is it just applicable for Federal statutes?
mcg2010 1 year ago
"The state will need to repeatedly defend its 1996 statute at taxpayer expense for these few. If passed, the amendment will then be solidified, whereby only we the people can change it by another vote."
And there isn't going to be a legal challenge if the Amendment is passed? Look at Prop 8 in California. This will be challenged in a higher court and will more than likely be ruled unconstitutional. And North Carolina Tax payers are going to foot the bill to defend it. No different thn defending the EXISITING law that prohibits gay marriage in the state. Not to mention the countless cases that will end up in court challenging the amendment, as we try to define the broad language of the Amendment. I find little validity in what good this does for the state. It is discriminatory, it does nothing to protect families, it raises more questions and potential legal challenges that would effect ALL families in the state and it is going to cost the state money. Argue against the specific outcomes all you want, because those are undetermined. But this is going to cost the state money and hurt families.
Vote AGAINST Amendment 1 on May 8th (or earlier)!!
fringwap 1 year ago
Your talk of "natural law" is wholly subjective and based purely on religious beliefs - and religion has no place in secular law. Homosexual acts occur in hundreds of animal species; calling them "unnatural" is an outright denial of the truth. And how on earth can you cite anti-polygamy laws as "based on a Judeo-Christian philosophy" when the Bible clearly endorses polygamy?
Also, this sentence bothers me greatly: "It is a simple and objective truth that only the most strident atheist can attempt to ignore." You are painting atheists as people who believe in God, but shun Christianity just to spite Him; this is nonsensical, prejudiced, and downright rude. I am not an atheist, but I have many friends who are - and none of them are like this.
LauraLeigh 1 year ago
Well, said, Rob. Bravo!
RobertDeucher 1 year ago
Thank you, Bentpan
RobertDeucher 1 year ago
Visigrad, I agree. Human dignity needs to be maintained in our honest discussions, without rancor and vitriole.
RobertDeucher 1 year ago
Blake, I am not explaining Darwinian laws of nature. The conversation of natural law pre-dates Christianity. The philosophical debates that I studied began with Aristotle and the Greek minds. Please begin my offering in a hierarchy that looks to find common themes amongst cultures throughout history and across a spectrum of religion. Natural law can be followed through schools of philosophy and jurisprudence.
RobertDeucher 1 year ago
jimt, this a great question. Once the natural law is accepted as a valid truth, then history can reflect on how different cultures and nations have used positive law to define the culture. Stewardship can generally be accepted as an example of governance in respect to the oversight of your examples (mind you not the only one in this case). Environmental laws can and should reflect an ethic that can give our capitalistic society guidance to authentic science. Regarding taxation I would reflect on a principle of subsidiarity that reflects a natural law of value of the individual and the family. Certainly topics for a full day symposium!
RobertDeucher 1 year ago
mcg2010 Regarding California, one of the reasons the legal loophole remained open under the 14th amendment is the basic difficulty that many scholars have in distinguishing the difference between a civil union and a marriage. As I understand, that is the basis of the challenge in that California would still permit them; whereas our current law and proposed amendment does not cloud the legal distinctions. Thereby, my limited legal knowledge from more scholarly minds has led me to understand there will be a decreased ability to find this law unconstitutional.. Welcome any legal scholars input...
RobertDeucher 1 year ago
fringwap, I believe you misquote me. I don't see "unnatural" in my piece.
As stated above, the Natural Law philosophy started well before Christ. The sentence about atheists certainly is misunderstood in this context. Pretend we are speaking about a human seeking the truth; the difference between right and wrong; the "golden rule" or some other truths that span time and cultures. To ignore that good people have walked this earth and continue to seek the Creator outsides the confines of Christianity is what the sentence is meant to include. The Natural Law of course embraces an atheist as they come to understand their perception of the ordered universe.
JD 1 year ago
to preserve religious liberties for all in our society
When have Christians been persecuted in American Society? I am pretty sure their liberties are fine. You can pray on your own, worship your SkyGod, and other things. What you can't do is impose your religious doctrine on people that do not share your beliefs. And making laws for the religious few is not responsible to non Christians in society. To quote a very spiritual man, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Gandhi
jimt 1 year ago
There is simply never going to be a "natural law" based legal code in this or any other country. It's totally subjective and provides no logical guidance on which to base said code. It will quickly devolve to "might makes right." That might may be force of arms or it may be a temporal political consensus of uncertain length of time. I'm content with man-made law based on a living U.S. Constitution, thank you.
RobertDeucher 1 year ago
JD I just visited Monticello this weekend. Of the three things that great mind conceived, Thomas Jefferson wrote on his tombstone the fact that his crafting of the Freedom of Religious Expression amendment in the Virginia Constitution was one of his highest achievements. There was great persecution in the colonies based on certain faith based idealogies. Some of the colonies for instance welcomed very few Chrisitans of a certain denomination. Why were there often ghettoes of Catholics in the large cities?. Why were churches burned? I have wonderful American History books that we can learn from as we continue to seek the Creator. As you probably know, each of the 50 States has in their preamble the expression that the blessings flow from God. Read our preamble to NC constitution today. However, while this frames our positive laws in this country, we will still permit in this society your worship of the SkyGod
RobertDeucher 1 year ago
jimt, Jefferson wrote otherwise. Unalienable rights reflect a Natural Law. Agreed that we have degenerated from the Natural Law, thus my desire to stay closer to it rather than further distance ourselves from it in the definition of Marriage.
blake 1 year ago
Dr Deucher, I understand what natural law is. It is a foundation regarding fundamental rights as well as using as using reason to define social moral behavior. Ironically, in the calssical sense it helps to define interaction between man and his fellow man. I have never any of the classical philosophers to use natural law to define marriage. I really think you are corrupting the definition of natural law.
nothingspecial 1 year ago
Dr. Deucher, thank you so much for expressing such wisdom about this topic.
To me, the topic involves the invention of a civil right and the complaint then, that there is a new group being oppressed. All of us have grown up knowing that one of the laws of the land was that marriage was the realm of women and men. Our founding fathers and those who followed them have had the values, character and wisdom to uphold and encourage that institution because they instinctively recognized its incredible importance to society. Since the civil rights movements of the 60's our society has worked to remove all traces of prejudice and bigotry from our population. That is a good thing but has also raised a generation scared to death of being perceived as judgmental or "not cool" about any desire by others to do their own thing.
I have one bit of advice for Christians. We are in danger of allowing our faith and basic values to be whittled away in very subtle ways by our society. If we do not immerse ourselves in the word and in a daily relationship with the Holy Spirit, we will come to a point where we are no longer able to tell counterfeits from real truths. There are counterfeit Christian values at play in the argument for same sex marriage.
JoeGarrison 1 year ago
Thawnk you Mr. Deucher for your article. I couldn't agree more:) Vote for Amendment One on may 8th.
JD 1 year ago
Deucher:
So Christians persecuted other Christians is your point? Again with Christian values written into preambles and your marvelous American History books again tell me how the US persecuted Christians? If Catholic churches were burned by Protestants that is you and yours having a conflict. And no I worship no SkyGod but Christians do and that has always been protected. Typically it is Christians imposing their views on others as with inserting their religion into secular politics.
jimt 1 year ago
"Natural Law" is itself an invention of mankind, conceptually dating from the Enlightment, hence Jefferson's interest in it. Almost all of our laws initially stemmed from the British Common Law, and adjusted over time as legislators and executives (State Governors and U.S. Presidents) sought to EXPAND the virtues of liberty and freedom to include previously disenfranchised citizens, e.g. blacks, women, and now gays.
FYI, preambles are not legally binding in any sense.
And as you may know, Jefferson approved of Christ's moral teachings, but vigorously objected to the notion this his ascribed "miracles" proved his divinity and thereby lent absolute credibility to his teachings. Hence the "Jefferson Bible," where TJ totally expunged all references to miracles and Christ's divinity so that people could focus on his moral concepts which TJ thought should stand alone as the basis for how people should treat one another and how government should act in furthuring the goal of creating a just society.
Blake is absolutely right when he notes that "Natural Law" was/is based on reason while opposition to gay marriage is virtually always based on biblical text and religious belief, which is the opposite of reason. So I think your goal of squaring religious belief with reason, and thus natural law, is doomed to failure.
Bentpan 1 year ago
jimt
"So I think your goal of squaring religious belief with reason, and thus natural law, is doomed to failure."............................................................. I see Jimt is showing his double digit IQ again, I'll make it simple so you and your simpleton followers can, well follow. Less than 4% of the population is in fact homosexual, their views and practices are viewed by society and are by deffinition abnormal (Abnormality, in the vivid sense of something deviating from the normal or differing from the typical (such as an aberration), is a subjectively defined behavioral characteristic, assigned to those with rare or dysfunctional conditions.) Seems pretty reasonable to me and most intelligent (having good understanding or a high mental capacity; quick to comprehend) members of society. Jimt contrary to your beliefs stupidy is not a virtue.
Bentpan 1 year ago
Normally I'd not belittle those who have been less fortunate intellectually than the rest of us but frankly jimt, JD, JER, Moonchild and getreal have stomped on my last nerve.
Courseaire 1 year ago
By some definitions, the following groups should be denied Constitional Rights based on percent of population: Easter Othodox - 0.6%, Mormons - 1.7%, Jehovah Witness - 0.7%, Mixed-race - 1.9%, Agnostics - 2.4%, Atheists - 1.6% and non-Christians - 4.7%.
clarabelle 1 year ago
"Bentpan - Normally I'd not belittle those who have been less fortunate intellectually than the rest of us but frankly jimt, JD, JER, Moonchild and getreal have stomped on my last nerve."
I have had the displeasure of reading a few of your posts - and I am certain not too many of us are less fortunate than you regarding intelligence!
Courseaire 1 year ago
BP -Though I do not usually agree socially or politically with jimt, JER & Moonchild, I find them to be some of the most intelligent posters on this site and I find you just post stuff.
jimt 1 year ago
Bedpan,...oh, forget it, responding to you is pointless.
Thanks Courseaire.
truthiswelcome 1 year ago
Thank you, Dr. Deucher! The best article I have seen on this amendment. You are a very honorable man as well as a great, caring doctor. Thanks again. Vote FOR amendment one.
clarabelle 1 year ago
I imagine one of these days - some insecure people will not need to control other peoples lives...........NAHHHH
RobertDeucher 1 year ago
Blake You are correct. I am not aware of the classical philosophers using natural law to evaluate marriage. They did however begin the reflections that there is a natural law. The point I try to offer is that this is pre-Christian and not a construct of Christian morality. To my education, Thomas Aquinas in the Summa II-II, 153, synthesizes the reflection of the Natural Law into a reflection on Marriage.
RobertDeucher 1 year ago
JD You are correct. Those two examples I gave were in reflection not the best examples. So I now offer the example of current US government proposal through Health and Human Service (HHS) mandate to limit religious beliefs in health care. Persecution will occur against employers with a faith or belief contrary to the non-Christian government in this situation. Thanks for making this more relevant to a modern example.
RobertDeucher 1 year ago
jimt, I can see we are headed in opposite directions, since our starting point of Natural Law is polar opposite. I argue that it is imbued by a creator, while our intellect leads us in pursuit. You assert it as a fabrication of the intellect, a man-made construct without a creator. I also depart from Jefferson in choosing the avenue to seek the Creator as the intellect can not comprehend what faith in a Bible (not fit to my own code and interpretation as he edited) teaches
jimt 1 year ago
This example is absurd and was recently "invented" by Republicans as nothing more than a means of attacking Obama. You're absolutely wrong to suggest that the HHS mandate "limit(s) religious beliefs in health care." Your next assurtion is equally wrong. No one is being persecuted because they have a faith or belief contrary to the "non-Christian government." First off, the U.S. government is supposed to be non-Christian. You seem to think that's wrong. Secondly, anyone with employees who are offered health insurance as part of their compensation package, under your construction can simply choose to deny women contraception coverage by claiming that it violates their beliefs or religion. Under the Republicans construction of their religious liberty, all they have to do is assert this reason. One wonders if condems cost over a $100 a month would these newly "religously persecuted" employers refuse to pay for them too?
Anti-gay activists now argue that they should not have to contribute their tax money to support benefits, such as social security survivors benefits, should gay marriage be legalized. They argue that their payments into a social security system that will provide such payments to survivors of a gay marriage will violate their religious beliefs.
I think, quite unwittingly, you have provided a wonderful example of why "natural law" theories serving as the basis for actual legislation and the "rights" Americans are due by virtue of their humanity rather than as a result of being Americans in a Country governed on the basis of a constituion, are unworkable in reality.
jimt 1 year ago
Also, using Jefferson to buttress your argument regarding "natural law" is a questionable strategy.
Here's Jefferson's orgininal draft of the first part of the Declaration of Independence:
"A Declaration of[1] the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress assembled.
To my mind, and the mind of many Jeffersonians historians, a reference to the laws of nature & of nature's god..." is a far cry from stating that a human's rights are derived from his "creator's" wishes.
I attended the University of Virginia, as a graduate student in government. We were, as you might guess, imbued with a deep respect for our school's founder. I think the Jefferson Bible, coupled with Jefferson's commitment to the values of the Enlightenment undercut your argument that human rights devolve from the Supreme Being who wrote the Bible, if you believe that the Bible is the true word of god, which I assume you do. If you want, I can recommend several books about Jefferson that I have read, but you should start with John Meacham's "American Gospel: God, the Founder's and the Beginning of a Nation."
visigrad 1 year ago
jimt .... if you were forced by the government to pay for a building in which folks bow to a god in which you did not believe, would you call that persecution ?
RobertDeucher 1 year ago
jimt and jd, I believe you and other readers should not quickly ignore the facts based on an impulsive response that lowers this issue of religious liberty as an affront by one political party or another. Since more examples apparently are needed, I submit more for the interested and open mind. I agree the government is non-christian and that is what JD wished for me to present, so I have. (pardon the length of documentation that you require to see the obvious affronts against religious liberty).
excerpts from: The document Our First, Most Cherished Liberty: A Statement on Religious Liberty, was developed by the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty
Chairman Most Rev. William E. Lori, Archbishop-designate of Baltimore
Religious Liberty Under Attack—Concrete Examples
Is our most cherished freedom truly under threat? Sadly, it is. This is not a theological or legal dispute without real world consequences. Consider the following:
■State immigration laws. Several states have recently passed laws that forbid what the government deems "harboring" of undocumented immigrants—and what the Church deems Christian charity and pastoral care to those immigrants. Perhaps the most egregious of these is in Alabama, where the Catholic bishops, in cooperation with the Episcopal and Methodist bishops of Alabama, filed suit against the law:
It is with sadness that we brought this legal action but with a deep sense that we, as people of faith, have no choice but to defend the right to the free exercise of religion granted to us as citizens of Alabama. . . . The law makes illegal the exercise of our Christian religion which we, as citizens of Alabama, have a right to follow. The law prohibits almost everything which would assist an undocumented immigrant or encourage an undocumented immigrant to live in Alabama. This new Alabama law makes it illegal for a Catholic priest to baptize, hear the confession of, celebrate the anointing of the sick with, or preach the word of God to, an undocumented immigrant. Nor can we encourage them to attend Mass or give them a ride to Mass. It is illegal to allow them to attend adult scripture study groups, or attend CCD or Sunday school classes. It is illegal for the clergy to counsel them in times of difficulty or in preparation for marriage. It is illegal for them to come to Alcoholic Anonymous meetings or other recovery groups at our churches.4
■Altering Church structure and governance. In 2009, the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut Legislature proposed a bill that would have forced Catholic parishes to be restructured according to a congregational model, recalling the trusteeism controversy of the early nineteenth century, and prefiguring the federal government's attempts to redefine for the Church "religious minister" and "religious employer" in the years since.
(continued)
RobertDeucher 1 year ago
■Christian students on campus.In its over-100-year history, the University of California Hastings College of Law has denied student organization status to only one group, the Christian Legal Society, because it required its leaders to be Christian and to abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage.
■Catholic foster care and adoption services. Boston, San Francisco, the District of Columbia, and the state of Illinois have driven local Catholic Charities out of the business of providing adoption or foster care services—by revoking their licenses, by ending their government contracts, or both—because those Charities refused to place children with same-sex couples or unmarried opposite-sex couples who cohabit.
■Discrimination against small church congregations. New York City enacted a rule that barred the Bronx Household of Faith and sixty other churches from renting public schools on weekends for worship services even though non-religious groups could rent the same schools for scores of other uses. While this would not frequently affect Catholic parishes, which generally own their own buildings, it would be devastating to many smaller congregations. It is a simple case of discrimination against religious believers.
■Discrimination against Catholic humanitarian services. Notwithstanding years of excellent performance by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Migration and Refugee Services in administering contract services for victims of human trafficking, the federal government changed its contract specifications to require us to provide or refer for contraceptive and abortion services in violation of Catholic teaching. Religious institutions should not be disqualified from a government contract based on religious belief, and they do not somehow lose their religious identity or liberty upon entering such contracts. And yet a federal court in Massachusetts, turning religious liberty on its head, has since declared that such a disqualification is required by the First Amendment—that the government somehow violates religious liberty by allowing Catholic organizations to participate in contracts in a manner consistent with their beliefs on contraception and abortion.
I think (wittingly) I have kept this above a political party to make the point of the Natural Law superseding idealogies that change with society.
RobertDeucher 1 year ago
jimt, I accept defeat in your logic about Jefferson. However, his permission for us to each respectfully acknowledge a search for the Creator is irrefutable. His probable abhorence for the affronts upon religious institutions by State and Federal govenment can be agreed upon by both of us based upon his 1786 writing of The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom. I do wish to carry on with some of your suggested readings
katimae 1 year ago
This has been quite an interesting discussion. Thanks everyone for the information! How very pleasant to have reasonable discourse and stimulating debate...well for most of it anyway.
jimt 1 year ago
The Alabama law will to ruled unconstitutional once it reaches Federal Court.
I doubt if the Connecticut law will be ruled constitutional, but i am not familiar enough will the particulars of the case(s).
The issue of the right of a religious institution to withhold certain benefits from its employees, e.g. birth control, is conditional. Individuals directly employed by the Church, Temple, etc. can require that it's employees be of that religious faith since it receives no public money from a government entity for its operation. However, when said Church or Temple also runs a business, even if it is a non-profit business, such as a hospital, it must still conform to standards and policies established by government for the operation of said business, especially if it is a hospital. Now the question of whether the Church/Temple can withhold certain a specific benefit for its employees becomes more complicated. Does it only employee members of its faith? If it employs people from the larger community, including people not of its faith, can it opt out of providing said benefits that it regards as being in violation of its faith, such as birth control? I don't know the answer in all honesty. But it's sudden emergence as a political issue makes me suspicious that "defenders" of its right to aver from providing contraception are doing so for purely political reasons and not out of their deep concern over religious liberty.
The Hastings case will require probably be decided on whether or not there is a State interest in requiring that officially recognized organizations in a State supported school can establish behavioral standards as a condition of membership or establish a religious test for membership, which seems antithetical to the establishment clause. My guess is that Hastings decision will stand. The same organization could almost certainly be recognized at a private law school.
Providing foster care and adoption services is not a right. A State may set performance and placement standards, and so long as all organizations are held to the same standard, no religous discrimination can be said to exist. An analogy often used by conservatives with regard to gun control is that the 2nd Amendment creates a "right" to bear arms, so individual States cannot abridge that right, but States can set standards when issuing driver's licenses, because driving a car is a privilge, not a right. Same with providing foster care and adoption services.
jimt 1 year ago
Renting public school facilities for religious services is different from renting public school facilities for non-religious purposes. The establishment clause, again. Like it or not, so long as all religious institutions are denied the right to rent public school facilties for religious services these smaller churches are not being discriminated against. The "American" response to the problem such small churches have is essentially market oriented, get bigger, attract more people, get them to poney up money, buy some building, turn it into a Church, and voila!
TNatural 1 year ago
Wonderful debate. Yet all this time some were in the Natural Law thing I was sure there was something about how it takes a man AND a woman to procreate (reproduce/have children). It cant be done any other way. Its designed that way in Nature. There are a few of Gods-Natures creatures that can reproduce asexually. Man is not one of those creatures. I have been waiting for this little tid bit to come up. Anyone of mostly sound mind and body can take care of children to a point. They may not do as well as some others may be at it, but it can be done. Im not getting into abuse or anything else here. It takes one man and one woman to make a child.
Next - all the 'benefits" that will be lost. The companies providing them can care less who you add to your policies. As long as you pay for the number of people on that list they will cover them. Ever notice haw you have to list everyone in your "family", including you? They will be checked against an insurance database to determine how healthy they are and your rates will reflect that result. Laws change on that subject almost annually so keep up. THATS what really affects your coverage. The constant changing of the rules.
Thats my take on this discussion so far. I have already voted since I will be out of town on election day.
Carmen11 1 year ago
I believe strongly in the life of Jesus, which is why I am so opposed to this amendment. My spiritual beliefs honor the light of God within each person and therefore I am called to not discriminate or treat others as if I hold some moral high ground. Where is the protection of my religious freedom within this amendment? Why are the beliefs of some held higher and used to force religious beliefs on the rest of us? There is a reason we have separation of Church and State, and this amendment is in clear violation. In a state where religion was used to advocate for Jim Crow laws have we learned nothing? When do Christians understand they can make choices for themselves, but they are NOT the supreme judge for all of us. And their beliefs are just that, their's. They do not represent my beliefs nor should they ever be allowed to force their beliefs upon the greater society.
JohnChappell 1 year ago
What a pleasure it is to see such courteous, reasoned debate in comments!
My turn.
As I see it, there is a prior question.
Does such a thing as “natural law” even exist?
For a very long time the archetype of law has been the analogy we used to picture our understanding of the way things are, based on observations and scientific study in part – but framed by our ancient assumption that everything is somehow ruled by a lawgiver, i.e. “nature and nature's god” as Jefferson put it in the Declaration.
Now current understanding finds so-called nature flowing from the operations of chance, so statistical math is what we presently use for chemistry, physics, cosmology, and so forth.
Perhaps very soon evidence for the actual existence of the Higgs boson will come, and we will know at long last why there is anything at all rather than nothing.
Matt_Woodruff 1 year ago
Bentpan, I LOL at your feeble attempt to sound intelligent!! Your words say otherwise. Ad hominem is always a dead give away. Your attempt to characterize abnormality as being detrimental to society is void of any critical thinking imho. Imagine if the next mutation in humans is that of super intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_T... ) Oh wait, you said you don't believe in evolution, right?
Matt_Woodruff 1 year ago
Dr. Deuchers, shame on you for injecting misinformation into this discussion.
-" It is a simple case of discrimination against religious believers" Again not true. From the Supreme Court ruling: There is an important difference between excluding the conduct of an event or activity that includes expression of a point of view, and excluding the expression of that point of view. Under rules consistent with the purposes of the forum, schools may exclude from their facilities all sorts of activities, such as martial arts matches, livestock shows, and horseback riding, even though, by participating in and viewing such events, participants and spectators may express their love of them. The basis for the lawful exclusion of such activities is not viewpoint discrimination, but rather the objective of avoiding either harm to persons or property, or liability, or a mess, which those activities may produce.
This whole "christian persecution" thing is getting so tiresome. Can you really not see that if the majority of the population suddenly became devil worshippers and wanted to hold devil worship services at a public school or say a devil worship prayer at a football game these same people would be screaming at the top of their lungs "You can't do that"?!?
It is always beneficial for a society to be protected from the tyranny of the majority.
clarabelle 1 year ago
"Yet all this time some were in the Natural Law thing I was sure there was something about how it takes a man AND a woman to procreate "
I keep seeing this argument highlighted many times and still can't see the link between the ability to procreate and the right to marry. It has been challenged with an example of a heterosexual couple being unable to have children. If this metric is used I imagine a number of marriages would have to be declared null and void.
In all honesty - I am still amazed that so many people hold so much fear about something that is indeed inevitable. It is simply a matter of time before all of this is accepted - a close parallel with the civil rights battle.
jimt 1 year ago
John, your comment about the role of chance in "nature" reminded me of a famous quote by Einstein who intuitively rejected quantum mechanics as it was being initially posited and explored by Bohr and Heisenberg. "God does not throw dice with the Universe," he argued. He was wrong as it turns out. "Dice" are thrown in quantum mechanics, whether god exists and throws them is still beyond our ability to detect.
I tend to adhere to Woody Allen's observation about God. When contemplating His supposedly finest achievement, mankind, I believe he said in one of his films that "It's not that I don't believe in God, I just think he's a terrible underachiever." For proof, I give you Bedpan and Pest.
clarabelle 1 year ago
""It's not that I don't believe in God, I just think he's a terrible underachiever." For proof, I give you Bedpan and Pest."
Ouch :)
Courseaire 1 year ago
"Yet all this time some were in the Natural Law thing I was sure there was something about how it takes a man AND a woman to procreate " - but it doesn't take marriage to procreate nor does it take sexual intercourse to procreate.
clarabelle 1 year ago
Courseaire ................... yours is probably the most rational/sensible comment I have read here so far!
SoPinesNo1 1 year ago
Whether God created Adam and Eve, or they just happened along the path of evolution, It is Adam and Eve, not Adam and jimt, or Eva and Clarabelle!
clarabelle 1 year ago
"SoPinesNo1 - Whether God created Adam and Eve, or they just happened along the path of evolution, It is Adam and Eve, not Adam and jimt, or Eva and Clarabelle!"
.........and this has what to do with marriage? Go read your good book and leave rational people alone!
Courseaire 1 year ago
However, though Eve was with Adam, she was having an affair with the snake.
clarabelle 1 year ago
snake huh........ no contest size wise
MisterG 1 year ago
Switch any reference to "God" in the pro-Amendment One argument to "Allah" and watch the hillbillies scramble to defeat it.
SoPinesNo1 - It's not Adam and Eve either, since neither ever existed in the first place.
jimt 1 year ago
Speaking of A & E, does the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition embrace incest? Just wondering 'cause I still don't know who their kids married? Were these marriages civil ceremonies or religious ones?
JD 1 year ago
Deucher I can appreciate the correction in your response however I am stating as a secularist that I do not appreciate religious doctrine being enforced as law. The health mandates are subjective. Here is my example: If an employer claims to be Christian and does not want to pay certain Health Benefits then what stops anyone from just saying they are Christian and wanting to get out of paying some health insurance taxes? I feel most the protest over this in monetary rather than faith based.
Also, many can make the claim that many laws are based on the Commandments. But the only one that did not make into a punishable is Adultery and if it was a crime more people would be in jail than the Prison Industrial Complex could handle. But defining "natural law" when it is an organic thing is wrong. "Natural law" would be survival of the fittest and the strong taking what they want. As a religious person you should stand against such a "Natural Law."
SoPines
You believe in fairy tales as fact and yet again revert to name calling because you have nothing else to contribute. The O.T. to you Christians, but it is the Torah first and foremost. And even the most staunch Rabbi does not take the Genesis story as fact, but parable. Do you believe in Briar Rabbit or the Ant and the Grasshopper stories as fact?
EDIT: Also it is time to change the BEDPAN this one is over flowing with excrement again...
clarabelle 1 year ago
JD ................ excellent retort. I wonder if the intended audience can appreciate it...........nahhhhhh
jimt 1 year ago
Yeah, I've never really understood how America's Christian fundamentalists seem to get most of their interpretation of what should or should not be social policy, and thus political indentification (Conservative Fundamentalist Republican) from the Old Testament. You know, the angry demanding, death penalty focused, angry God, rather than Jesus's. Anyone got any insights in this regard?
Gratiaetnatura 1 year ago
The problem is the idea in contemporary American society that human nature can be changed by our own will. I suppose this is why the supporters of same-sex marriage seem only left with emotional screeds against so-called "Fundamentalists" rather than with rational argumentation. Human nature is not something that can be changed, as if by magic, by our own choices. Yes, we have free choice, but fee choice can be misused. Same sex marriage violates the principles every society has held, including societies, such as ancient Greece and Rome, that accepted homosexuality. These same societies recognized that given the natural function of marriage in bringing children into the world and in rearing them that any "marriage" between those of the same sex is marriage in name only. Many Americans are set on assuming that they can make human nature what they will in changing the nature of marriage. The only possible result, given the stability of human nature, is a more rapid disintegration of society that is already beginning to fall apart at the seams due to its glorification of absolute freedom at the expense of natural law.
RobertDeucher 1 year ago
jimt I thank you for the time and thought into the review of some of the examples that I proposed from the document by Bishop Lori. Your reviews were good. I appreciate the background of governmental studies that you bring. I can't take issue to any great degree. I do wish the other readers to have realized these examples spanned both parties. The one thing that my simple mind has come to understand is that a "comprehensive" law often has significant ramifications. As in medicine, we often proceed in a staged and rational sequence; I have been at a loss for why sometimes the extensive length of some of the legislation. I agree that the HHS regulation rebuttal by the Catholic Bishops, as part of the larger comprehensive health care legislation, is being used by the Republican party.
RobertDeucher 1 year ago
carmen11, I too believe that Christ walked the earth as a historical figure and that his claims are either those of a madman or that he was truly who he said he was. I do not see that your personal religious freedom is violated by this law. It does not make you culpable as a judge of the other individual. You have acknowledged this to Christ and you have (or will) vote your conscience. You are not being coerced by anyone or any government. The religious liberty declaration that I have tried to substantiate above is reflective of the government either through penal or financial action limiting a religious group from seeking to express and use their faith (i.e. adoption, healthcare, education) in the marketplace.
RobertDeucher 1 year ago
JohnChappell, Thanks! I had not read about the Higgs boson before. Interesting physics, certainly not enough neurons firing in my brain at present to fully comprehend. However, it did reflect some of the First Cause argument by Thomas Aquinas in its search for the Unmoved Mover. It is impossible to have infinite regression of causation; therefore there must be an uncaused cause (God). Physics and philosophy can meet as it may eventually with the Big Bang theory
RobertDeucher 1 year ago
Matt_Woodruff, I am not sure to be ashamed. The citation was from a document presented with credible legal guidance.
I do understand your point that a religious group at a public university should not be expected to receive taxpayer dollars. I don't know that activity fees are considered the same since it is coming from the student or the parents. I don't know if there are other religious groups on that campus receiving activity fees. I would also like to know if other California schools have permitted this same society to exist. Just questions. However, a religious organization does have a freedom to hire or include (voluntarily in this case for the Christian student) within its code and not be considered discriminatory. The Supreme Court this year in a rare occurrence upheld that in a 9-0 decision. I am also tired of the rhetoric of me being labeled a bigot, intolerant, unChristian, condescending, judgemental ignoramus for the fact that I support this amendment. I would think the bystander reading my entries would agree that these labels do not fit. That makes us both very tired people, equal under God.
RobertDeucher 1 year ago
JD Trust me on the fact that this HHS debate is not about the money. I agree with the fact that the cost of these services (both as a physician and employer) is not a big amount of money. The Catholic Bishops admit they were asleep at the helm during the 1970's in regard to engaging the culture apolitically. How this is framed in the near future by the media will be seen. I acknowledge earlier the Republican party is certainly channeling some of this for their gain. However, my previous example of Alabama immigration law could be used for Democratic party gains. You may be correct about other Christian groups riding this for monetary purposes; but not the case for the Catholic Bishops. As for the commandments and adultery, JimT might have more insight of governmental history. I know middle Eastern cultures retain capital punishment for adultery (I believe only for the woman) and certain the ancient Jewish culture did. Somewhere the acceptance of this, despite being against the Natural Law, did not get retained in our code of Law here or in England. I don't feel very good when I steal. I never felt good even as a kid. I don't believe the Natural Law governs the theory of "survival of the fittest" as it does in the animal kingdom. We are for this reason above the base instincts of animals and why I have not reverted any biological arguements to the animal kingdom.
jimt 1 year ago
I don't recall anyone is these posts suggesting you were a bigot, condescending, or a judgemental ignoramus.
I do think you might wish to consider Amendment One in the context of your Hypocratic Oath, "first do no harm." You've been provided ample evidence that this Amendment is likely to do harm. I urge you, like Coursaire has, to reconsider and vote against Amendment One as an American, as a physician, and a man of science and faith.
And finally, 12 children! You may recall the Groucho Marx show, "You bet your life." It was broadcast live in the late 50s. Groucho would conduct short interviews with the show's contestants. Groucho asked one woman, who appeared to be in her late 30s-early 40s if she had any children. "Yes Groucho," she said, "I have nine children." The audience let out a noticable gasp, and Groucho quickly asked, How long has you been married?" She said, 12 years, the audience gasped again. Groucho, "How do you explain having 9 children in 12 years?" "I guess I just love my husband." Groucho, "Well I love my cigar, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while!"
RobertDeucher 1 year ago
jimT I don't know about the Old Testamen God integration in politics. Of course it is the same God in both the Old and New. Certainly some anthropomorphic language and descriptions of God are limits to interpretation of a God who is just yet merciful (Old vs New). Sola scriptura can certainly defend any political position on either side of the fence. Context and valid interpretation perhaps has been the inconsistency through our Nation's history. Just some suggestions.
RobertDeucher 1 year ago
jimt, yes, I was using the "Royal Me" in the sense of myself representing the side labelled as bigots in this debate. This post has been cordial
I did also take the true Hypocratic oath of ancient times that had originally stated a physician shall not give an abortifacient. Sadly, the laws of our society changed the current medical code. I disagree that a physician should kill just because it is now the law of the land for abortion or for euthanasia. I sincerely do no harm in your misapplied appeal to my ethic as a physician. I have taken care of a lovely lady at Moore Regional whose wife left her and she then overdosed; I have held the hands of many dying in the 1990s of AIDS while training at Duke; I wish no harm for children adopted into or conceived by IVF and placed in same-sex households, with never once any credible study showing that the children grow up any healthier than the 12 gifts given to me.
Yeh, have heard all the jokes by now.
Never once met a person who wished they had less kids
jimt 1 year ago
Not a whole lot of "loving thy enemy" in the Old Testament doc. Worship me or you're a dead man. Death penalty for pretty tame things. Genocide, it's ok so long as "my people" do it, in fact, I've ordered them to do it.
You really think J.C. would be cool with all that?
myvoice 1 year ago
jimT-how disgusting. This is how you get your kicks. Thinking you are so super intelligent and above everyone else in the human race but you resort to such low and demeaning comments when you have been "one upped". A truly intelligent and lively discussion that has been going on here did not need to be lowered to junior high school, locker room insulting. The good and good-hearted Dr Deucher would never stoop to your level. I thank my SkyGod every day for people like him!
jimt 1 year ago
maybe myvoice can illuminate me as to when I was A) "disgusting" and B) "one upped" I guess you haven't been following this discussion from the beginning?
nothingspecial 1 year ago
The Pilot is a fine paper. I bitched about all the endless amendment articles but it was obviously what the readers wanted, like with the monkey. Now it is time for folks to vote and see what happens.
babiehop 1 year ago
Please tell me what N.C.'s definition of domestic legal union is. Anybody, please. What ? There isn't one ? Why use this language without defining it if you're trying to write it into law ?
Bentpan 1 year ago
It's may 8th 6:10 pm and exit polls are showing a 16 point advantage for pro marriage folks, thats usually refered to as a landslide. As usual liberal democrats are on the side of the unacceptable ie the wrong side yet again. This is an ideal bellwether for the nov. 2012 elections, For the first time in 3 1/2 years I'm confident in my country's future.
rdg65 1 year ago
Well said. Your article was well thought out, intelligent, and full of truth. Unfortunately, most people won't get it and reject the truth. Thanks for your efforts. It is appreciated by many.
T_Rat 1 year ago
The simple fact is the status of the majority, with or without the law or amendment, is unchanged. No straight married couple is less in danger of divorce, no engaged straight couple is less protected from braking up, with the passage of this amendment or the law it supports. The simple fact is the majority prevented a minority from having the same social benefits the majority already enjoys. To call this anything but discrimination on the basis of a trait beyond an individual's choice is a lie at worst, self delusion at best. Your god and religion belongs in your house and place of worship, not in the public arena.