Hoo boy... Well, this will probably make unpopular with a number of people. As long as I tick people off on both sides I'm good, right?
As to our dear leader's recent statement that he is for the legalization of gay marriage:
He has a right to his opinion. Do I think he's wrong? Absolutely. However, it's not like this is a big shock to anybody, it's probably better that he not beat around the bush. That being said, will that be the new stick? Vote Obama or you're a homophobe? Who knows.
As to the rightness or wrongness of legalizing "homosexual marriage"... There are basically three positions I see in this issue: (1) Yes Gay Marriage is fine, legalize it; (2) no Gay Marriage is not fine, ban it; (3) the government shouldn't be dictating marriage laws, regardless of my opinions on Gay Marriage. Given the current government we have, this specific government, I am relatively (80~90%) convinced that three is the only tenable position to hold.
As to the first, the legalization of gay marriage has already driven the most successful institutions in the foster care industry out in many states (i.e. Catholic Charities). Legalizing gay marriage means that not fostering to homosexual couples is an illegal discrimination, forcing a religious institution to violate its tenants or get out. Yeah... We really want to be in that place again...
The second option is favored by many conservatives, but remember that one of the big reasons for the government to issue marriage licenses was to prevent interracial marriage. If we give the government it's head now and say that it has the right to dictate who can and cannot get married, what is to prevent an expansion of that in the future? More than that, given that some religions (e.g. certain brands of Mormonism) permit and even promote plural marriage, is that not prohibiting free exercise?
The third option is to my mind not ideal, but the best option that limits the scope of the government's power to interfere in out lives. Consider, if gay marriage was legalized, how long would it be before the Catholic Church (or protestant churches who consider homosexuality to be disordered) started to be attacked? How long before the law suits against Catholic (and other) business owners who weren't comfortable contracting for the marriage ceremonies of people whose marriages they considered unnatural?
How long before the government decides to start using marriage licenses as a carrot and stick in a bigger social engineering program?
No amount of legislation is going to prevent homosexual fornication, just as no amount of it has prevented heterosexual fornication. Laws are not the issue here: the sickness is in our culture, and it I'm not just talking about homosexuality.
But therein lies a major problem in what many conservatives seem to be arguing for, and the reason why they are so easily contradicted on this issue. While "tu quoque" (you too! - pointing out hypocrisy) is a fallacy and does not disprove an argument, holding a position while acting in a manner contrary makes you very unconvincing, and is like building on sand.
Conservatives have no room to decry "homosexual marriage" while they treat marriage in general with contempt and scorn. While they contracept their marriages, they have no foundation. While they live together and fornicate before marriage so that the wedding is a formality, they have no foundation. While they marry and divorce each other on a whim, treating it as no more binding that a junior high relationship, they have no foundation.
Our country needs a strong foundation, and that foundation is the family. The family has always been the foundation of society, it existed before society, and it will persevere through the dissolution of society. To be sure, the "homosexual marriage" movement threatens that foundation, and needs to be stopped. Unfortunately, it seems that most of the people arguing against "homosexual marriage" have been complicit in undermining that same foundation from which they are attempting to stop unnatural marriage.
Matthew 7:3-5
Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye.
