Billy Graham, who was dubbed the "most revered person in NC" last December by PPP, has endorsed the North Carolina Marriage Protection Amendment.
The Associated Press reports:
The Rev. Billy Graham urged North Carolina voters Wednesday to support an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage, a move that an observer said was highly unusual but another said was in keeping with the minister's moral beliefs.
"Watching the moral decline of our country causes me great concern," said Graham, 93, who lives near Asheville. "I believe the home and marriage is the foundation of our society and must be protected."
His complete statement about Amendment One will be part of full-page ads slated to appear in 14 North Carolina newspapers throughout the weekend.
..."At 93, I never thought we would have to debate the definition of marriage," Graham says in the advertisement. "The Bible is clear -- God's definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. I want to urge my fellow North Carolinians to vote for the marriage amendment on Tuesday, May 8. God bless you as you vote."
31 Comments
As an alumnus of Mr. Graham's alma mater (Wheaton College), I find this development really, really unfortunate. We as Christians have no business imposing a biblical definition of marriage on all members of a pluralistic society.
Some day in the not-too-distant future we may not constitute a majority in this country, and I suspect we will not appreciate having these tactics turned around on us. I lived for a time in a majority-Muslim country, and saw the way that leaders used religious justifications to run roughshod over smaller groups of different faiths (primarily Christians). It's not pretty there, and it's not pretty here.
You could also say that society itself has shaped the definition of marriage over thousands of years to the form of one man - one woman. Just because it agrees with the Bible doesn't make it wrong. I don't think this is running roughshod over people. Muslim societies use violence to enforce their religion. This is merely enforcing a standard that has been with humanity since almost the beginning. It doesn't stop anyone from being with anyone. It merely chooses to only recognize those who have a male-female relationship and provide them with some incentives to stay together and start families..
Andrew -
Imposing a definition? What the hell does that mean? Are we imposing the definitions of what constitutes a man and what constitutes a woman on our pluralistic society?
A definition IS a definition. The issue is whether a definition of something should be changed because a small group of people don't like the definition because they do not fit within it. That's like a woman complaining that she is not called a man.
What are we allowed to define that doesn't de facto exclude other things?
OvercameSSA -
Thanks for the reply. My comment was in direct response to the quote from Mr. Graham: "The Bible is clear -- God's definition of marriage is between a man and a woman."
My point is that for many American's, the Bible's/God's definition is irrelevant. Those people (Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, etc) seek to live in a civil society that does not base laws and amendments on the religious teachings of the group that happens to be in the majority at this point in time.
If it is our aim to codify a certain legal definition of civil marriage, our justification for doing so should rest on American principles that apply universally with a given jurisdiction, rather than on Christian principles that apply to some but not all.
Think of it this way: if the state of NC sought to enact a constitutional amendment that codified a certain definition of feminine modesty, would it be appropriate to defend the amendment by saying "This is the definition that God has clearly laid out in the Koran"?
Those with no religious practice also support real marriage.
Also, see 1A. It's purpose is to (among other things) prevent religious persecution.
Andrew - But marriage is not a religious institution; it's a human institution, established before religion, before government. Believe it or not, men and women have been forming unions and raising their offspring for many thousands of years. Indeed, this very fact is how our civilization has grown and prospered for thousands of years. Religion and government adopted it because it works.
So forget the Bible, forget American principles. This is solely about the fact that humans come in two types: Male and Female, And those two types fit together in a complementary way, and that complementary way is the way that children are created. No other combination of human fits together this way and can do what this combination can do. This is basic stuff, no need to over analyze here, unless it's hard for you to accept the facts.
OvercameSSA -
Thanks and I take your point that this goes beyond the Bible and American principles. Which is why (as I said from my very first post) it is really, really unfortunate that Mr. Graham made the statement he did. He grounded his support for the amendment EXPLICITLY in a Biblical definition of marriage. And therein lies the problem that I have sought to identify.
Beg your pardon, Andrew. I should have mentioned that I believe Rev. Graham's assertion that God's definition of marriage is a man and a woman, has a secular corollary. You can say God made man and woman or you can say that nature made man and woman. But it is the fact that the human race is made of two types, and that these two type account for the propagation of the species, that one can draw the conclusion that a man and a woman belong together. There is no corresponding reason for people of the same-sex to go together.
Andrew - My last post is hung up in NOM Blog Land; I realized I overlooked the religious basis of Rev. Graham's remarks in my previous post.
OvercomeSSA - I understand. It must be some fluke that my comments are posting today; more often then not, they end up in the mysterious NOM Blog ether.
Andrew: It is completely irrelevant whether you agree or disagree with the theological or religious or philosophical or mathematical or biological or historical or cultural or other bases upon which your fellow citizens come to their informed conscientious decision on marriage.
All of these components are perfectly legitimate bases upon which to arrive at that informed conscientious decision.
Many of us who hold the Catholic Faith, for example, are not nearly cowardly enough to have been reduced to timid hand-wringing over the possibility that we might actually be attacked for the decision to boldly *live it out in practice*.
Rick -
Boldly living out our faith in practice is exactly what we should be doing. Faith should infuse our lives and inform the way to conduct ourselves day-today, hour-to-hour.
But if we Christians were to, hypothetically, get behind a constitutional amendment mandating that all children be baptized, we darn well better have a justification for doing so OTHER than "because the Bible said to go forth and make disciples..." And yet that is completely analogous to the statement released by Mr. Graham.
There's nothing timid about exercising restraint as a majority. Instead, it's an honest admission that in a pluralistic society, the grounds on which we choose to arrange and orient ourselves should be acceptable to all. It's the reason that our founding document is a neutral Constitution, rather than the Koran, Bible, Talmud, etc. While we boldly live out our faith in practice, our civil government should allow others the freedom to do that as well.
Andrew:
I am unable to grasp the logical connection of your response, to the point at issue: marriage.
Marriage is not defined according to a Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Shntoist, Hindu, or Atheist dogma.
Marriage is defined, in our pluralistic society, by *the people*.
Many, many of *the people* arrive at their understanding of marriage through their religious beliefs.
This is perfectly reasonable, perfectly legitimate, and is in fact the kind of thing that is explicitly protected under the Firet Amendment of the Constitution.
So why exactly are you "concerned" about it?
Andrew -
I think there's an important distinction between that which is purely religious ritual, like a baptism, and that which is founded on a non-religious basis, such as marriage.
So, I agree that to force a society to do something because a certain religion says to is improper; but for a government to accept and recognize a human institution that happens to be recognized by religious organizations is perfectly fine. And, indeed, if all of the churches and all of the mosques changed their definition of marriage to include homosexuals, the government should not be pressured to change its perspective.
Rick -
Thanks for the reply. It would seem that we are speaking past each other, and as such, this back-and-forth is probably an exercise in futility. My previous comments were clear and thorough, so I'll leave it at that.
As for my "concern": I never used that word, so it shouldn't be attributed to me. I believe it was Mr. Graham who expressed "concern."
Thanks to Andrew for some excellent comments, and a lesson in civility.
I can't believe this comment thread with input from Christians. . .
Obviously in a democratic society (not to be confused with Democrats, which is just a political party), there is a voting system in which adult citizens can vote.
EVERYONE votes according to his own value system. That's a given. But there are people who will make you feel guilty for voting your own way - a form of manipulation. They will come up with the argument that you are NOT allowed to vote according to your religion. You have been brain-washed Andrew, and thoroughly.
Yes, all your analogies, if they were to be passed in a Legislature or ballot, would be perfectly legal and civil. The voters decide, for they will live with the consequences.
The idea of a democracy is exactly that NO ONE can criticize you for your vote, and you can vote in secret. It behooves us to argue with non-believers according to their own premises, but there's no legal reason to vote against our own value system.
In another country, under a different constitution (if they even have one), the majority also rules. They can decide to run their country in any way they chose. If they do so with religious arguments, it is because they are persuasive to the majority in their country. What's it to you if they legally kill a woman for adultery? Do you have a vote over there? Do you wish you had one?
You say:
'If it is our aim to codify a certain legal definition of civil marriage, our justification for doing so should rest on American principles that apply universally with a given jurisdiction, rather than on Christian principles that apply to some but not all. '
What is that: 'American principles'? I hope you mean the US Constitution. If not, you have been neutralized, in spite of your Wheaton College education.
Billy Graham has a right to send a message to Christians in North Carolina, as you have a right to send your message. Who do you think has more 'weight' per the NC Marriage Amendment? Yet, you criticize him for it. Get real.
To Christians in North Carolina | Four Reasons to Vote Against Amendment One http://bit.ly/IJU0G0
Neo-Nazi and white supremacist group World-wide White Pride gave their endorsement of Amendment One too. Makes you think.
Marriage corruption supporters, by and larg, fit the profile for sociopaths:
Glibness and Superficial Charm
Manipulative and Conning
Pathological Lying
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation
Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
Thank you Reverend Graham.
Kathy:
Thanks for your link.
I do not find any of your arguments convincing- in fact #1, 2, and 3, are not even arguments, since they assume what is in fact at issue; that is, they assume that marriage involves the possibility of same sex unions.
Our position is that marriage involves no such possibility.
So you can;t really expect much ground to be gained there, I am, afraid.
#4 seems to boil down to "be nice to homosexuals, it will make them Christians".
Let us assume for a moment that this were true.
What possible basis is this upon which to cast a vote concerning the definition of marriage?
Yeah, voting on the legal rights of a minority isn't really the American way. Can you imagine voting on the rights of blacks, or Jews? Yikes!
Robert,
We do not base minority status on what people do. Equating what you do with who you are is the calling card of the elitest.
Randy,
We do not let people deny what are minorities and thier status based upon thier incredible ignorance.
Freedom of Religion.
You can't keep claiming it while working to violate.
Working to impose your religions beliefs on others is *exactly* what religious freedom forbids. Imagine a day when you're not the most populous religious group, and the one that is does this to you. See how that violates religious freedom? That's because it does.
Oh, and we revere mortals now?
Randy,
Um first of all, yes we do. Religious minorities.
Secondly, if bashing gays is based on "what they do," then you can easily answer this:
Name one (1) behavior exclusive to gays, OR
name one (1) behavior universal among gays.
Can you? Didn't think so. Guess it's not about what they do but who's doing it...
Oh wait, so it's a group of people and not defined by behavior AT ALL? Huh... guess that was false witnessing, then.
"Marriage corruption supporters, by and larg [sic], fit the profile for sociopaths:
"Glibness and Superficial Charm
"Manipulative and Conning [sic]
"Pathological Lying
"Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
"Callousness/Lack of Empathy
"Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
"Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
"Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation
"Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim"
Careful now. When you avoid using any true words to describe yourself so religiously (at least you do *something* that way, I guess) you start to sound like you're telling the truth... And it doesn't mean what you want it to!
It's wonderful the people of NC are going to get a chance to vote. Whatever motivates them while in the voting booth (be it religious or secular persuasion), something as important as marriage definition (which affects everyone) deserves a vote.
I just hope they realize that voting for SSM is the equivalent of selling one's birthright for a mess of pottage.
@Daughter of Eve#26,
And just where is that mess of pottage in those places where SSM has been legal for several years? Don't you think that if bad things were happening where SSM has been legal that other places would stop it instead of following in the trend? Just wondering.
Ummmm, Pete...you mean like the three Supreme Court justices recalled in Iowa?