Veni Quid Veniat

     It is sometimes puzzling which topics become controversial among Christians. In some areas, it is easy to see how two earnest Christians could disagree, with both sincerely believing their position to be the Biblically correct. Such disagreements are possible even on relatively major areas of doctrine and practice, although not in matters required for salvation. Other areas, however, are less ambiguous, and some are so clear it is mind-boggling that any earnest Christian could be confused. Nevertheless, debate sometimes arises on such points, and it is worth addressing the conversation, if for nothing less than as an intellectual exercise in advancing logically in the face of unadulterated nonsense.
     Particularly at issue today is the assertion that "true" Christians do not call homosexual behavior sin. This view has been put forward from a variety of sources, but most recently by Wilson Cruz, head of GLAAD, in response to comments from 'Duck Dynasty' star Phil Robertson's that homosexual behavior was sin. Cruz's response is the most recent and notable example, but it is hardly isolated. Homosexual groups seem particularly concerned with establishing that homosexual behavior and Christianity are compatible. Their efforts impart a certain amount of irony to the situation, however: God took special care to establish that they are positively not compatible. There are gray areas in Christianity, but this is not one of them.

     We'll start in the Old Testament. Many would like to simply disregard every teaching of the Old Testament, but here they are in error. The same God gave both the Old and New Testaments - times may have changed, and applications may have changed, but God's principles are unchanging. The challenge is to discern the universal principle and separate it from the specific application. In many cases, this is difficult. Fortunately, that is not the case here. The Old Testament verses which address the matter make it quite clear that they are establishing a universal principles. The first can be found in Leviticus 18:22:

You shall not lie with a male as with a female; it is an abomination.

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers [which is also translated "slave traders"] and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Steve Stockman, the third most conservative member of Texas's congressional delegation, according the Heritage Foundation, has filed to challenge Texas Senator John Cornyn for his seat. It is high time Cornyn moved on to somewhere - anywhere, really - besides the Senate, and Steve Stockman might just be the man to do it.

Cornyn has been able to rack up a very conservative voting record. Unfortunately, behind the scenes and when it really counts, he betrays Texans. A far more comprehensive list of his more serious shortcomings could be compiled, but a short history of his role in the government shutdown fight earlier this year epitomizes exactly what "Big Bad John" Cornyn does when we send him to Washington.

It all began when Texas Senator Ted Cruz, the latest addition to the Texas delegation to the Senate, devised a clever - nearly diabolical, actually, from a Democrat's perspective - plan to force Democrats to vote to defund their president's most visible program. It hinged on the fact that the Senate cannot originate a spending bill, and therefore must rely on amending House bills, combined with the fact that Senate Democrats did not have the votes they needed - sixty - to amend the bill. Democrats would be forced to choose between voting to defund Obamacare and voting to defund all of government. In the first case, they would be hamstringing their president's legacy; in the second, they would take all the blame for shutting down the government (the blame Republicans actually wound up taking). Ideally - and it's not far-fetched - a few Democrats from red states would choose not to face waves of negative public opinion over an extremely unpopular program, and would vote to defund. Had Cruz's plan worked, there would have been no shutdown, and Obamacare would not have been funded.

It didn't work, though, partially because of Harry Reid's skill, but partially because Senate Republicans betrayed their base. By filing for cloture on the bill, Reid could effectively lower the number of votes needed to amend the House bill to fund Obamacare from sixty to fifty-one, allowing the bill to be amended. Of course, cloture still requires sixty votes, but Reid banked on betrayal from enough Republican senators to win the cloture vote. By allowing Republican senators to vote for cloture, ensuring that they would lose the vote to amend the bill to fund Obamacare, but then technically vote against funding Obamacare, he gave them the cover they needed to sell out their constituents. Cruz responded with his now-famous pseudo-filibuster, calling attention to the fact that Republican senators were considering voting for cloture on the bill, thus guaranteeing that Obamacare would be funded. Ultimately, enough Republican senators decided that their constituents either didn't care or would forget how they voted, and chose to derail Cruz's plan to defund Obamacare, leaving Republicans fighting without their best weapon, set up to fail and to take the blame for the shutdown.

That's where Cornyn comes in. He talked a good enough fight, claiming that he only differed with Cruz on tactics, not strategy. He wanted to defund Obamacare, so that's why he was going to vote to advance the House bill. "Big John" was standing up for Texas, and voting to pass the House bill defunding Obamacare. Texans should be proud! The trouble is, it was all a lie. Cornyn claimed that voting for cloture as voting to advance the House bill: it wasn't. Cloture is only needed to advance a bill if someone threatens to halt that bill through extended debate, and no one had threatened to do that (even Cruz's pseudo-filibuster had been carefully timed to avoid delaying the bill). In this case, all cloture on the bill did was allow Democrats to amend the bill, removing the House's provision that Obamacare not be funded. Despite his rhetoric, Cornyn's vote when he voted for cloture on the bill was a vote for funding Obamacare, and a vote to scrap the most important elements of the House bill.

That's not all he did, though. He publicly lied about the state of affairs, claiming that Cruz was advocating voting "against" the House bill, directly reversing the true state of affairs, which was that Cruz was advocating for preserving the House bill. If that wasn't enough, he joined with Mitch McConnell in gathering votes for cloture - against Cruz and for funding Obamacare - by threatening and cajoling his fellow senators. Faced with the spectre of the two most powerful Republican senators opposing their committee appointments, at best, or their reelection, at worst, many caved. Cornyn and McConnell's plan was to isolate and destroy Cruz, Lee, and Paul, the next wave of the conservative movement, before they'd even gotten started.

With his actions, Cornyn not only ensured the Obamacare would be funded, he ensured that the blame for any shutdown would fall on Republicans, not Democrats. Democrats would be able to pass any spending bill they wanted, and could blame the Republicans in the House if they didn't pass the same bill - had Cornyn and the Republican Senate leadership not betrayed their constituents, the reverse would have been true.

Cornyn didn't just vote to fund Obamacare and hand Republicans a loss in the shutdown fight, he wasn't even man enough to own up to it. He continued spouting the same drivel about advancing the House bill, even after the nonsensical nature of his reasoning was thoroughly explained. He took the cover Harry Reid handed him to betray Texas and conservatives across the nation (if he at least had the decency to admit to what he did he still wouldn't deserve to be a senator, but at least he could have made Texans proud of his courage). When it really mattered, when Republicans had a chance to accomplish something significant, against the odds, he folded.

Sadly, this is classic John Cornyn. In public, when it doesn't count, he's "Big Bad John," talking a tough talk in a ten-gallon hat. In private, though, and when the chips are down, he's just another sniveling politician, threatening, conniving, and scheming to stay in power, driven by fear of losing his reputation in the Senate, his popularity, or, worst of all, his Senate seat. Underneath the carefully crafted exterior, the man is, to borrow an old Texas saying "all hat and no cattle" when it comes to fighting with anyone but his own side. The greatest state in the nation deserves better than a wheedling Washington lawyer, a hat and boots without a Texan between them.

          Anyone who hasn't been living under a rock (and hasn't had to use USGS websites for research) has almost certainly heard about the government shutdown. Certain politicians have made very dire predictions about the effect it will have on the economy (as it has turned out, very little so far) or the massive swaths of government it has shut down (as it turns out, around seventeen percent). There has been a lot of fingerpointing, but very few people have set out to explain exactly what happened so that the reader will generall be able to decide for themselves who is to blame. This essay is intended to fill that void - although a conclusion is presented at the end, the facts are laid out such that the reader could reach a different conclusion if he held different starting presuppositions.

From House to Senate: the First Round

          The episode really began when conservatives across the country pointed out the obvious: that Republican protestations against Obamacare were more than a little hollow if those same Republicans continued to vote to fund Obamacare. An incessant drumbeat from political activists on the right eventually began to have an effect on Republican representatives and senators. Several were sympathetic to the idea of defunding Obamacare, but it was Mark Meadows, a conservative representative from western North Carolina, who proposed the plan that was eventually accepted by the Republican caucus. He proposed passing a Continuing Resolution (CR) which funded all of government except Obamacare. By passing this CR immediately before the deadline for funding the next fiscal year, Democrats would be forced to choose between funding government and defunding Obamacare.
          Republican leadership was originally unenthused by the plan. At first, it seemed unlikely that it would be adopted; however, the steady drumbeat of support for defunding Obamacare eventually swayed the Republican leadership. The House passed the CR funding all of government except Obamacare by a large bipartisan majority, and the CR passed on to the Senate.

     As Christianity and its influence have declined in western culture, it has become necessary to replace the system of ethics it provided with something else. Because of their necessarily subjective nature, these lack the power of Christian ethics - they take the form of preferences, although they are couched as sets of principles - yet it is on these that a secular humanist is forced to base his behavior. One of the more successful of these attempts - in large part because it was, as originally formulated, not yet entirely divorced from Christian ethics - is Kantianism.
   
     Before continuing, it should be noted that this is a critique of Kantian ethics as commonly applied today, not a critique of Immanuel Kant himself or his ideas. The former would be unwise, as Kant had many very good ideas (although imperfect, his ideas on God are, for example, more complete and more reasonable than many of his contemporaries); the later would take the discussion beyond the scope of the author's knowledge and the intended length of the post. Kant's actual system of ethics was in the main internally consistent. It garnered its power from Kant's belief in the existence of God, an authority to whom the individual is responsible for his precise application (or lack thereof) of the categorical imperative to his behavior. It is only the modern philosophers, who divorce Kant's ethics from Kant's God, who render the system useless as a guide to ethical behavior.

     The basic principle of Kantian ethics is the idea of the categorical imperative. Simply put, the categorical imperative is the idea that humans have an absolute duty to act in such a way that every other human in similar circumstances could act in the same way without ill effect. For example, one could not take as a maxim "kill those who I dislike," since if the entire human race did so we would very soon become extinct. Of course, several obvious problems arise with this concept, but most of these can be addressed by the existence of a God, which, although not explicitly stated as a foundation for Kant's metaphysics of morality, certainly played a role. For example, one might naturally inquire which outcomes we should consider desirable, and in answer to that Kant would most likely point to "intuitions," what might also  be called - but not by Kant - the remnants of God's work on our hearts, as the guide to desirable outcomes. Although this strays far too close to the badly flawed concept that those things which feel right are right (the Bible tells us that there is a way which seems right unto a man, but the ends thereof are the ways of death), it is at least internally consistent.

     Although Kant's philosophy holds together as a coherent whole, when later philosophers attempt to rip his ethics out of the framework in which it was housed and use it as a replacement for Biblical ethics, they do so at the expense of the cogency and even the coherency of Kant's ethical system. Not only is an objective standard required to determine which outcomes are actually desirable, some objective standard must also exist to establish that we ought to care which outcomes are desirable. If I can get away with it, why shouldn't I? Not everyone could do it, but then again, I'm not everyone, am I? Even if the Kantian ethicist could answer those questions satisfactorily - and if he does he will almost certainly have to resort to Kantianism's rival, Utilitarianism - he is still faced with the fact that, as Benjamin Franklin put it, "so convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do." Given enough time, one could always find some peculiarity in one's situation which renders it distinct from others in its class, and allows one the opportunity to do some otherwise dastardly deed without compunction. This is not, in fact, so different from what most people do to justify bad behavior without any code of ethics to guide them. In order to apply the categorical imperative properly, one must first have a firm enough sense of honesty and decency to apply it without regard to the immediate well-being of oneself and others.

     Therein lies Kantian ethics' problem: it is not in itself a complete code of ethics. It is rather a sort of "meta-ethics," which may appear as a viable supplement to, but not a replacement for, morality. Kantian ethics are in reality nothing more than a supplement to Biblical morality. Attempting to replace Biblical morality with Kantian ethics is not only a perversion of what Kant intended, it won't even produce the viable code of ethics modern secular humanists seek. Kantian ethics requires a prior ethical standard in order for it to be applied, and that prior standard cannot be explained using Kantian ethics, since it is of necessity the foundation of Kantian ethics. A little thought should be enough to establish that this is not a peculiar flaw of Kantian ethics. All man-made ethical systems will have the exact same flaw for the exact same reason: there must be some reason not to ignore them completely or stretch their application to allow any action one desires. Only God, who holds a prior claim, has the authority to state that one thought or action is right and another wrong simply because He says so. He needs no preexisting standard; He is the preexisting standard. Without God a coherent morality is impossible, and Kantianism, appealing as it may be, is no exception.

     In the past few days the Supreme Court heard two potentially groundbreaking cases with direct implications for the future of marriage in the United States. In one, liberal activists are opposing California Proposition 8, which defines marriage in California as being between a male and a female. In the other, another group of liberal activists are challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which allows each state to define marriage for itself without regard to the actions of other states. While a great deal of emotionally gripping rhetoric has been expended on the side of redefining marriage, very little time has been spent explaining why marriage should not be redefined. When an attempt is made, it usually centers on the argument that the Bible requires that marriage be between one man and one woman alone. While this argument is perfectly correct, ought to made, and should be more than sufficient, it is also worthwhile to consider what the nature of the relationship between marriage and the state says about how the state in particular ought to recognize marriage.

     The first point to note is that the government shouldn't recognize marriage at all. Many Christians today correctly point out that the state is never given the authority to marry anyone and seek to pass that authority to the church. The Puritans correctly noted that the Bible never gives authority to perform marriage to the church and declared marriage a duty of the civil government alone. In actuality, wherever the Bible does mention marriage it is always connected with the family, not the state or the church, implying that, of the three authorities which God established - the state, the church, and the family - it is the family which is given authority over marriage. How exactly that authority would be enacted is a topic for another (very long) discussion, but what matters at the moment is that marriage is, in an ideal world, not the domain of government. If we were perfectly free to rewrite laws as we desired, none of them would address marriage. That said, our world is not an ideal world. At the same time that we work toward the ideal scenario, laws must be made with reality, not a hypothetical perfect scenario, in mind. Government is involved in marriage, and will be for the foreseeable future.

     It has become quite common to equate state-recognized marriage with love. One of the more common arguments for same sex marriage is that the love of a homosexual couple is equal to that of a heterosexual couple. Regardless of whether a case can be made that a relationship which God describes as an abomination can be considered equal to one He described as undefiled, the point here is that love is considered the final arbiter of who should be married. Government, in recognizing marriage, would be acting solely to gratify the desires and reward the love of the couple, and any other results would be purely incidental.

     In reality, government has neither the impetus nor the authority to place its stamp of approval on the love a particular couple has for each other. In one sense, that love is entirely below the purview of government, in another, it transcends any government. Government simply is not and never can be designed to reward or punish love. Government institutes rules which, ideally, act to guide behavior into orderly and constructive channels while maintaining the freedom of each individual - that is, government's role is to manage behavior. Love, an emotion with an attached dedication to a particular purpose, is not in itself a behavior which can be guided by laws. It exists outside the realm in which government has power. Therefore, it would be quite absurd to argue that the basis for legal recognition of marriage is the love the would-be-weds have for each other.

     On the other hand, an excellent case can be made that the reason the state recognizes marriage is to ensure the future of society through codifying an orderly system for procreation and for bringing up children in a constructive manner. That that system was a preexisting system resulting from the direct command of God and which had been placed outside the domain of government was, perhaps, unfortunate, but necessary - it is the only such system in existence. The Supreme Court even recognized the inextricable relationship between marriage and procreation - and even further, with the raising of children - on several occasions. In Meyer v. Nebraska, the Supreme Court decided that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children." Again, in Skinner v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court decided that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man" because it is "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." Now, arguably the Supreme Court is consistently wrong on most high profile issues, and one could argue that its action in extending the Due Process Clause to marriage was suspect at best, but its opinion on the nature of the government's role in marriage is notable. Ultimately, in the West at least, government began to recognize marriage while still linked to the church, but the impetus to continue to recognize marriage results from the role marriage plays in the creation and bringing up of children.

     With this in mind, rather than the absurd argument that the state recognizes marriage purely out of respect for love, we are left with the proposition that the state recognizes marriage in order to achieve the benefits that marriage provides. This explanation is consistent with the idea that government should - and generally does, or at least tries to - act only to directly further society by punishing those who do evil and rewarding those who do good. Further, it provides a compelling reason why state recognition of marriage should be limited only to those couples which are, in principle, capable of producing offspring. That definition will be in accord with God's definition of marriage because God, as designer, created a universe which acts according to His law, but, to the state, that accord is somewhat incidental. If God had not spoken on the subject the state-recognized definition of marriage would remain the same, as that definition alone fulfills the need to further society in an orderly manner.

     Once the proposition that marriage is recognized by the state primarily for the sake of the children has been promulgated, the most obvious objection falls naturally into place. If, as is posited here, marriage is legally recognized for the purpose of procreation, why doesn't the state take steps to ensure that marriage will produce children? Indeed, many who support the traditional definition of marriage will object strenuously to any attempt to limit marriage based on fertility. Is this not a serious inconsistency? The answer lies in the nature of the role of government. Government is tasked with maintaining order and furthering society while respecting the freedom of the individual. On the one hand, it would seem that society would be furthered by ensuring that every marriage produces children in exactly the numbers necessary and raises those children in exactly the way which will most effectively meet the needs of society. On the other, not only is that ideal impossible - government can't even figure out the best way to administer a driver's license test, let alone raise children - it tramples roughshod over government's second duty: to respect the freedom of the individual. The trick to good government is to balance the two functions of government, providing structure and freedom together. As concerns marriage, that balance is struck when government limits marriage to those unions which can in principle produce children. Inquiry into the intentions or ability of the couple to procreate would be an egregious invasion of their freedom - what matters is the ability, in principle, to procreate. Whether a particular relationship is efficacious in procreation is incidental; it is the role of government to guide behavior into constructive patterns, not to dictate it.
   
     Thus, it would appear that if the state is to recognize marriage it must do so with the purpose of that recognition in mind. Such recognition must therefore be limited to those unions which are, in principle, capable of producing children. Unions between those of the same sex, or between those of the same immediate family, are in principle incapable of producing any offspring, in the first case, or usually incapable of producing healthy offspring, in the second. It is not by accident, then, that it is those unions which are not recognized by the state as marriage.

     At the same time, a Christian will find himself at the same conclusion merely by reading and applying the Word of God. Where government acts on issues addressed by God, it must act in accord with the Word of God. Christians will find themselves in support of traditional marriage, but one should not mistakenly conclude that only Christians should favor traditional marriage, or that Christianity is the only argument for traditional marriage. All that is necessary is to believe that government's role is to further society, maintain order, and protect freedom: state support for traditional marriage alone follows naturally if one accepts that definition of the role of government.

     In summary, although government ideally would refrain from acting when it comes to marriage and other issues placed outside of its authority (for a reason), if it is to act - and at present it must - it must act in accord with its own purpose. The purpose of government is to guide behavior into orderly and constructive channels while protecting freedom, not to serve as a behemothic bureaucratic cupid. A government acting within its purpose can only recognize one definition of marriage: one man and one woman.