What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Recent Comments

The truth always comes out

Comment posted by R.C. on Sep 30, 17:53:

And, perhaps more insidiously, all of the above groups are allegedly burdens to themselves. If they were rational, they would not want to keep living. Does an unborn child really want to be born in less than optimal circumstances? Do old people really want to keep living, or is that just the dementia talking? This is dangerous because it undermines the appeal to the person's own interests--"well, we're acting in this man's best interests by letting him die from an easily treatable condition," etc. ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Tony on Sep 29, 15:03:

I would love it if the state were to return to "enforcing" contracts of marriage - i.e. to repudiate the notion of "no-fault divorce" which constitutes a way of saying that when one party doesn't like the contract they can annul it at will, which is of course a defeat of contract. And to insist that when a couple said "until death" those words meant something. And to insist that "for better and for worse" means something. And basically to resurrect the category of "separated but NOT ELIGIBLE to re-marry" ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 29, 12:50:

Thanks for the clarification. In the name of future clarity, I would just suggest that you never word that as having to do with homosexual "marriage," as it will be misunderstood. What you appear to be suggesting here is what I have been calling in this thread the abolition of marriage. See, therefore, my extensive comments above on this. By the way, notice that "clearly unacceptable" already takes us into the realm where the government is deciding amongst contracts. For example, I would say that a contract ... [More]

Five linguistic usages that undermine marriage

Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 29, 12:10:

Yes, "significant other" is one of those wussy phrases that I could have included. Had I thought of it, I might have left it out anyway because it is so incredibly obvious as an "all relationships are created equal" phrase. I suppose "partner" is a tiny bit more subtle, though maybe not. Both have exactly the function Tony states. ... [More]

Five linguistic usages that undermine marriage

Comment posted by Tony on Sep 29, 10:13:

Here is an example of the insidiousness of the neologisms: My office planned an after-hours dinner party for our business unit, and because it was a social occasion and after hours, we wanted spouses there. But we had to revise the "spouses welcome" to "significant others welcome", supposedly to be fair and open to those whose significant others were not spouses. But of course this is to pretend that being a "spouse" is effectively the same thing as to be a "significant other" or a "partner", even though ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Hunter Baker on Sep 29, 10:01:

Let me meet Lydia's request for a clarification on option two. Option two would mean that state merely enforces contracts that adults make for themselves unless they are clearly unacceptable (such as contracting for a cannibal to eat oneself). Marriage contracts would just be another kind of contract in that scenario. The church, of course, would be free to set conditions for members and their marriages. ... [More]

Five linguistic usages that undermine marriage

Comment posted by William Luse on Sep 29, 01:56:

Does the word "life" in that phrase mean (allegedly) "as long as you both shall live" or just "in my life right now"? While advancing the homosexual agenda, it will mean the former; once victory is achieved, the latter. ... [More]

Five linguistic usages that undermine marriage

Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 28, 21:34:

I never thought of the possible confusions that can arise when the same person uses the term "partner" in both senses within a business context. ... [More]

Five linguistic usages that undermine marriage

Comment posted by Sunshine Mary on Sep 28, 20:16:

Bizarrely, heterosexual married couples are now using the word "partner" to refer their spouses. We recently bought a new home, and the seller's agent told us her partner would be discussing certain aspects of the deal with our agent. We thought she meant her business partner, but it turned out to be her husband, who actually did work for his wife. It was rather confusing, especially since they didn't have the same last name. And then she referred to her sellers as "partners" in several emails even though w ... [More]

Five linguistic usages that undermine marriage

Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 28, 16:18:

Does the word "life" in that phrase mean (allegedly) "as long as you both shall live" or just "in my life right now"? ... [More]

Five linguistic usages that undermine marriage

Comment posted by Scott W. on Sep 28, 16:15:

1) The use of "partner" to mean "whomever you happen to be having sex with regularly, whether male or female, married to you or not." Or it's slightly nauseating variant, "life partner". Blech! ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Paul J Cella on Sep 28, 04:54:

Hunter, in my view a Christian libertarian who favors, succors, votes, or otherwise endorses an abolition of civil marriage, whatever his stated purpose in doing so, has to that extent ceased to be either a Christian or a libertarian. He has falsified the nature of marriage, a Christian sacrament, which is prior to the state and therefore incapable, sub specie aeternitatis, of abolition; and he is enlarged the capricious authority of the state over the lives of men, thereby curtailing their private liberty. ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 27, 12:48:

Does this mean that a muddle-headed Christian on these issues is going to hell? No, not in and of itself. Christians get muddle-headed about a lot of things, even important things, and don't therefore necessarily go to hell. But if we're talking about what a Christian, or for that matter a clear-headed natural law, understanding of reality actually entails, then my answer is as given. ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 27, 12:42:

Okay, so let's first ask whether "option two" now stands for some sort of acceptance or political accommodation of homosexual "marriage" in the civil realm or whether it now stands for the abolition of civil marriage altogether. In my opinion, a Christian cannot consistently, and with an understanding of the moral law, advocate either of these. As to the first, as already argued, marriage is a preferential treatment given by the state. To give that status to homosexual relationships is for the state to en ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 27, 11:11:

Remember, I think a libertarian should embrace option one precisely because he is a libertarian. So I definitely wouldn't want to characterize my pressing for option one (and against the abolition of marriage, which I'm now _gathering_ Hunter is implying is the libertarian option rather than homosexual "marriage," though I'm still unclear on that) as saying that "there cannot be a Christian libertarian." Libertarianism, of course, comes in many varieties. I think a libertarian both can and should be on the ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Tony on Sep 27, 10:29:

Hunter, as far as I can see, no Christian can approvingly choose a society that either (a) does not recognize in marriage any special sort of associative act so that the society has no implicit denigration of deformed 'marital' acts; or (b) a society that explicitly and positively recognizes as marriage something that nature abhors as an outrage. A Christian can tolerate living in such a society when he cannot change this feature, but he cannot claim that this feature is an acceptable sort of society for C ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Hunter Baker on Sep 27, 09:34:

These last parts bring me back to some of the original intent between options one and two. I have been pushed into inhabiting option two, which is not really where I live. But the original question I addressed was whether a person could be a Christian and embrace option two. Lydia and others have spilled a lot of ink on why they oppose a person embracing option two. So, let's open a little bit different inquiry. Are you saying that option two is not available to an orthodox Christian whether or not you ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 27, 09:12:

If marriage were abolished, the amount of government control over, say, parenting would become a much more open question than it is now. Obviously two adults' (or five adults') making a contract amongst themselves doesn't in and of itself create either children or the custody of children. It seems entirely plausible to me that a modern country that abolished marriage would, as a concomitant legal move, introduce "parent licensing" to decide which contract groups and which contracted adults "count" as custod ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 27, 08:20:

I have always thought that Jennifer Roback Morse's approach, which to some degree I am using in this thread, was a sound way to try to _convince_ libertarians to defend marriage and the family (by which, of course,I mean real marriage and real families) and hence cobble a coalition. I've always been very libertarian-sympathetic, as readers of W4 know. What libertarians need to realize is that the _best_ road to liberty is the preservation and government recognition of the family and of marriage. It is marit ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Paul J Cella on Sep 26, 23:54:

To me these libertarian solutions, far from advancing a sound strategy, or even evidencing a grasp of what constitutes sound strategic political thought, rather exemplify the old phrase too clever by half. To evade a system of persecution, one which the modern liberal legal structure is clearly preparing us, the libertarians would enervate and imperil the foundation of institutions whose defense is provoking the persecution. They think they are carving out a wider sphere for political action for themselves ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 26, 22:29:

I just saw a homosexual man endorsing homosexual "marriage" by griping on Facebook that contracts that he could "pay some lawyer to draw up" would create at most a "rebuttable presumption" on various points. Interesting, no? And probably true. And relevant to what I have just been saying. In other words, contracts are not as strong as marriage at securing the rights in question. And they never will be and probably shouldn't be. Which is a very interesting point concerning any "abolish marriage and substitut ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 26, 22:09:

Remember that I said above: I often find it sadly interesting that some of a libertarian persuasion apparently think their freedom is going to be better guarded by the case-by-case diktats of a powerful family law judge trying to decide how and whether to honor made-up child custody contracts among unmarried people than by the institution of civil marriage. But in all honesty, I'm afraid that those who propose this really haven't thought through the implications or the extreme power that family law judges ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 26, 21:11:

The thing is, once we realize that "just make up contracts and have the state enforce them" is not a matter of the state's being neutral, then we can go back to talking about what _will_ result in less state involvement in the upbringing of children and what sorts of structures _are_ the best "default settings" for giving adults a lot of presumptive authority, with the state taking a hands-off attitude, towards raising the kids. Because we all know that some structures _shouldn't_ be treated like that. If a ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 26, 20:54:

I don't accept the same degree of inevitability that I think you see with regard to the necessity for extensive government involvement. I discussed this above. When traditional marriage is in place, you have presumptive control of those things and so does your wife, until and unless there is a breakup of the marriage. The more creative and expansive our ideas are about what constitutes a family, the more situations there are where the state has to get involved. Homosexual "families" are always creations ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Hunter Baker on Sep 26, 20:38:

I'm like a glutton for punishment and keep coming back. I'm terribly worried about the state's involvement in domestic matters and still more worried about the comprehensiveness of that power. I want it limited. I want it as limited as I can get it. I don't want some court ruling that my kids can't grow up in my house because of my anti-homosexual views or what ever else violates the new orthodoxy. I don't accept the same degree of inevitability that I think you see with regard to the necessity for ex ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 26, 19:35:

You find that case highly flawed. Well, Hunter, one problem I have is that it's unclear to me exactly what you are making a case for. As witness the fact that in this most recent comment you use the term "legally married," apparently in reference to a possible situation I raised under your proposed scenario (and a real one that has arisen in Vermont), yet elsewhere in the thread you have agreed that legal marriage is state endorsement of the union and have apparently shifted to proposing the abolition of ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Tony on Sep 26, 18:13:

The same situation applies (and I have seen it) a woman with a husband (who leaves her for his gay lover) has to share custody with him. How would we prevent this situation? The court would have to rule him an unfit parent who is unworthy of any custody of his children because he is gay. The courts used to rule quite readily that he was unfit for custody because (a) her husband left her, and (b) because his living situation was abnormal, and (c) (for any little girls) because it is truly outrageous to hav ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Hunter Baker on Sep 26, 17:49:

I think I'm willing to stand on my case at this point. The bottom line for me is that this thing will either be settled on grounds of liberty or equality. It will be far worse for the church and for Christians, generally, if it is settled on equality grounds. I have ventured out a bit toward finding a way to settle it on the basis of liberty. You find that case highly flawed. Maybe it is. I think I see a little daylight there amid otherwise thoroughly bleak prospects. Maybe one more thing. You give ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 26, 17:35:

Another point to your #4: I already gave an example--the fifty "parents" example--above as a reductio of the idea that all contracts can even possibly be recognized and enforced by the state. Therefore the state will have to choose which ones to enforce. Even just the highest number of "parents" to recognize. How is this a matter of state neutrality? It isn't. ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 26, 17:33:

To your #9, I think that you are misinformed. The absolute numbers do not matter. Because of the agenda, these things are being normalized in, say, the educational system out of all proportion to their numbers. Homosexual "marriage" is undeniably about hostility to the nuclear family, and I supported that in the main post with reference to the Obama administration's argument in the California case that children do not need a father and a mother and that it is irrational to think so. How much clearer an ins ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 26, 17:30:

Hunter, Okay, let me reply. First of all, you seem in your replies to be going back and forth between homosexual "marriage" and the abolition of civil marriage altogether. These are not the same proposal, so this makes it difficult to address your position, because it makes it difficult to know what your position is. Your original statement was about homosexual "marriage," but you seem to have shifted to a different proposal while still sometimes using the _term_ "marriage." "I will not press for the go ... [More]

The truth always comes out

Comment posted by DeGaulle on Sep 26, 17:19:

The old are a "burden". The unborn are a "burden". The disabled are a "burden". The chronically ill are a "burden". The mentally disturbed are a "burden". The homeless are a "burden". The sick children are a "burden". The poor are a "burden". Do these people intend to spare anyone? (Answer: anyone who has loads of money). ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Tony on Sep 26, 17:09:

According to St. Thomas, considered under one aspect the goal of law is virtuous citizens (for the common good is found in a state where all the citizens are virtuous). However, law should not forbid under pain of legal penalty ALL acts of the vices, because law should be limited to those things that all men can do. Not all men can avoid all acts of concupiscence, for example. Hence it would be bad for law to forbid every act of lust, including interior disordered acts of desire. The state may tolerate ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Hunter Baker on Sep 26, 16:53:

Okay, I will list the arguments in the original post as I see them and go through one by one. Understand that all of this is in the effort to defend a castle about which I am not very certain, which is the now infamous option two. 1. If you cannot endorse gay marriage theologically, then you cannot endorse it politically. First, I would say that I do not even wave in the direction of endorsing gay marriage politically. I am arguing that perhaps one could be faithful as a Christian and still take the ... [More]

The truth always comes out

Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 26, 16:43:

Well, what Emmanuel said was this fuzzy stuff about how _he_ hopes to die when he's seventy-five and all dignified and has lived a full life, etc. Like something on a Hallmark card. Sort of. I think Wesley J. Smith nailed it when he said that it isn't in itself a declaration of coercion but that it definitely contributes to the perception that older people are a burden--to a culture of contempt. ... [More]

The truth always comes out

Comment posted by DeGaulle on Sep 26, 15:58:

Is it licit in Christian terms to consider declarations like those of Emanuel as being of war, if implemented, and therefore to consider taking as many of them as I can with me in the event? ... [More]

The truth always comes out

Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 26, 13:16:

For now I think instead they are going to go with "misinterpreted." E.g. Emmanuel was merely speaking of what he'd like to happen for himself not of any coercion, etc., etc. I think they're going to have a hard time with this most recent comment of Ginsberg's, though. ... [More]

The truth always comes out

Comment posted by Sage McLaughlin on Sep 26, 12:58:

Yes, Lydia, these people will always tell you who they are, as in Ezekiel Emanuel's recent exhortation for all of us happily to acquiesce to just dying already, at an age specified by federal health care technocrats--such as himself, naturally. Cue the liberal retort that Emanuel, Ginsburg, and the rest of the liberal power elite somehow don't really speak for liberalism. ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 26, 12:44:

Hunter, here's the thing: I've argued again and again in this post and thread that neither the instatement of homosexual "marriage" nor the abolition of civil marriage is in fact reducing the scope of government authority. I have argued that point from multiple different perspectives, addressing carefully both homosexual "marriage" while leaving civil marriage in place and abolishing the statutory category of civil marriage. You have not refuted those arguments. For the most part, you have not addressed th ... [More]

Political accommodation on homosexual "marriage"?

Comment posted by Jeffrey S. on Sep 26, 12:17:

Hunter, Your last comment is true as a general principle. Now let's see how it holds up in the specific case of marriage: Government endorsement of the pre-existing reality of marriage = government tries to outlaw lying. Any similarities? ... [More]