Translation–The only POSSIBLE way to live authentically as a Christian is to support left-wing politics.

The funny thing is that all the people who belly ache the loudest in the “Christian” community about “separation of church and state” are left-wing nut jobs who want nothing more than to muzzle Christians and who agressively support liberal politicians. Your cries to “keep politics out of Christianity” would sound a lot more sincere if you did it yourselves.

Obviously, you have given much thought to this issue. I’m curious as to what you would propose as a solution to the problem that you perceive (one of inequality?). I say this because, frankly, many of us are prone to conduct our affairs hypothetically while rarely acting on our convictions. I’m assuming you would not have singed the Manhattan Declaration, so what would you do?

Now that the business is taken care of, do you think Tim M (the former grader of yours at Criswell) could get a recommendation from you to RTS? B.C.(4 offices down from your old one) is not responding and time is getting a bit critical. I am sure TIm would ask himself but I have always been more direct and obnoxious about things so I am beating him to the punch.

You said: “My response to that was (1) it used to be against the law and still is in certain acts. (2) since it is no longer against the law, that appears to make it an open and shut case for you for approving civil unions. Therefore (3) based on that logic any item that is currently allowed should then never be opposed. Hence: abortion should not be opposed because it is law. Am I missing your argument? So, since we are opposing abortion based on Christian belief, we should stop doing that in this country as well. Correct me where I misread you.”

You did not misread me, you are inserting an idea that I never argued for. I have never once said that since it is no longer against the law it should then automatically be allowed. And even if I did, that does not lead to your conclusion that anything currently allowed should never be opposed. You are creating a sequence that I never argued for. Again, the only reason I said anything about homosexuality not being a crime was because you paralleled homosexuals to felons. You continue to remove my comment from that context, insert the idea that since it’s legal it should be allowed, and then conclude that once it’s allowed it should never be opposed. That entire argument and sequence is both fallacious and ultimately a straw man.

I have argued that civil unions fall under Caesar and that while law restricts, equality among men should be sought after in light of arguments of William Wilberforce and Paul on partiality. Opposing civil unions restricts/blocks a group, and the only two grounds I’ve seen to root this in are the sinfulness of homosexuality or that civil unions are equal to marriage. First, the sinfulness of homosexuality blocking new permissions would mean that all fornicators and adulterers should be restricted/blocked as well. Ultimately, if pressed far enough, nobody should be allowed to do anything because we all sin.(for example, much of the country has lots of premarital sex.) Now, you have shown that in divorce, adultery plays a role in the splitting of possessions. However, divorce hearings are attempting to find who has claim over items, not over who has more/less civil rights. If the adulterer is shown to be the main cause of the divorce and it is concluded that they are entitled to less property, they are not being denied civil rights, they are having possessions denied on the basis that another person who had prior joint ownership, now in light of the divorce, has full ownership. Second, if you equate a civil union with marriage then you are saying that two parties entering an agreement under Caesar is equal to two persons entering into a holy covenant under God. I have argued that this taints the sanctity of marriage more than drawing a distinction between the two. I have also shown that governmental privileges for marriage are never discussed or prescribed in the Scripture, so to argue that similar governmental privileges makes civil unions equal with marriage is an argument that can not be made from Scripture.

I understand that you don’t believe polygamist’s to have an argument, but that is opinion, no different than mine or others on the homosexuality issue. By that way, I have already discussed that adultery does deny rights (in divorce court) to areas of property, children visitation, etc.

As to the New Testament and property rights it does boil down to government (Rom 13), however citizens in a democracy have every right to dictate laws and your argument appears to say that homosexuals should just be allowed to be happy or to gain rights like any other small businessman. Yet, if they are bringing radically new forms of legislation to the table (legislation that has never existed before) they have the burden of justification on them and they are not winning the battle, hence they created civil unions to work around the system. Consequently other citizens don’t have to buy it and they have every right to stand opposed.

Help me on the crime issue. You stated earlier that since homosexuality was no longer a crime, it justified their desire for civil unions. My response to that was (1) it used to be against the law and still is in certain acts. (2) since it is no longer against the law, that appears to make it an open and shut case for you for approving civil unions. Therefore (3) based on that logic any item that is currently allowed should then never be opposed. Hence: abortion should not be opposed because it is law. Am I missing your argument? So, since we are opposing abortion based on Christian belief, we should stop doing that in this country as well. Correct me where I misread you.

Finally, I may have misunderstood you on state’s rights and equality. You appear to argue civl unions based on equality and I was pointing out that states are not equal, therefore you would need a federal mandate to see your argument enacted. Right now, the Federal Government does not recognize civil unions (only certain states do). So I was saying you could not be a state’s rights guy because if a state votes against civil unions you would need to be cool with that. I probably misunderstood you on that one..

Oh, and Russ–don’t tell me, let me guess? ELCA?