Coming soon to a nation near you?
It does make me wonder what the effect of having legalized gay marriage in Canada would have on the US. Would we see an outmigration of gays to Canada? Canadian immigration laws are, I understand, pretty tough, but the same is true for the US, and we’ve seen oppression elsewhere redound to our benefit here as the “best and brightest” fled to the States. While I’m sure there are some who would be pleased to see gays leave the country, that’s basically a stupid and short-sighted attitude to take.
Would gay marriage in Canada increase the chances of the same thing happening here? Maybe. Not directly, perhaps — for two peoples as similar as the US and Canada, we (particularly our governments) spend a lot of time highlighting the differences. But this isn’t nationalized medicine. The drift of social conventions, the meme if you will, will have an impact. It will be difficult for folks to argue that legalizing gay marriage will lead to debauchery on the streets and the downfall of civilization when folks right across the border are doing it without any particular harm. (Granted, debauchery on the streets is a bit more difficult in Canada’s climate, but that’s a technical detail.) And, perhaps, if there are any hitches (so to speak) that develop (cf. nationalized medical insurance), we can learn some lessons from our neighbors to the north.
Should be interesting, at any rate.
(via DiscountBlogger)
UPDATE: More grist for the economic benefits mill, via JillMatrix:
[T]he big new-ideas and cutting-edge industries that lead to sustained prosperity are more likely to exist where gay people feel welcome. Most centers of tech-based business growth also have the highest concentrations of gay couples. Conversely, major areas with relatively few gay couples tend to be slow- or no-growth places. Pittsburgh and Buffalo, which have low percentages of gay couples, were two of only three major regions to lose population from 1990 to 2000.
Studies controlling for a wide range of factors also show innovation and economic vitality closely associated with the presence of gays and other indicators of tolerance and diversity, such as the percentage of immigrants and the level of racial and ethnic integration.
Why? Creative, innovative and entrepreneurial activities tend to flourish in the same kinds of places that attract gays and others outside the norm. To put it bluntly, a place where it’s OK for men to walk down the street holding hands will probably also be a place where Indian engineers, tattooed software geeks and foreign-born entrepreneurs feel at home. When people from varied backgrounds, places and attitudes can collide, economic home runs are likely.
Food for thought.
Interesting, indeed.
So…not Colorado Springs.
I don’t know if you heard, but the first action of the new mayor, Rivera, was to drop same-sex relationship medical benefits. One of the council members, Richard Skorman, offered to personally pay the $6,000 cost himself in order to keep the program, but was refused.
The mayor is endorsed by the Focus on the Family.
Jerk.
Yeah, well, the Springs is it’s own special slice of something or another. I’m astonished the measure passed in the first place.
The first time I encountered FotF was when they were still in Pomona, Calif., and I drove past their big new campus on a daily basis. I thought they were a photography studio company or something. Then they upped and moved and I didn’t hear about them again until I moved to Denver.
Idjits.
Neither Canadian Members of Parliament nor present-day Canadian judges are the ultimate authority on the lawful definition of marriage in Canada.
The Lawful Definition of Marriage in Canada
http://www.ocii.com/~dpwozney/marriage.htm
Interesting. Makes me glad that the drafters of our Constitution left out a provision like that.
On the other hand …
The supreme law of Canada, the Constitution of Canada, states that “…Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law…”.
God is the exclusive ultimate legislative authority on the lawful definition of marriage in Canada. The laws of God are supreme in Canada.
“Recognizing the supremacy of God” seems a bit different form saying “the laws of God are supreme in Canada.” Not only does it beg the question of what, precisely, God’s laws are (I have my ideas, you have yours, different writers of different religious documents have their own as well), but God’s supremacy is, in fact, to me (and, presumably, to you) axiomatic, regardless of what laws are passed in Canada (or elsewhere). If the entire world became devoted to Satanism, or blew itself up into a blasted cinder, God would still be supreme.
Whether the Canadian courts are “credible” in separating Canada’s civil law from the religious and civil laws laid out in various locations of the New and Old Testament is another question. I’m not sure the extent to which you propose placing Canada under Levitican law, but I think most Canadians (and, likely, the Queen) would object strongly to the proposition.
If God is supreme then His laws are supreme. God’s laws are found in the New Testament King James Bible which was referred to as “the most valuable thing that this world affords” during the coronation of Canada’s visible head of state on earth, Queen Elizabeth II. In the present church age, people today are not under Old Testament Mosaic law (which was for Israel) but rather are under New Testament Christian law. The concept of “separation of church and state” is contrary to Colossians 1:16-17 (KJV).
16 for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 and he is before all things, and by him all things consist:
Which then follows in v. 18 with “and he is the head of the body, the church.”
Certainly God is supreme, and Creator. That does not mean that separation of church and state is against the Bible. Indeed, Luke 20:21-26 (Render Unto Caesar) makes that clear. What is needful and right to do in civil law is not necessarily in keeping with what we are called to do in our worship.
And, in Hebrews 13:17, Paul suggests quite clearly that obedience to the civil authorities ought to prevail, and that it is on their heads should they mislead souls.
My mistake in suggesting you had referred back to Mosaic law for your condemnation of homosexuality. But Paul’s passages to the Romans you reference , while condemning of homosexuality, are not relevant to how modern civil law ought to be structured, any more than Paul’s dictates of what a good marriage and family relationship are ought to dictate whether civil authorities can declare a marriage null and void, regardless of the wishes of the participants. It refers to personal behavior, and Paul’s exhortations of how one ought to personally conduct one’s life.
In the present church age, believers are called upon to obey the law of the New Testament (while acknowledging that it is impossible to fully do so, so that they can only be saved by grace). That does not mean the NT represents the basis for, or can disquality, the law of the state.
For that matter, to what extent must that law of God mean that the sovereign queen, Elizabeth, has the moral or legal authority, as “consecrated Queen over the Peoples, whom the Lord thy God hath given thee to rule and govern,” to simply dictate any aspect of the law that she sees fit to as being what God commands?
Luke 20:21-26 does not necessarily imply separation of church and state. The Roman empire had a state religion. Romans 13:1 states that “there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God”.
When the supreme law of the state recognizes the supremacy of God, the laws of God are supreme in that state.
Unlike Old Testament Mosaic law, New Testament Christian law does not prescribe any specified penalty, punishment, or enforcement for violations of the laws of God before the end of the present church age.
People in Canada have the right to violate the laws of God. Canadians have freedom of conscience and religion and freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.
The right to choose to violate the laws of God is doctrinal and consistent with the teachings of the New Testament.
Luke 20:21-26 does not necessarily imply separation of church and state. The Roman empire had a state religion. Romans 13:1 states that “there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God”.
Which would imply that the Roman government, with its state religion, was also ordained of God. Regardless, the passage indicates that the requirements of the civil state can be accomodated even when it would seem against religious dictate.
When the supreme law of the state recognizes the supremacy of God, the laws of God are supreme in that state.
Presumably they remain supreme even when not recognized. And the actual *law* of the NT is fairly limited, and focused almost entirely on how individuals ought comport themselves to be in a good relationship with God, not with how the state ought to behave or its citizens as a group. Indeed, even though the NT seems to condone slavery (at least indicating that slaves ought to be obedient to their masters), it also notes that, insofar as the relationship with God goes, there *is* “neither slave nor free.” This isn’t a condemnation of slavery, simply a recognition that as far as an individual is concerned, God does not draw that distinction.
As you note, the people in Canada (singly and collectively) have the “right” to violate the laws of God (or interpret them differently than you do, or I), with no repercussions aside from when they stand in Judgment. Which brings us back to your original statement, “Neither Canadian Members of Parliament nor present-day Canadian judges are the ultimate authority on the lawful definition of marriage in Canada.”
Seen in that light, your statement is more cautionary than declamatory. The ultimate authority on the Law is, indeed, the Ultimate Author. The authority on what constitutes the civil law does indeed, though, seem to remain with the Canadian parliament and judiciary (and, ultimately, the Canadian people). If they choose to make those two laws incongruent (in God’s eyes, regardless of theirs, yours, or mine), then they will eventually face the consequences.
Lehman Strauss in “The Book of Revelation Outlined Studies” writes that the Antichrist will also be “acting under the divine mandate. The authority he displays ‘was given unto him’ (Revelation 6:2,4)”. In this sense the man of sin will be “ordained of God”. See also Psalm 75:6-7, Proverbs 21:1, and Daniel 2:21 (KJV).
The New Testament states that Jesus Christ is the King eternal (1 Timothy 1:17), and as such, He is to be properly designated the ultimate head of state.
The King James NT Bible does not refer to “slavery” or to a “slave” but only to “slaves” once (in Revelation 18:13).
The Canadian parliament, judiciary, and people are capable of changing the Canadian Constitution.
As omniscient Creator, God is indeed the author and mandator of all that happens — which makes for some long discussions of where free will enters into this, and why bad things happen to good people, and the like — though that goes beyond the current discussion.
My mistake on the “slave” word — the KJV renders it as “bond” in Galatians 3:28 and Colossians 3:11. Ephesians 6:5-9 also seems to refer to the institution, though it refers to “servants” (“be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ”). Colossians 4:1 and 1 Timothy 6:1-3 refer to the master/”servant” relationship as well — which relationship seems to bear risk of serious punishment (Luke 12:45-48). And, of course, there’s Onesimus, another “servant,” returned by Paul to Philemon, from whom he appears to have run away.
To designate Christ as the “ultimate head of state” is, perhaps, a reality, but also seems unnecessary, any more than to designate him as the ultimate head of beetles, or the ultimate head of rocks, or the ultimate head of the Department of Health and Human Services. It, practically speaking, goes without saying — and having to say it, and rely upon it as an argument, seems to me to turn God from both sovereign and inspiration into a legal citation.
Dave…
Part of you confusion on the slave thing might be because most of the rest of the bible versions say Slave.
As in Slaves must obay their Masters, and Slaves can only be free when they die, and so on.
It would be nice if god could inspire one version of his rule book.
Well, if it were that easy, than anyone could do it.
There are a number of folk (and I suspect David here is among them, given his emphasis) who believe that there is, in fact, One True Divinely-Inspired English Translation of the Bible, and that is the KJV (see, for example, here, in particular this chapter).