On the More Positive Side . . .

Church Growth, Emmaus style

A Matter of Intent

For some excellent commentary President Obama's commencement address at Notre Dame, see Anthony Esolen's post over at Mere Comments, available at http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2009/05/notre-madame-et-le-president.html

A brief excerpt:

Except in the case of rape, there are no "unintended pregnancies," none. There are plenty of women who do not want to be pregnant, and plenty of men who do not want them to be pregnant, but in all those cases the pregnancies are the results of intentional actions of a sort that have pregnancy as their perfectly natural and perfectly predictable consequence. Contraception does not change the nature of the act itself; indeed, it makes the actors more keenly aware that what they are doing is the sort of thing that makes babies, since otherwise they would not go so far out of their way (donning or inserting into the body uncomfortable devices, or flooding the system with pregnancy-mimicking hormones) to thwart the body's natural functions. The "problem" in the case of Sexual Roulette is not that the body fails, but that it succeeds.

So the pregnancies are the result of intention. The problem is that the children are not wanted, and that is a very different thing. For the question we should immediately ask is not, "How do we dispose of this child we do not want?" but "What is wrong with us that we do not want this child?"

* * *

What we need, of course, is not to reduce "unintended pregnancies," but to grant children what we owe them, which is, at the minimum, a married mother and father. We want, in other words, to reduce unwed motherhood, not by killing the children, but by persuading people to get married before they start acting as if they were married.

CDC urges vigilance for pregnant women with flu symptoms

In its surveillance of the novel influenza outbreak, the CDC has been gathering information on infections in pregnant women. As of May 10, 20 cases have been reported, including 15 confirmed and 5 probable cases. The CDC published its findings on the three cases in a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) Dispatch.

Anne Schuchat, MD, interim deputy director CDC's science and public health program, said at a media briefing today that the CDC is singling out the cases to remind healthcare providers and the public that pregnant women are at higher risk for flu complications such as pneumonia and dehydration and that the agency is seeing some severe complications in pregnant women who have novel H1N1 infections.

"We want to get the word out about prompt antiviral treatment," she said.

Story from CIDRAP here.

Full CDC report here.

Population, Economy, and God

For an excellent article on the relationship between wealth, belief in God and fertility, see "Population, Economy, and God," by Tom Bethell, published by The American Spectator and available at http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/12/population-economy-and-god

A brief excerpt will give you a hint of the author's premise:

A rise in prosperity also encourages people to think that they can dispense with God. Religion diminishes when wealth increases—that’s my theory. But with a twist that I shall come to. Wealth generates independence, including independence from God, or (if you will) Providence. God is gradually forgotten, then assumed not to exist. This will tend to drive childbearing down even further. Hedonism will become predominant. Remember, Jesus warned that it’s the rich, not the poor, who are at spiritual hazard.

* * *

I could summarize the argument with this overstatement: The intelligentsia stopped believing in God in the 19th century. In the 20th it tried to build a new society, man without God. It failed. Then came a new twist. Man stopped believing in himself. He saw himself as a mere polluter—a blot on the landscape. Theologians tell us that creatures cannot exist without the support of God. A corollary may be that societies cannot long endure without being sustained by a belief in God.

Rev. Larry Beane on the "New Religion"

Read his post here.

On Obama in South Bend

Because it touches upon the concerns of this blog, some of you may be interested in my recent post on reactions to Obama in South Bend, in anticipation of his coming to speak at the University of Notre Dame.

Changing the World One "I do" at a Time

Here are links to two good blog posts on why we are losing the battles in our culture. All the politicking in the world can't make up for our failures to simply be obedient. Indeed, I have come to believe that all the politicking is a desperate attempt to find some solution other than obedience.

Let Gays Have Marriage; We’re Not Using It - updated, available at http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/04/22/let-gays-have-marriage-were-not-using-it/, where we read, in part:

If you put something out with the trash, the police can search it without a warrant. Anyone walking by can take it. Although it’s still on your property, it’s not really yours anymore; you’ve relinquished your claim to it. And that’s exactly what we’ve done with marriage. We might as well let gays have it. We’re not using it.

There are four elements of the marriage crisis:

* Marriage: The marriage rate has plunged 50% since 1970. If the same percentage of couples were marrying now as in 1970, there would be a million more marriages a year – 3.3 million marriages, not 2.2 million. Those who have never-married aged 30-44 have tripled from 6.8% in 1970 to 20.4% in 2005.

* Divorce: Half of all new marriages end in divorce. There have been 42 million divorces since 1970 hurting 40 million children. One quarter of all adults age 18-35 have grown up in divorced families.

* Cohabitation: The number of unmarried couples living together soared 12-fold from 430,000 in 1960 to 5.4 million in 2005. There are only 2.2 million marriages a year. Thus, cohabitation has become the dominant way male-female unions are formed. Couples who marry after living together are 50% more likely to divorce than those who did not.

* Unwed births: Out-of wedlock births jumped from 5.3% to 37.4% or from 224,000 to 1.5 million children from 1960-2004. Cohabiting couples are as likely to have a child under 18 as married couples (41% vs. 46%).

And for my fellow Christian conservatives: we haven’t got a moral leg to stand on. Our divorce rate is identical to the national average. We allow our churches to be used as elaborate stage sets for bridezilla productions, often with just pro forma premarital counseling or sometimes none at all. When our fellow church members get divorced, we do not counsel them adequately. We fail to create a culture of marriage in our youth and twenty-somethings. We have shown massive disrespect for marriage. When we demand others respect it, it’s not surprising that we’re not taken seriously.

‘Forbidding to Marry’ (Reply to Laura), available at http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/04/22/forbidding-to-marry-reply-to-laura/, where he responds to the first post, in part, with the following observations:

‘TWO AND TIE ‘EM’
Christians believe that marriage is an institution ordained by God, and every marriage is thus blessed. However, in ordaining marriage, God commanded man to “be fruitful and multiply.” This commandment has never been repealed or amended, no matter what any Malthusian population-control fanatic tries to tell you. One trend that has undermined marriage has been the rise of the Contraceptive Culture, which celebrates sterility as the norm and views fertility as a pathology requiring medical prevention.

How many Christians have embraced this false — dare I say, evil — worldview? How many young Christian married couples use contraception because “we can’t afford children now”? And how many married Christian couples have unwittingly subscribed to the Zero Population Growth ideal of exactly two children per couple? Did you know that surgical sterilization (tubal ligation) is the No. 1 form of birth control for American women? It’s the “two and tie ‘em” mentality: Have exactly two children, then get yourself surgically sterilized.

* * *

In this, many “Christian conservatives” seem entirely comfortable with being “conformed to this world,” slavishly following the secular trend. What one confronts is an attitude I call “middle classism”: The belief that the object of life is to accrue the symbols of middle-class status (college education, office job, new cars, home in the suburbs, vacation travel) and to ensure that one’s children accumulate the same symbols.

A SHOCKING CHOICE
Life without these symbols is deemed unworthy — “underprivileged” — and many parents who consider themselves Christian conservatives strongly caution their children against early marriage and early parenthood, since these are perceived as obstacles to obtaining middle-classness. If a 19-year-old returns from her freshman year at college to announce that she is a lesbian, her Christian conservative parents may not approve, but they will still love and cherish their child. Let the same 19-year-old announce that she’s marrying her boyfriend and dropping out of school to start a family, and this would drive her Christian conservative parents to the verge of suicidal grief: “You’re ruining your life!”

* * *

If young Christian conservatives want to be “pro-family,” then, they need to be getting married and having babies. And what a youth rebellion that would be, huh? “No, mother, I’ve decided against law school. As a matter of fact, Jennifer and I went to the courthouse and got married last Saturday and . . .” Strange to say that the most shocking thing a young person can do in 2009 is to get married. They can change the world one “I do” at a time.

Amen.

Rite of Spring: Russia's Fertility Trends

For a very interesting and insightful analysis of demographic trends in the developed world, see

Rite of Spring: Russia's Fertility Trends

By Anatoly Karlin

available at http://www.russiablog.org/2009/04/russias_fertility_future.php

One of the more interesting observations by Mr. Karlin was the following:

A Womanly Demographic History of Russia

An even more meaningful measure is the net female reproduction coefficient (NFRC). It takes into account two things that the TFR doesn’t, at least not explicitly - a) the male-female ratio at birth and b) the female death rate, pre- and during childbearing age. Although the replacement level TFR is usually quoted as being 2.1, as mentioned above it varies in practice. Although that is indeed the case in most modern industrial countries, in underdeveloped and/or traditional societies with high female mortality rates in early years and/or high male to female ratios, the TFR needs to be as high as 2.5, 3.0 or more for generation reproduction. This is because a lot of females die before they can give birth to more girls. Although China has a nominally respectable TFR of 1.7-1.8, it is effectively considerably lower due to societal preference for males and the resulting skewed demographic profile.

The net female reproduction coefficient explicitly takes the two factors above into account - any value greater than 1 ensures long-term population growth, while a value of less than 1 implies impending decline. In the graph below you can see a graph of Russia’s NFRC from 1960 to 2005.

[Graphic omitted]

Today all the world’s major industrial nations are not producing enough girls to maintain their current population levels in the long-term. The US as a whole just about makes an exception, although only thanks to the help of highly fertile Hispanics. In Russia, the NFRC increased since 2005 to 0.67, which puts it above most east-central European countries but still significantly below France, Scandinavia and the Anglosphere.

(Emphasis added.)

So, even were China to raise its TFR to 2.1 (which it apparently has no intention of doing), if it retained its current ratio of boys to girls at 119 to 100, it's NFRC would still be less than 1, roughly 0.96, and it would still be on track for falling natural growth rates (i.e., it would shrink over time absent immigration). Thus, in countries with unnaturally skewed birth rates favoring boys over girls (such as China and India), a TFR of 2.1 is actually below replacement level. For example, in China, to achieve a replacement level NFRC of 1 (let's use 1.05 or exactly 1/2 of the normally cited 2.1), the TFR would have to be about 2.3 if the distribution of boy babies compared to girl babies in that nation remains unchanged and assuming that 2.1 would be the replacement TFR but for the maldistribution of boys and girls in China.

Presbyterians and Birth Control

For some excellent articles on Presbyterians and Birth Control, see the following articles by Presbyterian Andrew Otero:

Presbyterians were a driving force behind global warming and even contraception, available at http://www.examiner.com/x-7234-Tampa-Presbyterian-Examiner~y2009m4d16-Presbyterians-were-a-driving-force-behind-global-warming-and-even-contraception

Presbyterians and overpopulation - part 2, available at http://www.examiner.com/x-7234-Tampa-Presbyterian-Examiner~y2009m4d19-Presbyterians-and-overpopulation--part-2

Presbyterians and overpopulation - part 3, available at http://www.examiner.com/x-7234-Tampa-Presbyterian-Examiner~y2009m4d19-Presbyterians-and-overpopulation--part-3

Presbyterians and birth control, available at http://www.examiner.com/x-7234-Tampa-Presbyterian-Examiner~y2009m4d20-Presbyterians-and-birth-control

Presbyterians and birth control - part 2, available at http://www.examiner.com/x-7234-Tampa-Presbyterian-Examiner~y2009m4d26-Presbyterians-and-birth-control--part-2

Demographic Winter

At the Illinois Lutherans for Life conference this past Saturday, one of speakers showed the trailer for the Documentary - Demographic Winter. The film deals with population rates and their decline in the West. I picked up a copy, will watch and post a review. The film has been out for about a year now and if you google it you will see that the pro-abort/anti-life side are not fans. The movie's trailer is worth a watch.

http://www.demographicwinter.com


At the conference the question was asked if contraception aided the demographic winter as well as the culture of death. The only non-Lutheran presenter, who showed the clip, said yes, and referred to Luther's writings on the subject.

St. Nicholas and Marriage

I'm not sure if it is legend, or if it truly is the more factual story of St. Nicholas (we have one CPH book on him), but supposedly he gave money to needy families so that their daughters could be married. A dowry was needed in those days and young women from families of little means would often end up as prostitutes.

Think about this: Because of no dowry young women would end up as prostitutes. Isn't it great that our society is not so barbaric that one needs money to get married and that the choices are much greater? Think again....

This week I heard Dr. Brad Wilcox on The Drew Mariani Show. Dr. Wilcox is a sociologist that studies marriage and he talked about an interesting phenomena - people in lower and middle class groups want to be married, but delay it and cohabitate and have children outside of marriage because they want "the big wedding". They delay to afford an extravaganza, and all the while live in a way that is not chaste.

I wonder if St. Nicholas would throw sacks of coins into their father's windows to avoid continued living in sin?

I think not,,,, but I think it is important to train our Lutheran children that Christ blesses marriage for His own sake and for the increase of His Church both domestic and where Word and Sacrament are administered.

Money and show are not what make for happy homes. Those contemplating marriage and those who are married should be encouraged to study God's Word and learn well of Christ and His bride and worry less about a foolish dream, that is sometimes no better than the foolishness of society in St. Nicholas' time.

Jon

Different Denomination, Same Story

Southern Baptist new baptisms slip again in 2008

Available at http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2009/04/southern_baptist_new_baptisms.html

NASHVILLE -- Southern Baptist churches baptized fewer people in 2008 for the fourth year in a row to reach the lowest level since 1987, and membership in the country's largest Protestant denomination fell slightly as well.

Baptisms dropped just over 1 percent to 342,198 last year, compared with 345,941 in 2007, according to an annual report released by LifeWay Christian Resources, the Southern Baptist Convention's publishing arm.

Total membership of Southern Baptist churches was 16,228,438 last year, down nearly 38,400 from 2007.

The continued decline in the number of followers reflects a trend in other mainline Protestant churches. . . .

"The numbers simply tell us that Southern Baptists are not reaching as many people for Christ as they once did," said Thom S. Rainer, president and CEO of LifeWay.


. . .

In the past 50 years, the number of annual baptisms per church member -- a key indicator of church growth -- has dropped sharply. Southern Baptists baptized one person for every 19 church members in 1950, a ratio that dropped to 1 baptism for every 47 church members in 2008, according to the report.

The denomination's baptisms peaked in 1972 at 445,725, based on statistics Lifeway has collected from Southern Baptist churches since 1922.

Why the decline in baptisms and membership? Maybe this article will help us to understand what has happened:

New Southern Baptist leader faces graying flock
The Rev. Johnny Hunt's Woodstock church goes against trend of shrinking numbers

By CHRISTOPHER QUINN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 06/12/08

Available at http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/06/11/johnny_hunt_baptists.html

The Rev. Johnny Hunt of Woodstock looks over the declining numbers and white hair of those attending the Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting and sees a microcosm of his denomination.

"In 1985, with 45,000 messengers [church delegates attending the convention], 36 percent were under 40," Hunt said Wednesday from Indianapolis, the day after Southern Baptists elected him president of the national organization.

"Last year, with 10,000 messengers, only 16 percent were under 40," he said.

I am not picking on the Southern Baptist. What is true for them is true for most Christian denominations. The truth is that there are fewer baptisms because there are fewer children. The older church members were baptized long ago.

If shrinking denominations want to learn the secret of growth, perhaps they should look to the Amish. See Church Growth Amish Style, available at http://www.geneveith.com/church-growth-amish-style/_992/, where we read, in part:

Why the church growth? With their rejection of automobiles, electricity, computers, and other conveniences of modern life, they aren’t winning many converts. But they have, on the average, five children per family. And though the children have a choice of whether or not to stay with the church when they grow up–getting to spend their late teen or early adult years sampling the outside world–a larger number of them, 85%, are staying with the church.

Too Many Houses, Too Few Homes

For an excellent analysis of how our abandonment of the Scriptural model of the family consisting of a father, a mother, and children has contributed to our current economic woes, see "Demographics & Depression," by David P. Goldman, in the May, 2009 issue of First Things, available online at http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6564.

A brief excerpt will give you a little insight into the author's analysis:

Now, consider this fact: America’s population has risen from 200 million to 300 million since 1970, while the total number of two-parent families with children is the same today as it was when Richard Nixon took office, at 25 million. In 1973, the United States had 36 million housing units with three or more bedrooms, not many more than the number of two-parent families with children—which means that the supply of family homes was roughly in line with the number of families. By 2005, the number of housing units with three or more bedrooms had doubled to 72 million, though America had the same number of two-parent families with children.

The number of two-parent families with children, the kind of household that requires and can afford a large home, has remained essentially stagnant since 1963, according to the Census Bureau. Between 1963 and 2005, to be sure, the total number of what the Census Bureau categorizes as families grew from 47 million to 77 million. But most of the increase is due to families without children, including what are sometimes rather strangely called “one-person families.”

In place of traditional two-parent families with children, America has seen enormous growth in one-parent families and childless families. The number of one-parent families with children has tripled. Dependent children formed half the U.S. population in 1960, and they add up to only 30 percent today. The dependent elderly doubled as a proportion of the population, from 15 percent in 1960 to 30 percent today.

"'Anti-Abortion' is Only the Beginning" Part 2

Last month, I posted my request to LCMS President Jerry Kieschnick that he clarify his statement that "LCMS congregations and leaders ought to encourage prevention of unintended pregnancies".

I asked by email:

"What, exactly, do you mean by "unintended pregnancies"? Also, please
explain how congregations and leaders should encourage their prevention."

I received the following reply on Maundy Thursday, April 9:

Dear Dr. Heidenreich,

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

President Kieschnick received your email and has asked me to respond to
you on his behalf.

The one certain method for the prevention of unwanted pregnancies is
abstinence. Congregations and leaders should encourage and teach
abstinence, within the context of the Sixth Commandment with its
explanation in Luther's Small Catechism and other Biblical teaching in
that accord.

Blessings,
Rev. Larry Krueger
Assistant to the President

I have replied as follows:

Rev. Krueger,

Thank you for your reply. However, with all due respect, you did not even attempt to answer my primary question: What, exactly, does President Kieschnick mean by 'unintended pregnancies'? On this question, your email leaves me more confused than I was before.

You have substituted the term "unwanted pregnancies." Is this what President Kieschnick meant to say rather than "unintended pregnancies"? Whether a couple "intended" to conceive a child or not, subsequently considering any "pregnancy" (i.e. baby) as "unwanted" is a blatantly sinful attitude, whether the couple is married or not.

In talking about "unintended pregnancies" was President Kieschnick referring only to out-of-wedlock conception? If so, then why did he speak only in terms of preventing pregnancy rather than unambiguously condemning the sin of fornication?

If, on the other hand, President Kieschnick was not only referring to out-of-wedlock conception, your answer to me would appear to suggest that he believes married couples should abstain for the purpose of preventing "unintended pregnancies." If this is the case, is he suggesting the use of Natural Family Planning, or is he suggesting complete abstinence?

Above all, I question this whole notion of "unintended" pregnancies. Such language fails to confess the fact that the creation of human life is an act of God. There is, therefore, no such thing as an "unintended" pregnancy. God is the one who "intends" to create life, and it is He alone who opens and closes the womb. No life can be created if God does not intend a life to come into being. We are simply His instruments.

In Genesis 30:2, we read: "Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel, and he said: 'Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?'"

Luther comments on this passage as follows:

“Although it is very easy to marry a wife, it is very difficult to support her along with the children and the household. Accordingly, no one notices this faith of Jacob. Indeed, many hate fertility in a wife for the sole reason that the offspring must be supported and brought up. For this is what they commonly say: ‘Why should I marry a wife when I am a pauper and a beggar? I would rather bear the burden of poverty alone and not load myself with misery and want.’ But this blame is unjustly fastened on marriage and fruitfulness. Indeed, you are indicting your unbelief by distrusting God’s goodness, and you are bringing greater misery upon yourself by disparaging God’s blessing. For if you had trust in God’s grace and promises, you would undoubtedly be supported. But because you do not hope in the Lord, you will never prosper.” [Luther's Works, vol. 5, page 332]

So, again, I ask what President Kieschnick meant by the term "unintended pregnancies."

Blessings to you in our risen Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ,

Erich Heidenreich, DDS
Zion-Marshall, MI

Oh, Please! Get the Facts, Sir David

"I've never seen a problem that wouldn't be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more." Sir David Attenborough in a statement issued by the Optimum Population Trust.

According to a story by the BBC, Sir David "has become a patron of" the Optimum Population Trust, "a group seeking to cut the growth in human population." According to the article, available in full at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7996230.stm, "[t]he Trust, which was founded in 1991, campaigns for the UK population to decrease voluntarily by not less than 0.25% a year. It has launched a 'Stop at Two' online pledge to encourage couples to limit their family's size."

Perhaps someone should tell Sir David that the CIA estimates the total fertility rate of the UK for 2009 to be 1.66, well below the "ideal" 2 which the "Trust" advocates. So, in fact, the UK would have to INCREASE its fertility to match that goal. See https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html.

A Lutheran Family Road Trip - From Darwin to the Pill

Here's a little something I wrote for my column (I Desire Mercy, Not Sarcasm...) over on the Brothers of John the Steadfast site: A Lutheran Family Road Trip.

The response was great, but the best response came from a commenter named Jonesy

"One connection Mr. Townsend didn’t draw directly between Darwinism and the Pill is eugenics. Darwinism begets “survival of the fittest”, which in turn begets Social Darwinism, which, when it has matured, begets eugenics. Then, along comes a sweet old lady named Margaret Sanger who happens to be a fierce defender of both Darwinism and eugenics. Ms. Sanger, being in possession of a small fortune, decides the best way to promote her cause is to throw her money and time into financing the development of (gasp) the Pill. Oh, she also pays a good piece of the legal bill to get contraceptives legalized in the U.S. just to make sure everyone, but mostly “dysgenic groups”, can go ahead and stop reproducing all those “unfit” babies. Yet we think we can go ahead and use this glorious invention without participating in its racist, Darwinist, eugenic past?
I’m sure it’s all just coincidence."

This is the point that I didn't make, but Jonesy took the ball and hit it out of the park.....

Marriage Minus Procreation Equals "Homosexual Marriage," Now in Iowa!

Homosexual couples in Iowa may enter into civil marriage, effective April 24, 2009, according to an Iowa Supreme Court ruling issued today (Varnum v. Brien).

What does this have to do with this "Lutherans and Procreation" blog? Nothing and everything. Homosexual "marriage" has nothing to do with procreation, and that's why it has everything to do with this blog -- a blog which has been tracing out the history of the separation of procreation from marriage and sexuality.

It is telling that Iowa's high court justified its approval of same-sex marriage on the claim that same-sex couples are "similarly situated" as compared with heterosexual couples, and that it identified the two kinds of couples as similarly situated precisely by overlooking the most obvious difference: heterosexuals naturally have the potential to procreate; homosexuals do not.

Here's how the reasoning went:

First, the constitutional guarantee to equal protection of the laws was interpreted thus: "To truly ensure equality before the law, the equal protection guarantee requires that laws treat all those who are similarly situated with respect to the purposes of the law alike." (p. 27, emphasis original)

Second, the purposes of Iowa marriage law were defined to include the following characteristics (and notice that procreation is not listed):

Plaintiffs [the homosexual couples suing for the right to marry] are in committed and loving relationships, many raising families, just like heterosexual couples. Moreover, official recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining their fundamental relational rights and responsibilities, just as it does for heterosexual couples. Society benefits, for example, from providing same-sex couples a stable framework within which to raise their children and the power to make health care and end-of-life decisions for loved ones, just as it does when that framework is provided for opposite-sex couples.
In short, for purposes of Iowa’s marriage laws, which are designed to bring a sense of order to the legal relationships of committed couples and their families in myriad ways, plaintiffs are similarly situated in every important respect, but for their sexual orientation. (p. 28)

Third, given that definition of "marriage" and that interpretation of the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution, together with the longstanding history of permitting homosexuals to adopt and thereby raise children, the conclusion is inevitable: homosexual couples may enter into civil marriage just as well as heterosexual couples. Simple as that.

A later footnote emphasizes the irrelevance of procreation to marriage, as construed by the court:

The County references plaintiffs’ inability to procreate “naturally,” presumably pointing out each couple’s inability to procreate without assistance. Plaintiffs’ inability to contribute children to society by procreation through sexual intercourse with each other does not dictate the outcome of our consideration under this factor. The inquiry into gay and lesbian people’s ability to contribute to society is a general one, designed to signal whether such classifications routinely risk elevating stereotype over ability. A person’s ability to procreate is merely one of many ways in which the person can contribute to society. While the narrower consideration of plaintiffs’ procreative abilities may be relevant to whether section 595.2 ultimately passes judicial scrutiny, consideration of those abilities is less helpful in determining which level of scrutiny to apply. That is, the inability of gay and lesbian partners to contribute by procreation through sexual intercourse with each other does not indicate whether legislative classifications based on sexual preference—which can conceivably occur in any legislative subject matter area—will generally be based on “stereotyped characteristics not truly indicative of their abilities.” Murgia, 427 U.S. at 313, 96 S. Ct. at 2566, 49 L. Ed. 2d at 525. (p. 49, n. 18)

So, marriage is not about procreation per se, but rather about "contributing to society" in various ways, and procreation need not be one of those ways. It's one thing, of course, to say a marriage between a particular man and a particular woman remains valid despite their inability to conceive (due to infertility that hinders their otherwise natural procreative potential); but here we find the claim that a marriage between two persons of the same sex is valid despite their inability, even theoretically, to ever have the prospect of conceiving naturally.

The County tried to justify its enforcement of Iowa's "marriage is between one man and one woman" law by noting the following two points. First, that the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation (for without procreation, society cannot continue). Second, that homosexuals cannot procreate. The Court, however, rejected this reasoning, insisting that

Gay and lesbian persons are capable of procreation. Thus, the sole conceivable avenue by which exclusion of gay and lesbian people from civil marriage could promote more procreation is if the unavailability of civil marriage for same-sex partners caused homosexual individuals to “become” heterosexual in order to procreate within the present traditional institution of civil marriage. The briefs, the record, our research, and common sense do not suggest such an outcome. (p. 59)

Ironically, then, the admission that homosexual persons (as distinct from homosexual couples) can procreate (by entering heterosexual relations) is twisted to somehow defend their "right" to homosexual "marriage," since there's no evidence that denying them the opportunity for homosexual marriage would increase the likelihood that they would in fact seek procreative relations with persons of the opposite sex.

In summary, heterosexual marriages do not necessarily foster procreation, nor do homosexual marriages necessarily deter procreation; procreation has nothing to do with marriage, and hence heterosexual couples (despite being potentially procreative) and homosexual couples (despite being decidedly non-procreative) are entitled an equal right to enter into civil marriage. They are, as the Court has phrased it, "similarly situated."

How did we get here? The severence of procreative potential from marital intercourse, implicit in the acceptance of contraceptive relations among heterosexual couples, seems to have provided a premise upon which homosexual couples later could build a winnable case for marriage to be redefined in their favor. In the legal realm, heterosexual couples provided this premise in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Roe v. Wade (1973); in the theological realm, it starts at the 1930 Lambeth Conference, and we are still trying to figure out where it ends.

What we need now are not better attorneys (for, with even Iowa succumbing to same-sex marriage, the culture war must now be declared over). What we need are prayers for repentance. Providentially, Iowa's legalization of same-sex marriage has come during Lent. O Christ, have mercy and forgive!

Bioethike 3

I can't keep up with posting links here to Rev. Robert C. Baker's fascinating blog posts, so I have added a widget so that his latest post on Bioethike is now the first thing you will see on this blog below the masthead.

I intend to be quiet now, sitting and listening at the feet of God's ordained servants as they expound on the topic of this blog. I therefore hope the ordained authors of Lutherans and Procreation will continue to post here as well.

Rehwinkel and Longman

Rev. Baker is making my blogging job so much easier. Now I just post links to his blog for things I would have posted here. ;-) Here's the latest at Bioethike: What a difference 50 years makes.

Bioethike 2

Last Sunday I promised the readers of Lutherans and Procreation that they would find Rev. Baker's writings of increasing interest.

Here's the latest example: Morpheus to Neo

See what I mean?

If you haven't bookmarked or subscribed to Rev. Baker's blog yet, I suggest you do so.
.