10 reasons to oppose gay marriage
Read Time:5 Second
Follow MadMike’sAmerica on Facebook and Twitter, and don’t forget to visit our HOME PAGE.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
In the end, this history is instructive, but the US Government was founded on a principle of NOT enabling any one religion to dictate the law of the land. Our traditions frequently reflect a simple lack of asking the question of whether or not that tradition is religious or legal. Marriage was so dominated by Judeo-Christian culture, AND there were so few individuals able to challenge that culture, that our failure is that we never gave it a second thought.
The advent of repeal of laws against sodomy opened the door for consideration of the eligibility of this newly legal behavior for legal “marriage.” We never had to think about same-sex marriage before that, simply because having sexual relations with another person of the same sex was a crime as recently as…well as recently as now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/montana-sodomy-law-repeal_n_2213276.html
SCOTUS only ruled that state bans on “sodomy” were illegal only 10 years ago.
So this brings me back to my claim that the word “marriage” is far too charged to be the issue here. We have an opportunity to argue this case on its real merits and truly separate church and state by simply taking the word “marriage” out of the civil contract.
Do I think it will be done? Of course not. If we were going to do this “right”, however, this is what we’d do. We’d remove the “sacrament” or religious rite from the legal contract.
Kathleen, we might argue over this on a culture-by-culture basis, but the reason the “churches” recorded the marriages in Judeo-Christian culture is because “the church” performed the marriages. http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/465162/jewish/The-Jewish-Marriage-Ceremony.htm
It’s clear from reading this that it’s very hard to distinguish religion from government in the Torah, but fundamentally this is religion AS government.
Bill, we could not agree more, but I’m puzzled by your suggestion that I have it backwards. Read my comments again. Marriage as a religious practice predates the legal sanction. That may be a muddy claim, because millennia ago, religion WAS law and vice versa. But marriage was a sacramental blessing of a household union before it became a legal contract. The concepts of dowries, betrothals, preordained marriages, political/royalty marriages and such all figured into the equation, but, in the end, a “minister” presided over the rite, and it was a religious rite. If that wasn’t clear in what I said, I apologize for the confusion.
The USA has always struggled with separation of church and state embodied in the 1st Amendment simply because religion was so deeply instilled in many of our forefathers…and more importantly, in the citizenry. Religion was so deeply inculcated in our culture that we could not see the forest for the trees. Our founders grew up with state religion or were refugees from state religion in order to practice another sect of Christianity. But enough of the drafters of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were a-religious that it’s fair to say that at least some of them had a vision of a truly secular government. We have, for centuries, struggled to fully grasp and implement this separation of church and state – from days when Bible-thumping was used to justify slavery to today, when Bible-thumping is used to narrow the definition of a civil marriage contract. We are getting there, but progress is painfully slow, and we seem to fight the same battles over and over again. We are incapable of generalizing from the specific. This SHOULD have been settled law with “Loving Vs. Virginia,” and yet here we are again, with the same court case…just a different class of plaintiffs.
@Jim, not exactly. Marriage only became a “religious practice” because the churches were repositories of the records – births, deaths, marriages.
I believe that’s true Kathleen. Thanks.
ClemBurke, that “person” you speak of was me. And I stand by my recommendation that ALL legal unions (as opposed to religious marriages) be called legal or civil unions. That applies to my “marriage” to my wife. My “marriage” was conducted by a nondenominational “minister” – a non-religious person, much like a ship’s captain or other legally designated individual who has the authority to conduct binding “marriage” ceremonies.
In the eyes of the law, we are “married”. In the eyes of every religion, including the “new church of what’s happenin’ now,” we are NOT married. NO church authority presided over the ceremony, and the ceremony had no religious over-or-undertones whatsoever.
In other words, my spouse and I entered into a legally binding contract that gives us all the rights and privileges of a legally recognized household unit but no standing with any religion.
I made the point before that “marriage” predates the legal contract many millennia. Many governments recognize religious ceremonies of marriage, BUT ONLY IF THE RELIGIOUS CEREMONY IS ALSO CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. In the US, that means a marriage license and several other steps followed by a formal filing with appropriate authorities to REGISTER THE EXECUTION OF THE LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT.
You and I disagree about the WORD marriage and nothing more. I believe government should remove the sloppy, easily misinterpreted use of the word marriage in favor of legal or civil union – FOR EVERYONE. This would substantially clarify the difference between a religiously sanctioned household union of officially recognized spouses and the legally sanctioned household union of spouses – and it would forever put an end to somehow trying to assimilate the mish-mash of different religious rituals surrounding religious marriage.
This, ClemBurke, is called separation of church and state.
I recognize that the possibility of achieving this goal – of abandoning the word marriage in all legal use – is slight at best. But, if nothing else, this is a worthwhile mental exercise to illustrate the fact that using the word “marriage” is at best confusing, because the word is saddled with a different definition associated with each religious institution — and government. In every other rhetorical circumstance, effort is made to further define and refine language to clarify meaning. That SCOTUS is struggling with this issue at all is largely related to religious claims on the word marriage. Government has no place in the marriage business, because that is a religious rite.
You don’t like my opinion. I don’t like your stubborn refusal to stretch a bit and consider the rhetorical significance of demanding to use a WORD in a way that generates enormous resistance to achieving your goal. So I guess we’re even.
If I recall, you are a lifelong gay-rights advocate who has been victimized. I acknowledge that and empathize. That gives you no special standing to stifle my opinion. I’ll focus on the fight to secure the legal rights to enter into a legal spousal relationship. You may feel free to focus on laying claim to the word as well. But that’s where you lose me. I will NOT fight for you to control the legal definition of that word.
The battle will go on under the banner of Same-Sex Marriage or Marriage Equality. I will join in that battle, but I think an astute plaintiff’s attorney should have made the case I outlined and at least raised the issue of widespread confusion and territoriality over the word “marriage.”
I have, and I lost a gay friend not to long ago and I miss him. David, I promise I will do two Tequila shots next time I have a beer buddy. I do miss you. 🙁
Jim, you have it backwards my friend though the way things have turned out, in its twisted logic, it is actually not right. Marriage is actually a religious practice which, in theory is ordained by the church as it has been since whenever churches ruled the mind of man. It did not take on the legal aspect, insofar as the Christian churches were concerned until Emperor Constantine mandated Christianity as the official state religion of The Roman Empire in the Third Century A.D. Had it not been for that, or if the Roman Empire decide not to conquer Europe England, and thus this country may well have become Druids. During the period of Roman domination and afterwards marriages blended with church law to the point that kings of England had to have permission of the Pope to marry or divorce. Even after the split between civil and ecclesiastical law in the 12th century marriage remained in the domain of both the law and the church.
What are you talking about Clem? Why don’t you stick to the topic at hand instead of whining about some perceived slight none of the rest of know anything about or care probably.
This comment has been removed, and the commenter has been banned for violating the Mad Mike’s America comment policy.
I just love these exchanges that contain such clear logic and are so applicable to the topic. When they so clearly exhibit the mindset of the posters, it’s even better.
BTW, shouldn’t an interrogative end with a question mark? 😀
It is with great pleasure that I will now block Mr. Clem Burke, AKA W.K. I blocked him from FaceBook for being an insufferable prick, just like he’s being here. He is a whining scumbag, and he has just violated my comment policy so I will most happily remove him.
I suspected this might be our “beloved” (sarcasm again) Wil. The badly-spelled, unedited, pointlessly offensive post had all of his trademarks. Well done, Mike.
Their poor grammar, spelling, and etc. is almost like a fingerprint James.
I find it strange that you defended a man on your facebook thread when he stated that LGBT’s would be better off if we called it something else besides ” marriage” , but my working for the largest gay law firm in America and my oppinion was laughed at in that thread .
@James – That would be selective Bible reading at best. Jesus said NOTHING about gay people and yet he said many things about mercy, justice and oppression. I am a life long Christian, but Christians do not get to impose their views on the United States – separation of church and state and all that.
The Constitution gives every citizen the right to equal treatment under the law and that applies to marriage and the civil benefits that come with it. Your church can decide who they will marry in a religious ceremony in your church, but your church cannot make that decision for other people and other churches.
The Bible has been used to support many things which we now know to be wrong – slavery, the oppression of women, segregation – to name a few from “modern” history. Jesus said he would send the Holy Spirit to continue to teach us, and I think you should listen. Many Christian churches already perform same sex marriages in the states where it is legal and same sex blessings in the states where it is not.
You do not speak for this Christian.
You are right about Jesus saying nothing about gay people. In fact, he never said anything about anything. That’s because he never existed. Find even one contemporary account of any jesus. You’ll have as much luck as finding statements from him about gays.
Christians do get to impose their views upon others and do so at every opportunity. If they did not, the entire gay marriage nonsense would not even exist. Nor would many other christian-demanded laws. Did ou know that in seven US states,there are constitutional provisions against atheists holding elective office? Where do you think that came from – the Buddhists?
I agree that the babble is being used to support many things that are wrong. It always has been and always will be.
Jesus also said this: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” Matthew 10:34 That is, if you believe that nonsense at all.
You “think” I should listen? Who do you think you are telling me what to do? When you assume that right, which all arrogant theists do, you also give me the right to tell you what to do, too.
You should read the babble as though you had never heard of it before or the religion. Then you’ll see how absurd, contradictory, and untrue it is. Is that OK for me to tell you what to do?
We do agree about the issues of slavery, oppression of women, and we should also consider the hatred of gays and atheists.
When did I say that I spoke for you? When did I say I spoke for anyone but myself? Yet, christians do not hesitate to use the “you should” phrase to everyone else.
As I read this today, I am at my Florida home in an especially gay-friendly city-Ft. Lauderdale. So, until I moved to Alabama, I really did not know just how many people REALLY believe things like these 10 reasons…and more. The gays in this city have contributed to the liberal culture of this community. Oh, and don’t let me forget to say what they contribute to the workplace and economy because they work hard and know how to shop 🙂 My favorite shopping friends are gay men. I wonder if those against gay marriage have ever even had a gay friend or said more then 10 words to a gay couple?
I have, and I lost a gay friend not to long ago and I miss him. David, I promise I will do two Tequila shots next time I have a beer buddy. I do miss you. 🙁
Mike I was worried about you when I read the headline, then I read the “reasons.” My faith is restored. Good one.
As I said elsewhere, it all boils down to, “It’s an abomination!”