Marriage has been the basic building block of communities and society, uniting both sexes in a cooperative unit, usually producing and and raising the next generation with a parent of each of the two sexes.
Marriage is presented in the Bible as a powerful metaphor for God and His people, Christ and the Church. Literally from the first book of the Bible through to the last, marriage is depicted as uniting the sexes, while never portraying as marriage something absent of the participation of both sexes. Theologians who are followers of Christ cite marriage as one of only two or three institutions directly started by God. Even if one does not believe God created marriage, the fact is secular government in general didn't create marriage, and certainly not the government of the United States nor of the states themselves. They have merely described marriage, and put certain limitations (such as monogamy, minimum ages, low level of consanguinity) on the state licensing of marriage. The states have done so because new citizens, who do not consent to the relationships, usually result from marriage, and for the stabilization of family, inheritance, etc.
While I recognize that legislators, or the people directly, can legally vote to neuter state marriage licenses into documents that recognize nonmarriages under the name of description of "marriage", it is immoral for them to do so, as they are usurping something that our "wall of separation" should prevent. Fifteen years ago there was never anything anywhere in the world called "marriage" that lacked one of the sexes. Calling a brideless or groomless pairing a "marriage" is an abuse of the word, along the lines of government declaring that shrimp wrapped in bacon, served on a cheeseburger, is "kosher", or that ham is "vegetarian".
Any church or clergy that refuses to speak out in opposition to the neutering of state marriage licenses, citing the "separation of church and state" should be consistent. In that, I mean that they should never then, having claimed that religious marriage and state marriage are two separate things:
1) Require a state marriage license be involved in order for a marriage to be performed in the church.
2) Consider any congregants or members or staff "married" or not based on the possession, or lack thereof, of a state marriage license. It should be based solely on whether or not there was a church-recognized religious ceremony and a church-recognized divorce. A man or woman whose legal spouse committed adultery should be free to pursue another spouse and have a marriage ceremony in the church, regardless whether or not the state says he or she is divorced in the first place.
Put up or shut up, all of you churches willing to roll over and bow down to the petulant marriage neutering advocates.
There are many good nonreligious reasons to support the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing, but even so, one does not surrender his right enumerated in one clause of the First Amendment - the freedom of speech - by exercising a right enumerated in another clause of the very same Amendment - the freedom of religion. Speaking up and voting for marriage on religious grounds is no less valid and legal than demanding and voting for the neutering of marriage on the basis of personal sexual attractions or federal entitlements.
Marriage is presented in the Bible as a powerful metaphor for God and His people, Christ and the Church. Literally from the first book of the Bible through to the last, marriage is depicted as uniting the sexes, while never portraying as marriage something absent of the participation of both sexes. Theologians who are followers of Christ cite marriage as one of only two or three institutions directly started by God. Even if one does not believe God created marriage, the fact is secular government in general didn't create marriage, and certainly not the government of the United States nor of the states themselves. They have merely described marriage, and put certain limitations (such as monogamy, minimum ages, low level of consanguinity) on the state licensing of marriage. The states have done so because new citizens, who do not consent to the relationships, usually result from marriage, and for the stabilization of family, inheritance, etc.
While I recognize that legislators, or the people directly, can legally vote to neuter state marriage licenses into documents that recognize nonmarriages under the name of description of "marriage", it is immoral for them to do so, as they are usurping something that our "wall of separation" should prevent. Fifteen years ago there was never anything anywhere in the world called "marriage" that lacked one of the sexes. Calling a brideless or groomless pairing a "marriage" is an abuse of the word, along the lines of government declaring that shrimp wrapped in bacon, served on a cheeseburger, is "kosher", or that ham is "vegetarian".
Any church or clergy that refuses to speak out in opposition to the neutering of state marriage licenses, citing the "separation of church and state" should be consistent. In that, I mean that they should never then, having claimed that religious marriage and state marriage are two separate things:
1) Require a state marriage license be involved in order for a marriage to be performed in the church.
2) Consider any congregants or members or staff "married" or not based on the possession, or lack thereof, of a state marriage license. It should be based solely on whether or not there was a church-recognized religious ceremony and a church-recognized divorce. A man or woman whose legal spouse committed adultery should be free to pursue another spouse and have a marriage ceremony in the church, regardless whether or not the state says he or she is divorced in the first place.
Put up or shut up, all of you churches willing to roll over and bow down to the petulant marriage neutering advocates.
There are many good nonreligious reasons to support the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing, but even so, one does not surrender his right enumerated in one clause of the First Amendment - the freedom of speech - by exercising a right enumerated in another clause of the very same Amendment - the freedom of religion. Speaking up and voting for marriage on religious grounds is no less valid and legal than demanding and voting for the neutering of marriage on the basis of personal sexual attractions or federal entitlements.
I think you lost it a little on #2, Mr. Walrus. You contradict yourself by saying that a church would consider a congregant married or not based on state issued license ... then saying it should only be based on whether there had been a ceremony within the church? Clarify, please.
ReplyDeleteAlso, FYI, there are plenty of churches who would be more than happy to sanction the marriages of same-sex partners, but the state won't go along. So I agree - let the state issue license and let the people marry in the church that best aligns with their moral and spiritual beliefs. If thats what you were saying.
My point is these churches have said civil marriage and religious marriage should not be considered the same thing, and that is why it is OK to neuter state marriage licenses. I simply challenge them to prove they really believe that.
Delete