June 30, 2011

In Defense of Marriage

This is probably not the post you think it is. 

What is Marriage, fundamentally?  Do you believe that Marriage is essentially a religious ceremony or rite?  I think everyone will agree that it is essentially a religious joining of two people.  Can anyone explain to me why  one has to have a license from a secular government in order to have a wedding?

Our Nation was founded partially on a belief that :

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

I think I can speak for everyone when I say I do not want Congress making any laws with respect to religion.  I would prefer the government not try to legislate morality.  They will only fail.  Can you show me a more amoral group of people?  Do you want them to try to create standards of morality?  Ultimately an amendment defining marriage would be unconstitutional in my view, because marriage is an exercise of religion and we are protected against congress making laws governing that.  We all know how good and innocent things get twisted by government.  Do you really want government involved in who you will marry?

When we talk of Marriage it MUST be understood that we are discussing two concepts that have been artificially intertwined.

Who thinks that Abraham went to the Courthouse to get a marriage license to wed his wife?

A Marriage is religious.  That is what happens at the church.  A ‘marriage license’ is a license to form a civil partnership which can be executed by a judge or a preacher or the captain of a ship.  Right now it is a ‘special’ civil partnership, and differs from a civil union.  But it shouldn’t in the eyes of government.

Does everyone agree?

Then how can anyone be in favor of congress making a law in defense of marriage? 

Just because a law happens to protect something you or I might agree with does not mean we should be for it!

What we need is a repeal of ANY law the government has made that affects marriage.  That is the only way to truly protect “Marriage” from the Government.

I am in favor of moving any benefits or penalties the government has on Marriage, to Civil Unions.  Let anyone who wants a Civil Union have a Civil Union for their Civil Rights.  Marriage is a religious institution, let churches and congregations decide who they think God wants to be joined together in matrimony.

I watched the Republican Primary debates and every one of the candidates except Ron Paul is in favor of an amendment to define marriage.  THAT IS WRONG, PEOPLE!  Let the government define it, and in short order they will be regulating WHO can Marry. Remember You Can Only Be For The Government Being as Involved In Someone Else’s Life the Amount You Want the Government Involved In Yours.  Keep that in mind and you will see things differently.

-KOOK

Comments (22)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Well, if you want to go by Biblical terms, it's any civil contract (hence why it's public and in front of witnesses), conducted by the authorities, that binds a couple to a commitment to protect themselves, properties and off springs of the covenant. That's why Captains can authorized such a union on the seas. Heck, technology, an Air line pilot can as well since he/she is the authority in the skies, but yet to hear of one. Though it was once a scared promise, it's not necessary for the union to be sanctified under the eyes of God. So as far as the civil legality of marriage, one can argue about the defense of marriage. As for the spiritual and moral aspects, that would be trending dangerous waters.
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
"Though it was once a sacred promise..." Getting government involved in marriage is the reason it is no longer a sacred promise. That is the reason we are watching the traditional nuclear family head towards eligibility to be on the endangered species list. It is the reason so many children are growing up in single family homes, if they make it past the "planned parent hoods". If you want to get rid of cancer, you must cut it out at the source and Govt. Involvement in marriage has been a cancer since it began!
For all the so called Christians reading this, it is a simple matter of treating people the way you would have them treat you. If you don't get that simple concept, you need to study your bible a tad more. If you understand that, ask yourself this: who do you trust to deal with issues more, your Church or your government. Now, based on the Constitution, freedom of religion is guaranteed. If your religious belief system, i.e Church or whatever you believe in allows gay marriage, those beliefs are protected by the Constitution. If you want to keep your religious freedom (religion defined as actions related to your spiritual beliefs), you better stop supporting taking away the same freedom from others or it won't be long before others are taking away your freedom too!
I agree.
Thanks Guys, __I really expected everyone to blast me completely off the internet. Well maybe not AD33, he and I have talked about this before.
1 reply · active 710 weeks ago
People are coming around to our views on these as well as many other things. When I say our, I am including our longtime readers like Kurt. While they are a tad late to the party, I say better late than never. Four years ago, I didn't know anyone who shared my political views. So much has changed in those 4 years. My views have evolved, but on the whole, are not much different than 4 years ago, except for the fact that I am "a tad" less hostile to the Republican Party. My softening on that issue is due in part to our many discussions, and the fact that elements of the Republican Party are moving in the proper direction. People are waking up to the fact that anything the government touches is going to become politicized and now they simply want the government out and marriage is becoming a perfect example of how the government divides us with every issue it takes on. My views on this have remained the same for a very long time. They are Constitutional and are within the norms of history. This is also the only solution I have been able to come up with that is Constitutional and doesn't conflict with my spiritual beliefs.
I have to disagree. Marriage isn't a religion so to call that type of legislation as legislating religion is off the mark. It is related to religion but that would not be authorizing one religion over another, only recognizing that marriage is a common good for our society.
Marriage is not a religion, I agree. It is a component of (all) religion(s). Marriage was not created by government. It was created by (God) or at least the worlds religions. Every different religion has their own religious ceremony. But I guarantee you that no one in the bible petitioned the egyptians or the romans in order to marry their spouse. If you do not believe in a deity then there is really no reason to marry. If we allow the government to define marriage what else would you be ok with them defining?
1 reply · active 710 weeks ago
I was raised in a church where baptism was a full dunk. What If i wanted the government to define baptism this way? Sprinkling would be illegal. I have family who believe you have to be baptized in running water. So baptism in a big tub could be made illegal. How about defining what constitutes a preacher? Maybe they should have to have a theology degree? Or perhaps they should have to go to certain schools? If we let them begin to define aspects of what amounts to a religious rite then it will not be long until they begin to define other aspects of church. This is NOT about recognizing marriage as a common good. Who believes marriage is not a good thing? I understand the desire to uphold marriage, but you have to see that if YOU allow the government to tell someone they have to do something you want. Basically I do not want government defining ANY part of my worship or any part of what it means to be religion.
Marriage has always historically been a religious rite. Teresa is crossing the term "religion" with the term "spirituality". Spirituality is what you believe (in). Religion is what you do in day to day life to express those beliefs. Some people are monotheistic, they believe in God. Their religion is attending church services. They have rituals and rites that vary from (individual) Church to Church, from denomination to denomination (a horrible term as a demomination is less than the whole and is used by some extremists to claim that any "denomination" is a "demon" i(c) "nation"). Others are agnostic, like KOOK. His religion is doing other things, but he has a religion. All people have a religion. Atheism is a religion. It claims not to be, yet when they buy signage on the sides of busses an billboards saying "there is no God", they are trying to spread their beliefs. Spreading one's beliefs, whether it be spiritual, political or nothing more than hobbies or interests is all religion. Laws are put in place to provide a moral foundation for society. Why is murder, assault, theft or vandalism illegal? Because those things are clearly morally wrong, but also harm others. The notion that you cannot legislate morality is a liberal concept intended to erode the moral fabric of our society. The "greens" claim to want environmental laws because it is supposedly "morally" wrong to put carbon dioxide into the air. The concepts of right and wrong, good or evil are moral concepts. What is the reason given for every law passed...it is the right thing to do...morality... Where the legal system is overstepping it's bounds, set by the Constitution, is in trying to protect us from ourselves and shield us from taking responsibility for our actions. The founders understood that if a group of people can use the government to force the an individual to do or not do what they want, eventually there would be enough such groups that nobody would be free to do anything. Both the "atheist left' and the "religious right" have tried to use the government to force people into behavior only acceptable to them. Both, in doing so, have grossly eroded our Constitutional rights. The "religious right" has lost much of it's appeal because prohibitions they once supported have been turned on them..such as the "war on drugs" morphing into the war on "drugs, sugar, cholesterol, etc. The "atheist left" is also losing it's appeal as it's supporters never imagined the taxes and social changes they wanted would take their freedoms away. Neither of those two sides' agendas are based on or even look at the Constitutionality of their agendas. It's all about "the greater good"...greater than WHAT???
6 replies · active 710 weeks ago
I don't know that I would say I am agnostic. I Believe. How about: "Questioning Christian?"
Ok. Your point about not legislating morality being a falsehood is correct. Perhaps I should have said I do not want these people to define anything spiritual.
Such a fantastic comment. Really worthy of posting with minor editing.
"Agnostic" by definition means believer who is questioning their "organized Church". Big difference between "Agnostic" and "Atheist" Ag-greek for "questioning", Gnostic/gnosis-greek for "spiritual knowledge".
I'd like to see what you would do with my comment. Ive laid this viewpoint out in many of my posts. I spent years thinking and rethinking my views on marriage, religion, spirituality, morality, law and the Constitution and how they would fit and no matter how many times I try to rethink such views, it always comes back to that. I'd also really be interested to see what our 9/12/09 DC cohort thinks on this topic and of my comment. I know this post would not be here without her influence (which is a good thing).
Actually, a better interpretation of "Agnostic" is "questioning ones beliefs or what they have always been taught"
Well, then in this case you are in favor of government controlling religion. I cannot abide the thought myself.

Now as to the teaching of so called gay history in schools. There is no other word than asinine that I can come up with for such a boondoggle and waste of taxpayer dollars.
Only been married 2.5 yrs... still figuring it out!

As for the gay agenda, they are out to DESTROY the Christian religion by co-opting
marriage, rendering it meaningless. And next year, they'll want the right to marry a blow up doll,
there's no end to it
2 replies · active 707 weeks ago
The state has no right to determine who or what one can associate with under what label, nor offer a special legal class and benefits for some "officially sanctioned" associations and not others.

"As for the gay agenda, they are out to DESTROY the Christian religion by co-opting
marriage, rendering it meaningless. And next year, they'll want the right to marry a blow up doll,
there's no end to it "

I find that statement a bit silly. From a Christian standpoint, only unions between two Christians (arguably only a man and a women) and God is a valid marriage anyways. It shouldn't matter if somebody lives with their blow up doll and calls themselves married; it wouldn't be valid in our eyes. Simply eliminating state recognition of certain associations is the logical way to truly protect actual, holy marriage.
Read the follow up post on this, I believe next one up!
There is a big difference between the "gay" agenda, which is nothing more than Fascist style statism wrapped in a "rainbow" colored package, and the individual rights of all Americans no matter their lifestyle choices. Religion is not WHAT we believe, but HOW we put those beliefs into practice, therefore atheism is just as much a religion as Christianity and should be acknowledged as such and be treated as such. Religious freedom is guaranteed in the Constitution. If a religious group believes that gays should be allowed to marry, that opinion and outcome is protected by the Constitution whether we like it or not. There is no "but what if" clause in the Constitution, such as "but what if the majority of people don't want other hardworking tax paying Americans to have the same religious freedom they do". I'm not a big fan of "gay marriage", but if somebody's religious beliefs are so, then their religious freedoms should be protected, as should everyone else's...to the point that such actions cause no harm to others.

Post a new comment

Comments by

Blog Widget by LinkWithin