As stated in previous posts, I am a Christian, and a conservative, but before you just click on to the next page, hear me out, because I may not come across as offensive as the title may suggest.
For us Christians marriage was designed by God Himself when He created Adam and Eve. He created Eve as “an help meet” for Adam as a companion and spouse. So because marriage is as old as the human race itself, it is by and far a religious institution and according to the first amendment of the Constitution
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” therefore Congress has no right or say on what “marriage” is defined as. Because, for us Christians, marriage was created by God, and trying to change the definition of marriage is as ridiculous to us as trying to change the definition of the law of gravity.
What I’ve observed over the years is that those that believe otherwise, and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, is that they believe that marriage is a government institution and therefore needs to be governed by the laws of man. And surely this must be so if marriage is recognized by state laws, and we have tax breaks for married couples, surely marriage is a government institution, right?
Well considering the fact that the Constitution was written specifically to protect religious freedoms, ie, that you may practice how you want, or are free to not practice any religion at all, and the Constitution specifically does state, in the 10th Amendment,
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
we can infer that marriage is not governed by the Constitution, and is left up to the states.
But I’m getting ahead of myself.
Lets examine the Bible for marriage references.
Ok, I could keep listing numerous scripture references, but I think you get the point…marriage is in the Bible, and if we read Genesis 4:1 it clearly states that Adam and Eve were married.
If the Bible clearly states that Adam and Eve were married, and Adam and Eve were created by God, and the Bible is religious text, then it can hardly be argued that marriage is NOT religious. And if marriage IS religious, then the 1st Amendment applies and “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
So say us Christians.
On the flip side, I hear the argument all the time, “Marriage is between two people that LOVE each other.” And “equal rights for gays and lesbians!”
But from a Christian viewpoint, if God created Adam and Eve, and Adam and Eve were married, then it stands to reason that only a man and a woman are even ABLE to get married. So like the gravity analogy, for us Christians, it’s like saying you want gravity to only apply in certain situations. It’s like saying, “Well, just because the majority of right handed people are affected by gravity doesn’t mean we should all be affected by it, so gravity shouldn’t apply to anyone who is left handed. LEFTIES of the world unite!”
So it’s not about us not loving you; we DO LOVE YOU! It’s not about discrimination, it not about hate, or bullying. But what you’re asking simply does not make any sense!
…to us.
And on that note, let it be known, that I do have many gay and lesbian friends, and no, not just “facebook friends.” These are people from my childhood. From college. From life. And I would personally take a bullet for any of them because I love them!
I DO NOT CONDONE BULLYING, AND ABHOR IT IN ANY FORM!!!
So back to trying to explain the flip side, I can empathize and attempt to understand why “it’s not fair” that just because laws are written a specific way, that it prevents you from “marrying” the one you love.
So, here’s my solution.
Government no longer recognizes marriage.
Yup, I said it. Take marriage out of the equation.
From now on, government can only recognize and authorize what I’m going to call “legal unions.” And ANY TWO consenting adults (younger with parental consent) can get a “legal union.” You can only get ONE legal union at a time. You can sever it at any time through the courts, and get another legal union to somebody else, but only one current union at a time. Go ahead and transfer all current marriages into unions and throw away the “legal marriage certificates.” Put any name you want on it, bond, partnership, couple-hood, anything, except marriage. A government “legal union” will give you all the same rights, tax breaks, etc. as a marriage, but it is NOT a marriage.
Because marriage is a religious institution, marriages will still be performed, but only by authorized members of the clergy from religious organizations. If you want a “marriage” it can ONLY be done in a church, but a marriage gives you only the recognition of the church that performed the marriage, NO LEGAL RIGHTS.
Which brings me to another topic that I have to address, but won’t go into too much detail. The Oregon couple who were forced to pay $150,000 in damages to a lesbian couple for choosing not to bake them a wedding cake. This is where things cross the line. The Oregon couple had served and sold their bakery goods to this lesbian couple before, but because of their Christian beliefs, felt it was a violation of their conscience to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. (What happened to “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason?”) This baker couple’s 1st Amendment rights were violated when they were forced to pay anything for a reason like this. This is a very slippery slope, because how long before the government starts forcing churches to perform weddings that aren’t in alignment with their beliefs?
So because all this is very unlikely to ever happen, this is why the “gay marriage” debate will never end, and probably never be resolved.
Obviously any two people who are in love can’t deny their feelings. Conversely, people who are bound at a fundamental level in their faith, can’t deny their feelings either.
My attempt at a resolution by introducing the “legal union” is an attempt to agree to disagree on a legal level, and to keep the peace, and try to make everyone happy.
Your thoughts?
-Joseph Forefathers
Cedric,
You said,
“The thing is, Adam being the first man and Eve being the first woman, who else are either of them supposed to get married to? There’s just the two of them. I know, trivial, but something about it just struck me.”
That is precisely the point I was making. God designed men and women to be able to procreate. He only created one man and one woman, because that was all that was necessary to begin the human race.
Genesis 1: 27-28 says,
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth…”
God is telling Adam and Eve to multiply, to procreate, to have children/offspring.
So if we refer to Revelation 22:13 we read “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” from which we understand that God is eternal and unchanging. If God is unchanging, then it stands to reason that his commandment to Adam and Eve is not a specific commandment to only them, but to the entire human race. If that commandment is for the entire human race, then it stands to reason that God would have all his sons and daughters married, and have a family. However He will not infringe upon our free will, because that is the entire purpose of this life. To make our own choices and to prove that we are willing to obey His commandments.
You said, “Here’s the trick of it. The US Constitution, having been ratified by Congress, is considered to be an Act of Congress. Under that condition, the Supreme Court can and has established that the states may have the power to determine who can and cannot get married, but the federal govt has the power to define what marriage is.Slick bit of back-door usurpation of governing powers, IMO.”
Yeah, just another example of yet another violation of the 10th Amendment. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
“1) This is all well and good until you get to mixed-faith marriages. This includes those where one partner converts after a marriage is conducted. Would they then become divorced or annulled? Would the spouse be considered a convert regardless of his/her wishes? What if the person is a widow/widower?”
Obviously since there would now be a clear distinction between “marriages” and “legal unions,” the marriages would be entirely at the decision of the religious organization. If that religious organization mandates membership in that faith before a marriage can be performed, then so be it. If not, then, that’s great as well. And I wouldn’t even take any issue with churches that wanted to perform a “gay marriage,” if they felt it was appropriate. And if a couple were to divorce, or want an annulment, then again, refer to the specific rules of the religious organization that performed the marriage.
And forgive me for not understanding, but I fail to see how whether or not a person is a widow or widower is relevant to the conversation. And you really lost me with, “Would the spouse be considered a convert regardless of his/her wishes?” How or why would someone convert to any religion if it was against their wishes? Furthermore, why would being a convert be looked upon as a bad thing? Most religions I know of welcome converts with open arms, when adding another sheep to the fold.
My primary issue concerning all this is the very slippery slope of the government mandating restitution from a private business owner exercising his 1st Amendment rights. By ordering someone to pay restitution for exercising religious beliefs, it’s not too far a jump to believe that the government could go into any religious organization and demand they perform a marriage, regardless if it was in alignment with their core beliefs or not.
“2) ‘Authorization’ can be obtained online by anyone with a credit card or paypal account. As despicable as many people feel this is, it is based on the core precept of church/state separation that the govt does not have the authority to tell any religion how to handle it’s purely internal matters.”
And?
Once again, my primary concern is ensuring the government cannot FORCE religions to do anything. If Church XYZ in Vegas says, “For $50, you can be a minister in our church and perform weddings by Elivs, Spock, or Crocodile Dundee,” I truly couldn’t care less.
If people want to make a mockery of their own faiths, fine, by all means, go for it.
Personally I DO find these practices despicable, because I believe marriage is sacred and treat it as such. But where I draw the line is when it comes to forcing MY religion to do things against OUR beliefs.
-Joseph Forefathers
Hi Joseph.
Um… I have just a few points to take issue. Minor stuff really, but here they are.
You said… “But from a Christian viewpoint, if God created Adam and Eve, and Adam and Eve were married, then it stands to reason that only a man and a woman are even ABLE to get married. ”
The thing is, Adam being the first man and Eve being the first woman, who else are either of them supposed to get married to? There’s just the two of them. I know, trivial, but something about it just struck me.
And then there was this. You said… ““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” therefore Congress has no right or say on what “marriage” is defined as.”
I refer you to 1 U.S. Code para 7 = “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
Here’s the trick of it. The US Constitution, having been ratified by Congress, is considered to be an Act of Congress. Under that condition, the Supreme Court can and has established that the states may have the power to determine who can and cannot get married, but the federal govt has the power to define what marriage is. Slick bit of back-door usurpation of governing powers, IMO.
And finally, something that hit very close to home = “Because marriage is a religious institution, marriages will still be performed, but only by authorized members of the clergy from religious organizations.”
1) This is all well and good until you get to mixed-faith marriages. This includes those where one partner converts after a marriage is conducted. Would they then become divorced or annulled? Would the spouse be considered a convert regardless of his/her wishes? What if the person is a widow/widower?
2) “Authorization” can be obtained online by anyone with a credit card or paypal account. As despicable as many people feel this is, it is based on the core precept of church/state separation that the govt does not have the authority to tell any religion how to handle it’s purely internal matters.
I’ll stop there, because I just realized I’m rambling and about to go way off-topic.
As a traditional straight person, let me put this as selfishly and succinctly as I can. I think the term “marriage” defines the union between men and women.
If you’re gay or lesbian reading this then this is for you: It is OUR word, leave it alone and go find your own. Stop trying to hijack (like bratty little thieves) what is ours! We DO NOT want to share it with you because we don’t associate our type of union with yours. For one of many examples, married couples generally have the power to procreate within their union (couples who can’t notwithstanding). You don’t, therefore your union isn’t the same nor will it ever be – so stop trying to make it out as if it is. It isn’t – period! It doesn’t mean that it’s any better or any worse; it’s just not the same.
Furthermore, “marriage” has been OUR term from the beginning. We consider you all to be “Johnny come lately” to the whole thing, and therefore propose that you be creative and come up with your own term! Of course, your term should be legally and lawfully recognized in society, and should carry every bit as much weight as the term “marriage.” As a matter of fact, I propose that the term “marriage” should automatically do nothing more than cause me to think of the union between a man and a woman, while your term should cause me to think of a union of the same sex, both terms being equal in recognition within our society.
But, make no mistake, you wanting to come into my realm and simply take as you will – the term marriage, and apply it to your realm? Well, let me just clarify it by asking you to give me your hand. Now, picture me firmly slapping it while simultaneously looking you in the eye and telling you “NO, leave it alone, it isn’t yours, and you may NOT have it.”
So please, just BACK-OFF and come up with your own term!
-TomZom
This is exactly how I feel on the matter! Spot on Forefathers!