Jude 2

I've explained before that government, federal and state, have no place regulating marriage. But for religious faith, there would be no such thing as marriage as we know it. But for government, marriage would likely be conducted more so as the church taught it from ages past.

Look what government regulation of marriage has brought it.

1. Easy divorces without finding of fault. Marriage is now just a living arrangement with no more long-term significance in most minds than the color of one's furniture.

2. Equation of marriage with non-marriage. Property division provisions in divorce statutes resemble those of business association dissolutions. Married persons with kids who divorce are on the same standing, legally, regarding their children, as parents of born-out-of-wedlock children; fathers in marriages are treated with no more deference in custody arrangements than fathers who are dragged to court and made to give DNA samples to prove paternity. Visitation orders are "standardized" for all situations, and child support is determined by uniformly applicable guidelines that make no distinction between fathers who are ripped from their children by divorce and father who never cared to show up except for sex with the "baby-momma".

3. Gay "marriage". Now, two states are taking the thoroughly ecclesiastical status of marriage and handing it freely to homosexuals and lesbians.

This is not to bash gays. You and I will never, ever convince through arguments or emotional appeal one gay person or one lesbian person that homosexuality is immoral. Either because it is so intrinsic to them, or because they are so completely tied to the notion that it is, nothing short of God's power and mercy can separate the real homosexual from his or her lifestyle. So, on a policy level and on a equal treatment under the law point of view, we should leave them be, IMO.

BUT, when the Government tears away the sacrament of marriage from the Church and appropriates it to itself and its purely political ends, there is nothing left to mourn. Marriage is history; it is dead and just doesn't know it yet.

I am 100% in favor of civil unions, but I think they should apply to everyone, without regard to sexual preference/orientation/lifestyle/whatever-you-wish-to-call-it. Divorce statutes are now arranged to properly govern the breakups of every couple (or trio or set) of people who have property, equity and children in common. There is no need to have any formality beyond a simple contract or entity-filing (like articles of incorporation) to form the relationship.

What has happened today, though, is (in my mind) the absolute worst sacrilege ever committed by the Government of this nation, on a par with Roe v. Wade if not worse.

Count on this: If government touches it, it is ruined. Government has had its grubby fingers inside the family for too long, and now has finally succeeded in choking the life out of its very foundation. If the church truly wants to preserve marriage, biblical marriage, then there should be an uprising of Christians who would have Government get out of the marrying business completely by not even legally recognizing marriage, per se.

OR you could simply define "Marriage" as a family unit between a male and female.

Simple Barnyard Example ( with all the head knowledge left out )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzp0S3yO1QA


Then go to a flat tax with no perks on anything.

MacUser wrote:OR you could simply define "Marriage" as a family unit between a male and female.

Simple Barnyard Example ( with all the head knowledge left out )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzp0S3yO1QA


Then go to a flat tax with no perks on anything.

Redefining marriage only prevents gays from being married. It doesn't begin to undo the mess that government has made of regulating it in the first place.

And, FTR, I prefer the fair tax

dolfan.
I am sure I will raise some eyebrows and raise some hackles here, but I totally agree with you.

I have always said that what belongs to the church, should be the responsibility of the church. I even agree "mostly" with the catholics here.
When the catholic church sanctions a marriage, they don't give a rip what divorce papers you have, you still have to work within the church to deal with your marriage situation......you can loose the rights of communion over this issue.

I do not have a "government" approved license to counsel. I don't need or want one. They have regulated it to the point of "non-effectiveness". They reduce everything they touch to trash. I hate their interference.

I would gladly forget about the tax exempt status, if they would leave us alone and let us set religious policy. They have usurped that authority with this last decision.

I think since marriage is ordained by God, the government needs to "butt out"!

Dr. Ron wrote:dolfan.
I am sure I will raise some eyebrows and raise some hackles here, but I totally agree with you.

Shouldn't be too eyebrow-raising an issue, honestly. Civil authorities have not been in the marriage regulating business for all that long, in the big scheme of things. It is what we've grown accustomed to in our own culture, but it is pretty new, only a few hundred years old.

When believers quit trusting themselves to govern their own matters and delegate (or, really, default) governance to another authority, a so-called civil authority, we have abdicated the call of God to handle those most important and most vital of issues according to His ways in favor of the ways of some "king". The problem of marriage is the problem of Israel when they demanded that Samuel anoint a king. It is the problem of those without faith that God can really lead them and guide them in the context of their own relations and accountability to the church, giving up on the very basic governmental element of "where two or three are gathered together in my name" and assuming that, although He may very well be in the midst, it ain't good enough.

While I somewhat agree with you D, I have to say I think those against gay marriage should support pologamy, push the issue even the most liberal person will say that they don't think pologamy is right.

Once they say that then we say well the whole " we can't limit to one man and one woman" then doesn't hold water because you are limiting to One and One, What gives you the right to it can't be one man and 5 women?

I am for confronting the issue, press it. To me if we are gonna have gay marriage we might as well have pologamy. What would stop it is when Health ins started to have to cover families of 12.

One could also easily argue for the marriage of siblings in order to prove the fallacy of the gay agenda argument. Also, why not a father/daughter marriage? If there's no moral absolutes then hey, que sera sera.

dolfan wrote:I've explained before that government, federal and state, have no place regulating marriage. But for religious faith, there would be no such thing as marriage as we know it. But for government, marriage would likely be conducted more so as the church taught it from ages past.

Look what government regulation of marriage has brought it.

1. Easy divorces without finding of fault. Marriage is now just a living arrangement with no more long-term significance in most minds than the color of one's furniture.

2. Equation of marriage with non-marriage. Property division provisions in divorce statutes resemble those of business association dissolutions. Married persons with kids who divorce are on the same standing, legally, regarding their children, as parents of born-out-of-wedlock children; fathers in marriages are treated with no more deference in custody arrangements than fathers who are dragged to court and made to give DNA samples to prove paternity. Visitation orders are "standardized" for all situations, and child support is determined by uniformly applicable guidelines that make no distinction between fathers who are ripped from their children by divorce and father who never cared to show up except for sex with the "baby-momma".

3. Gay "marriage". Now, two states are taking the thoroughly ecclesiastical status of marriage and handing it freely to homosexuals and lesbians.

This is not to bash gays. You and I will never, ever convince through arguments or emotional appeal one gay person or one lesbian person that homosexuality is immoral. Either because it is so intrinsic to them, or because they are so completely tied to the notion that it is, nothing short of God's power and mercy can separate the real homosexual from his or her lifestyle. So, on a policy level and on a equal treatment under the law point of view, we should leave them be, IMO.

BUT, when the Government tears away the sacrament of marriage from the Church and appropriates it to itself and its purely political ends, there is nothing left to mourn. Marriage is history; it is dead and just doesn't know it yet.

I am 100% in favor of civil unions, but I think they should apply to everyone, without regard to sexual preference/orientation/lifestyle/whatever-you-wish-to-call-it. Divorce statutes are now arranged to properly govern the breakups of every couple (or trio or set) of people who have property, equity and children in common. There is no need to have any formality beyond a simple contract or entity-filing (like articles of incorporation) to form the relationship.

What has happened today, though, is (in my mind) the absolute worst sacrilege ever committed by the Government of this nation, on a par with Roe v. Wade if not worse.

Count on this: If government touches it, it is ruined. Government has had its grubby fingers inside the family for too long, and now has finally succeeded in choking the life out of its very foundation. If the church truly wants to preserve marriage, biblical marriage, then there should be an uprising of Christians who would have Government get out of the marrying business completely by not even legally recognizing marriage, per se.

The classical liberal finally takes center stage. i support getting the gov't out of marriage and allowing faith communities to make the choice on who can and cannot be married.

while I agree about "marriage". I think the issue goes deeper. In my opinion, a civil union is not a marriage. a marriage is a faith-based (religious) union of a man and a woman; whereas a civil union should be a non-religious version of same.

We don't live in the United States Kibbutzim (a theocracy). and neither is our church organization (contrary to some opinions). until then we will have non-religious and anti-religious folk that want to be "attached", for various reasons.

RamboPreacher wrote:while I agree about "marriage". I think the issue goes deeper. In my opinion, a civil union is not a marriage. a marriage is a faith-based (religious) union of a man and a woman; whereas a civil union should be a non-religious version of same.

Rambo, that's the whole point. These unions, even heterosexual ones for the most part, are hardly "marriages" as we understand the biblical description. Civil unions can be whatever combination of men and women the law will allow, but they are not marriages any more than the union of two gay people who solemnize their arrangement within a church building. Government has created a monster in the name of preserving social order. Time and again, people have proved that they are able to arrange their affairs themselves without the need for intervention by civil authorities. And, when those affairs must be met with authority to preserve order, courts are ample and able to do so. But, the underlying rules applied to domestic relationships of all kinds are so closely akin to contract and business law that to even pretend that those relationships are "marriages" in anything but name only is a nod of approval of the ruse that government has successfully, very successfully, built.

rjjunior wrote:One could also easily argue for the marriage of siblings in order to prove the fallacy of the gay agenda argument. Also, why not a father/daughter marriage? If there's no moral absolutes then hey, que sera sera.

Right. And, the answer would be, "Well, society defines morality by consensus, and consensus says, for now, that such relationships are wrong." There are moral "absolutes", but they're not immutable absolutes, just absolutes for now. A vicious circle from which there is no escape as long as government continues to co-opt marriage from its rightful and uniquely legitimate place -- a sacred vow before God, a religious exercise and an outworking of faith in life. Otherwise, the notion has no application and no meaning.

Though I agree on the one hand, with removing government interference, repackaging, and redefining of marriage -- I also hesitate to only consider marriage an ecclesiastical institution.

Though I prefer a return to more intended constitutional republican government for these united states (not state), I do think a constitutional amendment defining marriage for what it is (a monogamous, heterosexual, life-long, covenant relationship) would probably [be] best.

Poimen wrote:I do think a constitutional amendment defining marriage for what it is (a monogamous, heterosexual, life-long, covenant relationship) would probably best.

Bingo. This will nix the slippery slope that so many have stated will follow.

Poimen wrote:Though I agree on the one hand, with removing government interference, repackaging, and redefining of marriage -- I also hesitate to only consider marriage an ecclesiastical institution.

Though I prefer a return to more intended constitutional republican government for these united states (not state), I do think a constitutional amendment defining marriage for what it is (a monogamous, heterosexual, life-long, covenant relationship) would probably best.

The problem is in defining marriage, though. Civilly speaking, marriage is whatever those in control decide that it is. In MA and CA, it equates to homosexual commitment to one another plus state licensure. That is marriage; to call it a monogamous, heterosexual, life-long covenant relationship is nowhere to be found in the definitions within contemporary American law.

About as close as you will find is in the language of Alabama's own constitution since 2006:

Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting this unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state."

There is no language here about monogamy nor life-long nor covenant. Note what it is referred to, however ---- contract. That's what marriage is under the law. A contract. Now, it is one that carries certain baggage: you must be competent to form the contract, there must be mutual consent (as in all contracts), as a prerequisite to forming one, you can't have an open contract of the same kind with someone else, etc. But, it is a contract. Not a covenant, a contract. That's what the state recognizes for marriage.

Contrast that with the biblical picture. I need not go into the details on that. I'll just use Paul's summation from Ephesians: "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it." That's marriage; what the state passes off for it is not.

The two views are fundamentally and to-the-core different. Now, difference alone is no reason to throw out marriage from the purview of civil law. But, opposition is enough to want to protect marriage. And, without doubt, civil law is the enemy of marriage. I've already cited 2-3 examples of how civil law has devastated marriage in this country.

Why can't their be a peaceful co-existence? Well, I guess you could argue that there already is, but at whose expense? Government's or marriage's? That's easy -- marriage has paid the price for that. What was a sacred covenant became a contract to manage society and obligations. Form follows function. Is it any wonder, then, that marriage in our country has de-formed itself when the function of the law that defines and structures it has as its function simple damage control? The answer is no, it is no wonder, and for that reason co-existence between biblical marriage and civil marriage is not peaceful.

I think the ethical argument to this issue is inescapable. The REASON we have laws in the first place is to reflect the understanding of what is morally acceptable by the populace. This was originally, at least in the US case, based mostly on the Bible.

One could easily apply all the arguments outlined in this entire post to a similar argument where the word "marriage" was replaced with the word "murder".

The difference between a Republic (which we were created to be) and a democracy is that in a Republic, certain things are ALWAYS wrong and cannot be changed (absolutes) but in a democracy whatever the majority can vote in is what is "acceptable".

Our country is becoming a democracy, and that is sad.