Thursday, January 1, 2009

Addressing CA's Prop 8... Part II

I posted Part I of this series hoping many would draw the same parallels that Melissa did-- "gay is the new black." Only I would not have used those exact words, but the premise is the same.

Really, I have two arguments against the proposition, but they are so intertwined and impossible to separate that I will have to address them together to some extent but will also try to keep them relatively separate. The two arguments surround religion and law together in ways that I find impossible to separate, yet unwilling to combine.

BLUF (bottom line up front)-- The Government has no role in religious marriage. Their role is in civil marriage, which is really civil union, and the proper role of government would be from the public health and safety perspective; and I argue that God does not want his "rules" legislated, so legislating religious marriage is in opposition to true Christian life. So-- here we go.

Marriage.

Assuming those reading believe that the Bible lays out marriage as being a commitment [before God] between a man and a woman (I am not saying it does or doesn't, but rather that is the argument many make), no license is required for said commitment. Government interference brings the requirement the permit/license for marriage.

In the Loving's case, "Judge Leon Bazile said that God never intended for the races to mix, so their marriage was an abomination."

This is also the case that many make in opposition to two persons of the same sex marrying. It's not as God intended. Well, enter the First Amendment of the Constitution.

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

Or as Thomas Paine so eloquently said it in his pamphlet, Common Sense (1776):

"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith…

Both texts make it clear [to me] that the Federal Government need not restrict religion or the lack of religion in our lives, so whether or not God intended for same sex couples to be together is inconsequential to the government's role in civil marriages.

 

[My son is crying. I have more, but that means a part III!]

Keep thinking!

9 comments:

Suzanne said...

I quite agree.

Del said...

Amen.

m-m-m-melissa said...

dude, for real. i think people will always have the need for a demographic to be scared of, you know? for some reason people need to fear to know they're normal. black people couldn't marry each other, and then they could, and everything's fine. interracial couples couldn't marry each other, and then they could, and everything's fine. hopefully gays are just next in line, you know? maybe in twenty years we'll be lobbying for the rights of robots. : )

maggie's mind said...

Agreed. Similar point I often make that while marriage *can* be a religious sacrament for those who believe it to be one, legally, it's not required. And this is as it should be. Church, state, separation, pursuit of happiness, all kinds of stuff like that.

Rebecca said...

I love where you are going with this.

Christina | AmiExpat.com said...

I wonder if there are just people who need to feel that they have power over others. In denying rights to gay people, they show they have control over some aspect of their lives.

Anonymous said...

Most hetero couples probably shouldn't get the "privilege" of "marriage", based on all the deeply spiritual things it's supposed to be... I think there should be civil unions between any two consenting adults that need/want to set up a partnership for reasons of mutual support and then people who want the "blessing" of the church can go ahead and get married.

Is your period back? Is Amari feeling better? I wondered why you weren't at church on Sunday and finally thought to check your blog. God forbid I actually use a phone... (-:

Let me know about Saturday, okay?

~eva

care said...

uh, maria I was totally going to comment, but I was writing you an entire novel.

short version: I agree that gays should be able to marry. I do. But I also think that we can't just pick and choose when and in what ways government and religion co-exist or, are totally in alignment with one another.

and I think that more so than anything, God wants God's people to be happy--and sometimes that means legistlation. e.g., thou shalt not kill, which has now ended up as murder being illegal, you know?

anyway, once I finish the full comment, I'll email you.

Maria said...

Murder was illegal before Christianity. The earliest recorded legal decision in 1850 B.C. involves a murder trial, and the Greeks had Draco's law, which was the first to centralize punishment with government. Saying that "thou shalt not kill" was founded solely in Christianity is not fully supported by history.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
 
blog template by suckmylolly.com : header image by Vlad Studio