In 1996 Arizona passed a law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In 2008, the voters pushed it further, by a large margin, to make that definition a part of the State constitution. And in early October U.S. District Judge John Sedwick decided to outlaw marriage. When the Supreme Court decided not to hear any of the cases from states defending their constitutional definitions of marriage, the court effectively redefined marriage for 11 states. Not rationally, of course. It didn't matter that the states had spoken. It didn't matter that the laws were passed, the constitutions were made, the definition was set. All that mattered was the new, false definition had to be allowed to replace the definition that has been in place for all recorded human history and made law in those states.
Will you notice? Not likely. The media is reporting that they've struck down a "gay marriage ban". This is what is known as "a lie".. The news outlets are celebrating freedom. This isn't entirely honest either, since those who will find themselves forced by law and by arms if necessary to support such ceremonies as florists, photographers, bakers, and the like will have no recourse. A matter of principle? No, not really. Your principles are legally irrelevant. They say that it's a big step forward. Not so. Sticking the knife into the neck of the suffering institution of marriage can't be a step forward.
Marriage in Arizona, along with Alaska and Wyoming, went down today. It won't go quietly. The rationale one man on the street offered was, "It's America. People should be allowed to do whatever they want ... you know, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone." Oh, it's gonna hurt. But the damage will be slow and deep ... like the proverbial frog in the pot. Unfortunately it's likely the next generation who will be stewed in the process. But since marriage was God's idea, I suspect that the final response from Him toward those who have stolen it and murdered it will be more unpleasant the what we will see in our lifetime.
Update:
This just in. "The city of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, is taking a step many opponents of same-sex marriage feared would come – forcing those with religious objections to perform same-sex marriages or risk facing prosecution for violating non-discrimination laws." Now, the line is somewhat misleading--the ruling is for a wedding chapel, not a church--but it doesn't matter. When they tell you "It won't make any difference to you!" don't believe it.
19 comments:
"gay marriage ban" is definitely a lie. There has never been a ban against "gay marriage" any more than there has been a ban against a "square circle." You can't ban what doesn't exist.
It amazes me how less than 2% of the population has gained such control over the nation - and the world.
The barriers will be coming down. Denmark wants to outlaw bestiality now, but only because it can harm the animals (yes, bestiality is legal there). There are animal brothels in Germany for those who are so inclined, and I've read about movements over there to be able to "marry" one's pet.
Pandora's box has been opened and the USA will become like Canaan before God decided to have Israel wipe them out.
The "equal protection" logic coupled with a complete distancing of society from both any moral basis and any reasonable definitions makes it certain that things will only get worse.
@Glenn E. Chatfield, your remarks comparing bestiality (rape of an animal) to two consenting adults entering a marriage covenant are ignorant and offensive.
@Stan, I take great solace that, just like in the case of slavery and Jim Crow and subjugation of women, future generations will look back with disgust and wonder upon how a majority of people could be so un-Jesus like and treat a group of people, image bearers of God, as "less than".
You keep prattling about "redefining marriage", but it's you who cast so narrowly, pinned to a small geographical time range (50-100 years ago). Just like most of what conservative/fundamentalist American Christians do in other church practices -- mistakenly labeling it as 2000 years of tradition, when it's really only a 100-150 year timeframe.
“A religion is as much a progressive unlearning of false ideas concerning God as it is the learning of the true ideas concerning God.”
-- Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan
Yes, Naum, you and I have disagreed ad infinitum on the fact that marriage has always meant the union of a man and a woman. No amount of logic will dissuade you. I get it. On this particular topic, I have not pinned the definition on "church practice". On this particular topic it isn't as much a religious issue as a definition and a societal issue. At no time in history was "a man and two or more women" the definition of marriage (which would, because it is the definition, preclude "a man and one woman" as being "married"). It may have included polygamy, but not defined as polygamy. And the fact is that at no time in history has "a man and a man" or "a woman and a woman" ever been classified as "marriage". But you stick with your "100-150 year timeframe" argument.
And the wonderful melding of "race" and "who I want to have sex with" as the same thing is really cool (as in your "Jim Crow laws" reference) ... except that it defies reason and science and, of course, Scripture. "What race were you at birth?" carries no moral component. "Who are you having sex with?" does. And the painfully flawed "born that way" position doesn't make it any better.
But, of course, treating a group of people, image bearers of God, as "less than" is okay for you if they're the despised "conservative/fundamentalist" types, right?
Oh, and "marriage covenants" are so last century. We've moved on to "monogamish". Try to keep up.
your remarks comparing bestiality (rape of an animal) to two consenting adults entering a marriage covenant are ignorant and offensive.
No, they were not “ignorant” because they came from an educated opinion. If you find that offensive then that is YOUR problem. Two people of the same sex cannot enter into a marriage contract because marriage is DEFINED as the union of opposite-sex people.
Why do you call it “rape” of an animal; how do you know the animal doesn’t consent to it? And why does the animal have to consent anyway — does it consent to be a pet or to be eaten?
When a man uses another man for sexual gratification he is behaving as the lowest of beasts.
And the wonderful melding of "race" and "who I want to have sex with" as the same thing is really cool (as in your "Jim Crow laws" reference) ... except that it defies reason and science and, of course, Scripture. "What race were you at birth?" carries no moral component. "Who are you having sex with?" does. And the painfully flawed "born that way" position doesn't make it any better.
You've defined marriage solely in terms of "sex" -- while marriage may (or may not) encompass that realm, it's so much more.
As far race and scripture, let it be noted that for almost of those ~2000 years of tradition, the popular, mainstream interpretation of scripture indeed noted race and used it to treat those of color "less than".
But, of course, treating a group of people, image bearers of God, as "less than" is okay for you if they're the despised "conservative/fundamentalist" types, right?
Of course not. It's why I post here at all (yes, I know man of secular/agnostic bent indeed do write you off as "hateful bigots" or $OtherPerjorative), and you all remain in my prayers and would never designate you as "less than", no matter our disagreements over theological matters (or political or even technical matters :D)
Oh, and "marriage covenants" are so last century. We've moved on to "monogamish". Try to keep up.
LOL.
"You've defined marriage solely in terms of "sex""
No, I was addressing your "Jim Crow laws" reference. I've already defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of mutual support and procreation.
"As far race and scripture..."
And here you're making the same claim that because someone was wrong on the topic, the whole thing must be wrong. And isn't it interesting? The voices that terminated European and American slavery were Christian voices, but you choose to point to those self-identified Christians that twist the Scriptures to make slavery (the kind of which is outlawed in Scripture) right. Misinterpreting Scripture doesn't make Scripture wrong on a subject; it makes the misinterpretation wrong. But, again, I haven't gone to Scripture in discussing whether race and sexual orientation are equivalents.
When someone can offer me a definition of marriage that means something (today's version is essentially "anything at all") and can fit into traditional and historical categories--and not pervert the biblical concepts--then I'll be interested to hear it. It's not forthcoming. I've asked for years. But I'll listen.
As far race and scripture, let it be noted that for almost of those ~2000 years of tradition, the popular, mainstream interpretation of scripture indeed noted race and used it to treat those of color "less than".
WOW, talk about revisionist history!
Firstly, "race" used to mean "culture" or "tribe," such as the Irish race, or the German race, etc. It never meant skin color, and nowhere in history will you find a problem of marriage between people of different skin color until about the beginning of the 18th century. The idea of not mixing people of different skin colors really took of after Darwin's teachings that skin color determined ranking on the evolutionary scale, and those with black skin were closer to the apes than those with white skin.
Again, it was a case of abusing Scripture to shore up biases developing, rather than taking Scripture for what it actually said.
Firstly, "race" used to mean "culture" or "tribe," such as the Irish race, or the German race, etc. It never meant skin color, and nowhere in history will you find a problem of marriage between people of different skin color until about the beginning of the 18th century. The idea of not mixing people of different skin colors really took of after Darwin's teachings that skin color determined ranking on the evolutionary scale, and those with black skin were closer to the apes than those with white skin.
This is simply not true, and ignorant -- I don't know if this comes from the same place as the nonsense about "King James only true version" but such a thing would be scoffed at in any university history curriculum.
And here you're making the same claim that because someone was wrong on the topic, the whole thing must be wrong. And isn't it interesting? The voices that terminated European and American slavery were Christian voices, but you choose to point to those self-identified Christians that twist the Scriptures to make slavery (the kind of which is outlawed in Scripture) right.
No, not someone -- the bulk of mainstream thought about scriptural exegesis -- and the side that prized literalist readings of scripture vs. abolitionist side which either [a] eschewed scripture (a non-starter in 19C America, something that liberals, admittedly, are woefully wrong about, but for transcendentalists made sense and [b] more progressive denominations like Quakers and some others. I know we've traveled this ground before, but it's pure fact that prior to 19C (except for Quakers, awakening in the 18C), nearly ALL Christians considered slavery consistent with orthodox Christian theology. You're simply recasting history to suit your modern interpretation of scripture. Therefore, for ~1800 years, the dominant Christian view was that slavery was biblically sanctioned. Hand wave all you wish, but it doesn't change that truth.
The idea of not mixing people of different skin colors really took of after Darwin's teachings that skin color determined ranking on the evolutionary scale, and those with black skin were closer to the apes than those with white skin.
That statement is rooted in such ignorance and dispelled by even the most cursory examination of empirical history. And a gross twisted caricature of Darwin's writings. (Darwin himself detested slavery and was strongly against "ranking the so-called races of man as distinct species", and against ill-treatment of native people. Racism goes back as far back in time as the ancients, before the time of Christ. The industrial revolution / colonization of Americas simply put a throttle on it.
Again, your assertion would be ridiculed and scoffed at in any credible university history program.
And your comments equating marriage equality (same sex partners being able to enter into a covenant) are indeed offensive and ignorant -- or maybe just astounding in arrogance. It's pure hatred of "the other", and on both accounts, Jesus said a lot about those human faults.
"Hand wave all you wish, but it doesn't change that truth."
I suppose that works both ways, doesn't it? :)
Naum, I have given the historic, traditional, longstanding definition of marriage recognized by the courts. When you explain how "marriage equity" means "redefining marriage to suit modern morality", then we can discuss "marriage equity", but currently I'm speaking of marriage as it always has been and you're speaking of the new breed and we're not using the same language, so we can't be talking about the same thing.
This is simply not true, and ignorant -- I don't know if this comes from the same place as the nonsense about "King James only true version" but such a thing would be scoffed at in any university history curriculum.
The only ignorant one here is you. Nice unproven assertion about "any university history curriculum." Of course with the revised history current in the public schools and universities today, you never know what you'll get. Try studying a bit about Darwin's teachings - things like women are less evolved than men!
And, um, KJVO is nonsense and has no connection with the historical use of "races."
Naum,
Your understanding of Darwin's teachings are on a par with your understanding of the Bible. Have you read his book, "Descent of Man"?
Great assertion about racism. Again, "race" in the English language never referred to skin color until around the 18th century. That there were people who regarded different tribes of less value has indeed been throughout history, but not with the Jewish or Christian religion as you assert.
And your comments equating marriage equality (same sex partners being able to enter into a covenant) are indeed offensive and ignorant -- or maybe just astounding in arrogance. It's pure hatred of "the other", and on both accounts, Jesus said a lot about those human faults.
Again, it isn't ignorance that says same-sex fake marriage is just that - it is common sense. It is not "hatred" to call a spade a spade. It is not "hatred" to speak the truth. Jesus defined marriage, Jesus as God called homosexual behavior an abomination. As Stan pointed out, no time in history has any culture accepted homosexual relationships in any way equal with real marriage. Homosexual behavior is against nature, against the design for the human body, and a rebellion against God. And every one who practices such behavior knows it but lives in denial as they suppress the truth about God. Rom. 1:18-32
I'm pretty sure Stan had gone over this but Biblically sanctioned slavery looked nothing like slavery as we know it. It was not a lifetime of being someone's property, but a short time of paying off a debt.
For Naum,
My evidence about the historical understanding of the meaning of “races”
https://answersingenesis.org/racism/are-there-really-different-races/
My evidence for Darwin’s view on women:
https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/darwin-taught-male-superiority/
Now tell me again how ignorant I am about these subjects.
Not that I disagree with you Glenn, but presenting answersingenesis as a source is not going to be compelling to someone who trusts in secular institutions.
The Answers In Genesis links give the proper citations and references. You don't have to agree with AIG to follow along with the facts.
Post a Comment