Posted on 04/01/2013 1:42:04 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Last week at RedState, we spent a lot of time focusing on politics from a faith perspective because it was Holy Week. Throughout the week, many people who support gay marriage lambasted me and others that Christians were just trying to use government to legislate marriage or morality.
But I agree that we should keep the government out of marriage.
Last I checked, George and Martha Washington did not get remarried after 1776 when the United States declared independence from Great Britain. Nor did they do so after 1789, when the constitution was enacted.
In fact, not one of the founding fathers married prior to 1776 remarried the same person after the United States was formed.
Government did not create marriage. The only laws on the books related to marriage are state laws and federal laws that recognize the marriage structure that previously existed before the government established them.
To be sure, over time those marriages evolved. The age of consent and the ability to contract have changed and impacted marriage, but the structure and operation of marriage were still the same.
The most significant changes in the law regarding marriage have been on how to end a marriage, not how to begin a marriage or what constitutes a marriage.
But marriage pre-existed the state and has evolved institutionally over a few thousand years.
What’s happening now is that gay marriage advocates are attempting to use the state to change marriage. When they say Christians are trying to use the state to legislate their version of marriage, they are full of crap. All Christians are doing is defending an institution that already exists from being changed to something it has never been.
It is the gay marriage advocates who want to force, by the power of the state, a pre-existing institution to change. If the state has the power to change the definition of an institution that it did not create, the state can force everyone to do so. It is already happening in this country at the state level.
Marriage may evolve to include gays one day. But the time is not there year. The laws enacted across the country to preserve the status quo are just that — there to keep the state, via the courts or legislature from changing an institution neither the courts nor legislatures of the several states created, but chose to recognize.
Let’s be clear here — you can support gay marriage, but don’t tell me Christians are trying to legislate their version of marriage. The only people trying to legislate, from the bench or otherwise, are gay rights advocates who refuse to let the institution naturally evolve because of their own impatience for the trappings of normalcy in a society that has long viewed them as outside the mainstream.
That the loudest proponents of gay marriage cannot even be honest in what’s going on loudly suggests they are not being honest when they say they’re cool with conscientious objectors to the whole idea. Consider, for example, this blog post from the Cato Institute entitled, “We Support Gay Marriage but Oppose Forcing People to Support It.”
They filed an amicus brief in support of Elane Photography, which was punished in New Mexico for refusing to help a gay wedding. Cato bases its defense on photography being protected by the first amendment. But note this:
Our brief explains that photography is an art form protected by the First Amendment because clients seek out the photographer’s method of staging, posing, lighting, and editing. Photography is thus a form of expression subject to the First Amendment’s protection, unlike many other wedding-related businesses (e.g., caterers, hotels, limousine drivers).
So if you are a Christian caterer, bed and breakfast, etc. too bad. You will be forced to provide services to a gay wedding. You will be made to by the power of the state. That’s where we are headed. If the state has the power to change the definition of an institution it did not create, the state can compel your services to that institution.
So yes, let’s keep the government out of marriage. Its definition will change over time through the natural evolution of all institutions. That evolution may include gay marriage, but it might not.
Your post 57 is a keeper, I will be sharing that one with friends, for laughs.
“You are the lefty, and your support for homosexual “marriage” is totally inadequate.”
You’re funny. However, in the hope that you may learn to think, I’ll ask the following question:
To which version of marriage do you refer? The state sanction or the religious sacrament? They are not identical.
The religious sacrament of the Mormon Temples and Islamic Mosques, of the Episcopalians, the church of the gay goat lovers, the free Americans who are atheists?
“The religious sacrament of the Mormon Temples and Islamic Mosques, of the Episcopalians, the church of the gay goat lovers, the free Americans who are atheists?”
According to the above statement combined with the rest of your comments, you do not support the First Amendment which respects freedom of religion. Catholicism (Roman variety) is probably the largest religion in this country, so I assume you would be satisfied with that as the state religion? No? You want to remain a Baptist or a Presbyterian or...? It’s not acceptable under the scenario you propose.
Nothing in the First Amendment says you have to agree with another’s religious beliefs, only that government cannot force a particular set of beliefs down everyone’s throat. Ponder that concept for a while.
BTW, are you capable of commenting without resulting to insults? I feel like I am wrestling a pig.
I don’t know where you found a personal insult in that post.
Your promotion of polygamy and homosexual marriage in the name of the Constitution and God, sure calls for one though.
Also, if the Catholic denomination is a religion, what religion are the Southern Baptists, or the Orthodox?
The Epicopalians belong to the Church of England, the State Church, if you would. In Germany, the only two accepted Christian Churches are Catholic and Lutheran. All, plus the Mormons, Baptists, Quakers, etc are sects of Christianity.
If you want to limit freedom of religion under the Constitution to Christians only, what do you propose we do about Jews, Taoists, Buddhists, Hindus? Make them wear yellow stars?
How you ever figured tha I am promoting polygamy and homosexual marriage in the name of the Constitution is beyond me. What individuals do is their own business. If a church wants to allow polygamy, homosexual or heterosexual marriages, recognition of the union should be limited to the church - as long as no unconsenting individual is involved. State recognition of marriages of any type should not be done. Businesses should have the right to choose their clientelle.
You should be free to believe as you want as long as you don’t infringe on the Constitutional rights of others. Which means, go picket if you want, boycott businesses, whatever you must do. But give others the right to do likewise.
I personally find the gaystapo agenda disgusting, but the Defense of Marriage Act is the government sticking their nose in your private life, too.
You are definitely space out, and your desire to implement polygamy and homosexual “marriage” in America is not only ridiculous and pathetic, but it doesn’t belong here at FR.
You and the left just discovered that the 1st amendment grants homosexual marriage and polygamy, actually the rest of the left is only pushing homosexual marriage at the moment, you are pushing the whole tamale.
Ansel12-
I said when this whole conversation started that Freedom of religion is not for sissies. It’s a very complex issue.
You keep telling me my beliefs and desires rather than read what I have written. Sadly, your insistence on addressing only a small portion of the issue will result in more government invasions of our privacyl.
Have a nice life. I’ll avoid your handle in the future.
You believe that when we created this nation that we created homosexual “marriage’ and polygamy, it just took this long for you guys to see it in the 1st amendment, evidently you don’t know squat, and are just plain out of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.