Plural Marriage
A commenter at American Thinker had this to say.
But I must also note, as a Christian, that marriage is a sacred vow taken within a church, synagogue, or mosque, as a Sacrament. There should be no democratic government that tries to dictate such a holy action.So the government now hands out sacraments? Or decides which ones are valid? No wonder conservatives are in political trouble. Especially if government starts handing out sacraments for killing infidels. Or suppose they do like the shia do and hand out temporary marriages (if the fees are paid) to those who want to have legal sex? No sex without a license. An excellent con. And a wonderful sacrament. Has Sacramento been informed? How about Washington?
A marriage is between one man, one woman, and one government. And don't you ever forget it.
Cross Posted at Classical Values
Posts
3 comments:
This can be explained by the anti-thermodynamic properties of Bureacracy, to wit: that a bureacracy, once created is never destroyed but only grows.
America was founded not simply as a Christian nation, but as a northern European Protestant nation. As the protestant revolutions of the 16th century dismantled the "Roman church" into multiple "churches of the state," such as the Church of England, marriage migrated from a religious sacrament to a government function, still with its religious underpinning, but now controlled, like all other aspects of the state religion, by the state.
(This was not the case in Catholic nations until after the industrial revolution exported Protestant ideals into Catholic lands.)
When the puritans and other English state religion dissenters moved to America, they took with them the bureacracy of the state church, even as they formed governments in opposition to the form of a state church.
While opposed to the idea of a state religion, the new nation of America nevertheless kept any and all parts of the bureaucracy of the state church, including its common law provisions such as marriage. Because of the common Jewish and Christian heritage of all Americans, there was no objection to this state of affairs, and it was even seen a provision for the common good until very recently.
Now that Judeo-Christian ideals are falling out of fashion, or at least out of majority, in the West, those state church holdovers such as marriage between one man and one woman are seen as objectionable because of their original Christian basis, so they have been targeted for "correction."
Many religious social conservatives, including myself, are aware that it is impossible for the state to force religious values on an irreligious population. Moreover, most serious religious conservatives know that the state's definition of marriage has no say over our own religious views on the sacrament. Satan has no power over the church.
However, we still line up against changing the legal definition of marriage along with other non-religious social conservatives (many of whom think they are religious but are actually just culturally conservative) because of the negative affect changing the definition of marriage will have on the vast numbers of the agnostic public, and especially on minors who have no choice in what family they were born into, but will feel any negative consequences through their adulthood.
This doesn't explain the whole reasoning, but it's a large component.
And while cultural conservatives are fighting a losing battle in the culture wars, the government, which they want to use to support their values, is robbing us blind. And their attachment to the culture wars prevents (to a greater or lesser extent) the making of alliances with others who might be willing to pitch in on economics. Brilliant.
The first guy of note to suggest a strict separation of church and state was reputed to have said: "Render unto Caesar...." But no one pays attention to that old stuff any more. The modern attitude is: "Become Caesar." Because there is no limit to the good you can do at the point of a gun.
M. Simon, is that how you personally turned "killing infidels" into a sacrament, by starting your own church at the point of a gun? It ain't no sacrament for any Christian church. Nor for any observant Jews either. Muslims, I dunno. (Are you Muslim, M. Simon?)
Sex ain't no sacrament either, 'cept to leftists, liberaltarians, libertarians, and other libertines maybe. You let your own cat outta the bag, M. Simon, when you allowed that your remarks are "an excellent con." Ha ha.
Just as the empty-headed can call abortion "reproductive health services," M. Simon, y'all can call same-sex relationships "marriage" but that doesn't mean you're bein' honest. Still, I'll turn my head when your government commits the latter example of lefty foolishness as long as I, as an employer or landlord, can choose which relationships I'll call "marriage" and, if I choose, to privilege by way of my own money and other property. (The libertarians talk a good game but none of the ones I see stumpin' for homosexual "marriage" are working for honestly getting the State outta bedrooms and boardrooms, as this whole same-sex silliness demonstrates.)
Post a Comment