Consciencebound

The issue of gay marriage is one that seems to be sharply dividing down party lines.  In general, Democrats are for it and in general Republicans are against it.  Conservative Republicans fear that allowing a redefinition of marriage at the state level will undermine their beliefs about marriage being between a man and a woman only.  On a web site called nogaymarriage.com, I read a synopsis of James Dobson’s book, Marriage Under Fire where the writer points out ten reasons why gay marriage should not be legalized.  My point in this post is that the reasons that conservatives have against gay marriage are entirely missing the point and in fact they are a betrayal of some core conservative (and Constitutional) values which I don’t think they want to be against.

Republicans are the party, at least in theory, of smaller government, lower taxes, freedom of speech and of religion etc.  Although I know some republicans who want a theocratic state run by the Bible, I do  not think that this is the majority or even a sizable minority.  It certainly is not the view of our founding fathers who specifically prohibited a state religion or even the state giving preference to one religion over another in the first amendment.  Republicans never tire of bemoaning the interference of government into the lives of the American people and state that government is a necessary evil that should be limited to only that which is absolutely needed.  If this is the case, then why is it that conservatives want the government regulating marriage in the first place?

Marriage is something that is defined by different religions in different manners.  If a person wants the blessing of a certain church in marriage they have to follow the rules of marriage that are laid down by that particular church.  If that church has views of marriage that you do not live up to then you can either go to another church or bypass the church all together.  A person can  go to Las Vegas and get married or go to any justice of the peace who will not care what religion a person is and will marry anyone who wants to be married, that is if it is warranted by the law.  If two people got married who weren’t lawfully supposed to do so according to the church, then the church can deal with it according to their beliefs.

Do conservatives really want the state to regulate whether a divorce was done in a “biblical” manner?  Do conservatives really want the state saying when a person can get divorced and when they cannot according to a certain religion’s definition of what is acceptable?  Although some may want these things, I would think that most do not.  So why is it that we want the state regulating whether marriage is between a man and a woman or not?  What business is it of the state’s?

The answer is that it is not the state’s business at all..

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  ~ First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Religious conservatives want the state to define for EVERYONE the rules of marriage.  They want the state to prohibit two homosexual men from being married or two women from being married.  But do they also want the state regulating which heterosexuals get married?  According to the Bible in the old and new testaments, the people of God are not to intermarry with non believers.  Is this something that the state should be regulating?  The Bible also lays down what seem to be strict guidelines on who is allowed to get divorced.  Is this something that the state should be regulating and should a religious text be used as the authority which the state is enforcing?  This would certainly be in stark conflict to the 1st amendment would it not? Why then do religious conservatives want the state to prohibit homosexuals from getting married?

If two gay men love each other and are committed to each other, they can choose to live together and for all practical purposes will be acting “married”.  The state does not prohibit this.  The only thing that they lack is the legal sanctioning of the state which many gay couples could care less about and neither should religious conservatives.

Exodus 21:7-11  A man may sell his daughter as a slave and the man who buys her may either keep her as a slave or marry her or marry another woman or give her to his son to marry.  Below is a few examples of rules that would be enforced if we were to be consistent about letting the Bible shape our domestic policy concerning marriage:

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 – A women is to be stoned who is found to not have “proof” of  being a virgin on her wedding night

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 – If a man rapes a woman he is forced to marry her and is not allowed to ever divorce her

Deuteronomy 25:5-10  If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow

Matthew 5:32 -  Divorce is prohibited by Jesus except when there has been infidelity

These things should at least make a conservative Christian think twice about their position on having hte government regulate the institution of marriage in our society.

Jeff

Similar Posts:

• Book Review: The Conscience of a Liberal by Paul Krugman
• Misquoting Jesus:The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart Ehrman
• The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap
• Loving God by Distorting His Word
• People who might not have voted for Obama
• Why Should God Be Good?
• THE DEATH OF THE AMERICAN IDEA