In addition, if the legal language regarding marriage actually was axiomatic and not gender neutral then there would be no reason for the recent (in historical terms) push for enacting legislation to insert gender into it.
The reason that we didn't have gay marriage before is that society was dominated by bigots like you, not because it was axiomatically illegal. It would have been a death sentence to do it - just as interracial marriage was, for a long time, officially legal but socially unacceptable.
I read your stupid Heritage Foundation article and see nothing in there that would strongly support a claim that the Founders have any voice in this debate. Fool me once, I guess.
Anyway, what the Founders would have thought is completely and utterly irrelevant.
Do you want to know what the Founders thought about women? About Native Americans? What most of them thought about black people? How about we give the Founders a back seat when it comes to discussions about equality for specific demographics, hm?
The PRINCIPLE that the Founders established that we are expected to consider and govern by is that ALL people are equal. That principle has (eventually) stood up for women, it stood up for black people, and it will stand up for gay people. And we will, hopefully, continue in our country's future to seek out inequality and injustice and put and end to it. Those are our founding values.
They're also your Christian ones, if you can peek around your own personal devil of bigotry to see it. There's no sweeter tongue than the voice of righteousness, but don't forget that anybody can use it. Check yourself and check your beliefs - if you're expecting to get through the golden gates on the backs of people you kept downtrodden... let's just say that even if you're right on Pascal's wager you're going to lose badly.
So what do the various interpretations and evolutions of the institution of marriage in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) or the Christian Bible have to do with the legal institution of American marriage, which is prevented by the Constitution to establish religious preference?
Again, freefirezone, are we allowed to use any ancient definitions of things similar to marriage or can we only use ancient Middle-Eastern perspectives? I mean, to avoid "re-defining" it from whatever it is you think was carved in stone...
For the record, the legal definition of American marriage was gender neutral for like 200 years until YOUR side changed it, between DOMA (1990s) or all the unconstitutional state amendments (past like 10 years). Not exactly a historical precedent for your particular favored definition of marriage.
BUT EVEN STILL, if it makes you feel any better, this is not a "re-definition" of marriage, as your religious definition is staying exactly the same. Nothing has been redefined for you. The fight you are losing is the fight to make the legal definition of marriage a relatively modern one specific to a particular religion. Which flies blatantly in the face of the U.S. Constitution, making your definition anti-American.
Even that losing battle is entirely irrelevant to your own personal situation, as I imagine that if you ever convince someone of the opposite sex that you're a decent person I assume you'd get married in whatever snake-handling church you belong to that I am sure has long since scared away the gay. So please tell me why it's such a big deal to you, a person who will never, ever, ever, ever have to be personally affected in any significant way by two other people (that you likely will already go out of your way to avoid) who love each other?
To be fair, Jesus didn't follow the Old Testament either.
Whole point of the Sermon on the Mount (along with pretty much everything else he ever said), both figuratively and literally, was to invalidate all those dictated rules in favor of the personal responsibility of the "do unto others" business. He was tired of people hiding behind an out of context, selfish, or biased interpretation of the Hebrew Bible (or the Old Testament, same thing) to justify behavior clearly founded in hatred or greed. Stop a stoning here, whip money changers there. Of course you wouldn't ever know what he was talking about without having the Old Testament included as well - for context and reference, not for rules and regulations.
Seems like a cruel bit of dramatic irony that the hateful people today who call themselves Christian tend to be the ones most ignorant of his message.
Can we only use one particular ancient Arab definition of marriage (which, as Mr. Eckert has shown, is not what you think it is) or are other ancient Arab definitions acceptable? Can we use other cultures' ancient definitions of marriage or only Middle Eastern? Does the definition have to be ancient?
If so, why are you using a relatively modern one? A marriage definition that involves two consenting adults entering into a contract for intangible and immaterial reasons (simple love or companionship) does not have a long and storied history as a cultural norm and there is no earthly reason why this pursuit should be denied to people with alternative sexualities.
You may believe in heavenly reasons, but the U.S. Constitution does not. I recommend not getting gay married yourself, and then you'll never, ever, be affected by it in any significant way.
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2014,
Charleston City Paper