Breaking news, top breaking news,
liberal news, politics, drudge report, drudge, Today's Breaking News, Current Breaking News,
world news, drudge report, drudge, drudge retort,
Headlines, Breaking News,
Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, Portland, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Washington, top stories
Freedom
for all? (con't)
By
Jessica Martin
RAW STORY COLUMNIST
The Federal Marriage Amendment, as proposed, would
read: “Marriage in the United States shall consist
only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this
constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state
or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital
status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon
unmarried couples or groups.”
Most opponents to same-sex unions are religious groups,
who put forth that same-sex marriages are against God’s
will, and against the Bible’s teachings.
Advertisement
This opposition is actually quite telling and reveals
a great deal about the American political process. It
is drilled into American heads in every American history
class and political science class that one of America’s
great traits is its separation of church and state.
This means that, while we allow religious freedom as
specified in the First Amendment (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), at the same time the political
process should not take into account any religious beliefs
when making this country’s laws. In other words,
the political process should remain separate from the
various religions that co-exist here.
I am going to go even further and put forth the concept
that separation of church and state in this country
is a complete and utter lie. A strong accusation, I
know. But it’s true. Let’s look at some
everyday interminglings of church and state in the United
States. First, I want to revisit the Pledge of Allegiance:
The Pledge states, “one nation under God.”
Whose God exactly is this nation under? The hypocrisy
of schools saying the Pledge of Allegiance while at
the same time teaching in its American history classes
the separation of church and state is completely ludicrous.
How can this be justified? I think the powers that be
are banking on the general public living out their lives
as ignorant, non-critically thinking automatons.
Although the Declaration of Independence is not an
everyday document, it is one of the documents upon which
the U.S. government is based. In its first paragraph,
it says: “When, in the course of human events,
it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bonds which have connected them with another,
and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate
and equal station to which the laws of nature and of
nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions
of mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel them to the separation.” Keep in mind
that this document was drawn up to help separate us
from the persecution of our homeland of England in 1776.
So while reveling in our freedom from religious persecution,
we are placing “nature’s God” in our
document of freedom — quite ironic to say the
least.
Then there is the most telling non-separation of church
and state, perhaps our one true religion in this country:
money. On all of our financial tender in this country:
on the back of our paper bills and on the front face
of our coins it states clearly, “In God We Trust.”
Again, whose God are we talking about? A Jewish God?
A Muslim God? I do not think so. Why don’t we
as a society just come out and say it’s a Christian
God?
From the reference I found on the samesexmarriage.ca
website, here are some references that the Bible makes
to marriage:
Marriage consists of one man and one or more women
(Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17,
32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1
Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5,
1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21,
24:3).
Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in
addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen
25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron
3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).
A man might chose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen
6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already
another man’s wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30)
or his [half-]sister (Lev 18:11, 20:17), nor the mother
(Lev 20:14) or the sister (Lev 18:18) of a woman who
is already his wife. The concept of a woman giving her
consent to being married is foreign to the Biblical
mindset.
If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time
of marriage, she shall be stoned (Deut 22:13-21).
A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29)
- unless she was already a fiancée, in which
case he should be put to death if he raped her in the
country, but both of them killed if he raped her in
town (Deut. 22:23-27).
If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the
widow (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).
Women marry the man of their father’s choosing
(Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1,
1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer
29:6, Dan 11:17).
Women are the property of their father until married
and their husband after that (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut.
22:24, Mat 22:25).
Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1,
28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).
Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9,
Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).
So here we have polygamy; prohibited divorce; rapists
marrying rapees; permitted mistresses; and arranged
marriages. We certainly allow divorce in this society,
in fact it is practically a social disease. A rapist
is certainly not required to marry the woman he rapes.
And mistresses are not encouraged in this Christian
nation of ours. Yet nowhere in the bible does it state
explicitly that homosexuals are forbidden to marry.
The argument about religion and Bible references supporting
the same-sex marriage ban not only goes against the
separation of church and state principal, but without
specific biblical references, the Bible is used as a
convenient prop upon which to base opponents’
inherent homosexual prejudice.
I am clearly in favor of same-sex marriages. Although
I anticipate the Vermont, Massachusetts, San Francisco
and Oregon decisions will be fought continually over
the years in a similar vein to Roe v. Wade, I certainly
hope that my country’s claim of “freedom
for all” extends to include marriages of all genders.
Advertisement