Beck, Marriage and The State of The Union

Townhall,com ^ | December 8, 2012 | Ken Blackwell

[Kaslin]

My buddy, Glenn Beck, has made a great contribution to the TEA party movement and to a renewal of popular interest in our Founding Fathers and their ideals. For all that he deserves praise.

But, I believe, he is making a serious error in abandoning the civil right of marriage. The Republican Party was founded in opposition to two historic wrongs. The party’s first platform in 1856 denounced “slavery and polygamy—the twin relics of barbarism.” Slavery was finally put down with a terrible toll—630,000 Americans dead in the Civil War. The new movie, Lincoln, tells the dramatic story of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery.

Polygamy was successfully fought with laws. Throughout the latter third of the nineteenth century, Republican presidents and Republican Congresses fought against this relic of barbarism. President Rutherford B. Hayes called upon Congress to make it a law for the western territories: an American must take an oath he is not a polygamist before he could vote for statehood, before he could even serve on a jury! That’s a pretty strong stance for marriage.

Faced with this unyielding opposition, the Mormon Church wisely reconsidered its position on polygamy. Mormons desperately wanted to be included in the American Union. They were willing to give up a sincerely held tenet of their new religion in order to gain acceptance.

This turnabout led to one of the funniest episodes in congressional history. When Church Elder Reed Smoot was elected by Utah to serve in the U.S. Senate, he was vigorously opposed. Critics said that even though Smoot was not a polygamist himself, he had strongly supported polygamy as one of the Mormon Council of Twelve. Idaho Sen. William E. Borah, a fellow Republican and also a Mormon with only one wife, rose to argue for seating Smoot. “I would rather serve in this august body with a polygamist who doesn’t polyg than with a monogamist who doesn’t monog.” Smoot was seated. Washington scuttlebutt had it that T.R.’s daughter, Alice Roosevelt Longworth, was only with difficulty dissuaded from naming her newborn daughter Deborah (from Borah).

The LDS Church has since become a mainstay of support for traditional marriage. BYU Family Science Ph.D.s have provided some of the best scholarship supporting the tradition family. They clearly understand the difficulties that arise for the dignity and standing of women—and especially the hardships for children—that stem from plural marriage.

Glenn should have been at the Newseum four years ago. There, before an overflow crowd, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said: “I know opponents of gay marriage say it will lead to polygamy. Well, I’m for that.”

Turley’s shocking comments were wildly cheered by the room full of journalists, liberal congressional aides, and federal law clerks. True to his word, Prof. Turley has gone to court trying to overturn bans on polygamy.

Glenn told an interviewer: “The question is not whether gay people should be married or not, the question is why is the government involved in our marriage.”

Okay, it’s a civil question that deserves a civil answer: Children need and children have a right to the married love of a mother and father. Every reputable social science study shows that children do best when they have a loving, married mother and father in the home. They have better outcomes for health, education, and welfare. Children of married parents are less likely to commit crimes, far less likely to be victims of violence and sexual abuse, far less likely to fail in school, far less likely to drop out, use drugs, get pregnant out of wedlock.

If we care about children and the future of this nation, we cannot casually dismiss the institution of marriage.

Secretary Tim Geithner certainly understands the fiscal impact of out-of-wedlock births. Liberal that he is, Geithner said we cannot cut Medicaid spending—the main driver of deficits—because forty percent of all children born today are eligible for Medicaid. He means the 41% born out of wedlock.

Married parents want to care for their own children. They usually do not want the Nanny State. Single parents and cohabiting parents are often forced to rely on government assistance.

If you want Socialism, abolish marriage. If you want “Julia” to be the future of America, vote against the civil institution of marriage. Julia, of course, was the Obama campaign team’s fictional single woman target voter. Julia goes from Head Start to college, parenthood, to retirement in a seamless web of dependency on government. She decides to have a child at age 29. No man in her life is even hinted at—no husband, no father, no brother, not even a male friend or business partner. Except one. The One: Mr. Federal Government.

It's hard to understand why anyone would want to end traditional marriage. It’s the HOV lane to the Welfare State. Why any conservative, libertarian, or Republican would want to advance this process is a mystery.

Hollywood star Mae West was certainly no model for married life. WWII sailors called their buoyant life jackets their Mae Wests. But Mae West was onto something when she said: “Marriage is a great institution. I’m just not ready for an institution.”

I invite Glenn to spend just one hour with the Family Research Council’s Marriage and Religion Research Institute’s (MARRI) scholars. They are his type of intellectuals, and I think he would be moved by their body of work

Traditional marriage is a great institution. And it’s never been in greater danger.

[Albion Wilde]

Where is "marriage" in the Constitution?

The Constitution was not written to take the place of moral law, but to supplement it. In those days before both birth control and welfare, marriage was an economic as well as a social bedrock for the care of children. Now the economic part has been eroded by the government, and as a result, our society is sick and suffering.

As the Founders observed, our Constitution was written for a moral people. Once morality lodged in the individual through his or her own personal effort goes away, pffffft. It's all over but the shooting.

[fish hawk]

right next to government mandatory health care.

[rcofdayton]

You are correct. “Going over the fiscal” cliff will not be a collapse. When we can no longer borrow money, i.e., when the chickens come home to roost, that will be a collapse. If America does not repent and believe we are doomed.

[onthelookout777]

In the Old Testament, polygamy was always related to the influence of the world, the influence of apostasy. Even though God made provision within the Mosaic Law for taking care of multiple wives, that was in order to make sure that the second, third, fourth wives were taken care of and not just abandoned and abused. It wasn’t an approval or a prescription for polygamy.

[Albion Wilde]

In fact, the Bible doesn’t specifically prohibit polygamy in the New Testament either.

The Old Testament:

May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. --Proverbs 5:18

Has not [the LORD] made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. -- Malachi 2:15

In the New Testament, one-man-one-woman marriage is distinctly Christian. Paul made marriage to one woman a necessity for role models in a church:

A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well. --Timothy 3:12

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Nobody is making the essential legal argument...

Reynolds v. United States (1878) defined marriage as one man and one woman.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Nobody is making the essential legal argument...

Reynolds v. United States (1878) defined marriage as one man and one woman.

[Agamemnon]

Jesus Christ is the Creator of the Universe (John 1:1 -5)

"...the same yesterday, today, and forever...." (Heb. 13:8)

New Testament v. Old Testament or Christian v. pre-Christian era is a false distinction.

He created Adam. How many wives did He create from that rib in Adam's side?

Speaking of Himself: "And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? So they are no longer two, but one."" (Matt 19: 4-6)

Does the Creator of the Universe say united to his "wife" or "wives"?

God's patience with man's disobedience should not be interpreted by you as His endorsement of sin, or what defines what is His perfect will for man as He created him, designed him, and established the marriage relationship for him.

FReegards!

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Religion does not matter in court...

Reynolds v. United States in 1878 defined marriage as one man and one woman.

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

It is never sanctioned but you will find against Gods plan, men in the OT had multiple wives and let me tell you it caused them pain and headache.

[CatherineofAragon]

I don’t know why you would need a hint in this particular story that polygamy is wrong, since it’s provided for you in the Scripture I mentioned in my earlier post, and in God’s original design for marriage.

In this incident, God’s anger is kindled against David because of a deliberately malicious, evil act that results in a man’s violent death so that David can steal the man’s wife. Why would you expect Nathan to go into an exhaustive list of every sin David has committed?

[RobinOfKingston]

Doncha hate when that happens? An edit button would be handy sometimes. ‘Course, that would allow the rewriting of a lot of history indigenous to FR, and a lot of response posts would wind up being pretty meaningless.

[Agamemnon]

Religion does not matter in court... Reynolds v. United States in 1878 defined marriage as one man and one woman

In this context you are correct. Let's hope and pray that this is all it comes down to and that the Court affirms stare decisis

California's Prop 8 is a matter of a State's right to self-determination affirming through popular vote the "one man one woman" definition of marriage through the State constitutional amendment process.

NY's gay marriage accommodation by vote of State Senate (not popular referendum like in WA and MD) takes on DOMA.

Gay marriage was imposed on CT and MA by courts alone.

Either Prop 8 and DOMA are upheld or our foundational system of government -- the married family unit -- will be destroyed as will the self-governability of the US with it.

Traditional America MUST win this.

FReegards!

[Ransomed]

With the state involved, at least in the modern era, the definition it uses to recognize the institution is simply whatever judges, pols or the majority thinks it is at any one time. And that’s it, that’s all it will ever be. Combine that with the fact many have been conditioned to think marriage comes from and is defined by the state and you have what we have today. It was always a danger. Pope Leo XIII warned about it 130 years ago.

It’s just a shame the state has the power to punish those faiths that don’t think little pieces of paper from the state necessarily makes anyone more or less married.

Freegards

[PieterCasparzen]

Divorce, as an institution, Jesus told us frankly that God tolerated it because "your hearts were hard." It was certainly not his plan, and marrying after divorcing a wife make adulterers of all concern.

IMHO,

There is a difference between sins committed before we are "born again", before we experience a true conversion and profess faith in Jesus Christ, and sins we commit after such profession. Before conversion, of course we will commit all sorts of sins, as we do not have the benefit of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Having been married, divorced, committed crimes, been violent, stolen, abused our bodies - all sorts of sins are committed by people that later come to know Christ. It is when we notice that we have completely turned our back on all our prior sins, the "old man" has died, that we realize the power of the Holy Spirit. If believing Churches did not accept new members who had sinful pasts, they would have no new members to accept. To think that once someone is divorced they can not be saved incorrectly implies that God can not save whom he pleases. To think that once saved, that such sins are not forgiven, is to deny Redemption through the atoning blood of Christ.

Going forward, of course, if we "backslide", and find ourselves committing the same old sins as we always did, that certainly opens up the possibility that we have not been saved, as the Bible tells us that once we truly are born again and are counted among the elect (adopted children of God) that we will persevere and God will not abandon us - so we should find ourselves incredibily motivated to get right with God again. While we will continue to have trials and tribulations, we should, as time goes by, see a process of progressive sanctification happening in ourselves, and not see a charade of religious pretense where we continue in our old sinful ways.

It is quite disheartening when I come across Christians who single out those who were divorced prior to being saved as somehow being unfit to marry after they are saved. At the same time such persons often feel that if prior to being saved the person was an axe-murderer, but never married, they'd see them as a wonderful fit for marriage. We must understand that if people lived for decades before they were saved, during that time they will have sinned and frequently among their sins will be ungodly marriages, cohabitation, and all other sorts of immoral acts and habits. During a courtship that is compatible with Scripture, the father - or man who is serving in that role - of the woman who is considering marriage will weed out men who are still living in sin by simply verifying their habits prior to allowing courtship to even begin, placing the burden of proof on the suitor. He will ascertain whether or not the prospective bridegroom has limited his pursuit of marriage to Biblical courtship. Of course, the father can be much more objective that the prospective bride and can very easily say no, given that he is a man and is concerned with his daughter's long-term well-being and is not subject to emotions arising from the suitor's physical appearance.

There is a far different situation regarding marriage and divorce where a person experiences a conversion, joins a Congregation, and professes Jesus Christ in a Church that has good doctrine, i.e., they will be aware of what they are professing. Such a profession of faith is serious and can not simply be "taken back". If the person then marries, and the household, husband and wife are within the Congregation, at that point, the marriage is not a prior sinful act, but a marriage that Biblically would be fully recognized. There is no way to say that the marriage happened "while I was still in sin", without the couple's conversions being called into question. This is the situation where if there is a divorce, one or the other or both should wind up being excommunicated if the Church applies Church discpline and the couple does not reconcile prior to divorce. Of course, upon excommunication, a person should seek to get right with God. God willing, they will join another believing Church and truly be regenerate. In these cases, members of the Church they were excommunicated from would not be able to marry them and remain in the Church - that would be adultery. Of course, this is only if Church discipline is being applied. Also important to remember that truly believing Churches do not accept members without making sure they are taught in the faith; conversions are not accepted where the person has obvious habitual sins that would merit excommunication anyway. Likewise such Churches to not marry anyone at the drop of a hat, only those that are members, which would be fully aware of their responsibilities to God.

[foundedonpurpose]

A good answer here: http://uclue.com/?xq=379

Toward the bottom of this one: http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/tos/21.28/

This misses the mention of actual name of the laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_licence

There are lots of articles on the subject, the practice of licensing was not universal in all municipalities in the US until this- “In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.”

This is a good article as well: http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken86.html

[ansel12]

The federal government took a while to react to the growing threat to marriage posed by the Mormon polygamy movement, but by 1862 had passed legislation directed at polygamy.

[Albion Wilde]

Reynolds v. United States (1878) defined marriage as one man and one woman.

Thank you for the citation. I'll look it up.

[geologist]

Having read much of this thread, it seems there are opinions going off or coming from many directions. There is a Creator God. Marriage is written of from the time of Abraham perhaps before. It is really spoken of in the beginning. In the Garden of Eden. Genesis 2:22-25.

The word marriage does not appear there but the intent is there. There is good and there is evil. God gives his instructions and we are to obey if we want to please Him, have His favor, and prosper. Divorce came along after a time. We are not animals to have a litter and turn them out after they become able to walk and talk. Why would we? Children are the perfect recipients of love. There is a change in our heart after we have children and we desire to care for, nurture, and protect our children. The whole concept of gay relations is sick. Something is wrong. God knows our true motivations.

In gay marriages there are no children. Nor will there be any children. Impossible! Nothing is to be on the level with God but our HOLY LORD and His son Jesus Christ.

Our doing evil and calling it good will not change God's opinion of our behavior, and our heart.

Lust is not love. Brotherly love is genuinely desiring good for our brethren. Not using them as a sexual object.

We are becoming a nation FAR from our LORD and Savior.
Do any of us want to spend eternity in HELL?

Consider well how we respond to the commandments of God.

God is not mocked.

[ReformationFan]

‘There, before an overflow crowd, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said: “I know opponents of gay marriage say it will lead to polygamy. Well, I’m for that.”

‘Turley’s shocking comments were wildly cheered by the room full of journalists, liberal congressional aides, and federal law clerks. True to his word, Prof. Turley has gone to court trying to overturn bans on polygamy.’

At least Turley has the virtue of consistency. Unlike those libs who are pushing for “gender-neutral marriage” but are against polygamy. Once the 1 male-1 female legal requirement is abolished, why would the same liberal/libertarian person have any trouble with the numerical requirement being changed?