Posted on 06/23/2015 10:29:56 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Solving the marriage equation is easy --it resolves itself when you simply use the proper term:holy matrimony.
All indications suggest the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to miss this connection in its decision due any day now.
Marriage has always essentially been a function of the church (figuratively speaking).
It is not a function of the stateand in fact the state is specifically precluded from any activity whatsoever hereby the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Seen from this vantage point, the correct and inalienable vantage point, it is only our governments insertion into matters where it has no legitimate delegated authority that has created any problems with which America now wrestles.
It is important here to understand the word government itself in a way that may not be familiar to you.
Government is not this thing that exists. Government is like soylent green: government is people. When you see the word government, in this case at least, read, People working in Washington.
This clears away much of the foggy bottom. Government is not doing things, or usurping power, or acting beyond its delegated powers. People working in Washington are doing things, or usurping power, or acting beyond their delegated powers. Government must be stopped, controlled, brought back in line. Wrong. People working in Washington must be stopped, controlled, brought back in line. But I digress.
If you can find a chapel that will marry you to a rock, many living things at once, whatever your heart desires without harming others, government (people working in Washington) has no legitimate sanctioned power in the matter, and it is forbidden for it (them) from getting involved. If you think some sort of government stamp is what makes marriage legitimate, government has succeeded in brainwashing you.
The many plain-English definitions of the word marriage, q.v., are not at issue (the marriage of plasterboard to studs to make a drywall, for example). The people in Washington have no legitimate authority over the word, everyone knows that.
Matters of inheritance, medical care, joint property, custody of children, real estate, royalties, social security, pensionsthese are contractual matters between consenting parties and can be handled very nicely by courts, which is where they properly belong. Courts can be properly run by governments of course, from Washington or otherwise, and make competent decisions.
Taxing people unequally based on their living arrangements or offspring, which is where we find ourselves today, is a grotesque violation of the First Amendment ban and always has been, which leads us to the most difficult point.
Extricating ourselves from the entire government-usurped married-life problem is huge. People working in Washington have insinuated their way into our lives in such intricate and intractable ways that untangling the mess could take decades. We didnt get here overnight, and we wont get out overnight either. Luckily, we neednt eat this entire elephant at once.
Regarding the more easily addressed who-can-commit-their-lives-in-whatever-way-they-choose issue, just find a chapel that can conduct a wedding ceremony as you like it, and wash the government right out of your hair. It has no business being there. Problem solved. In good theory of governance at least.
The Supreme Courts impending decision (whether the several states are required to recognize gay marriage licenses of other states, or issue their own), is poised to totally overlook the fact that the First Amendment precludes it from being in the field at all. Marriage is a religious issue, not a secular one. People are bound to each other before their God. What about the godless? Then its just a contract, which is fine in a free state as long as no one is harmed, and governments proper role is merely tangential. Contracts are enforceable.
We are thus reminded that this high court has repeatedly turned the Constitution upside down, just not hard enough yet to send the rabble into the streets with torches and pitchforks. A whole lot of pitchforks.
Government wont take the holy-matrimony truth lying down of course, theyll simply ignore it, like all other inconvenient truths. But its getting close to time to stand up to them. Holy matrimony and the ban on interfering with religion demand it.
Conservatives and liberals alike who demand that government coerce people to see religion their way miss the point altogether -- that is not a role assigned to government. Fight for that and we get what no one wants, which is at the heart of many of the nations ills, usurpation of power.
Greece and Rome, and Indian tribes, and head hunter tribes, and everyone, have always had marriage law, whether it was called just law, or the law of the official religion that made marriage law.
We may see things evolve to where people getting married in church is just a religious ceremony, and not a legal marriage. The legal marriage may need to be done by a justice e of the peace.
This is one way the distinction can be forced. That would be the silver lining of such a dark cloud.
:: legal marriage may need to be done by a justice of the peace ::
Provided one desires the benefit of the State-derived designation; think IRS filing.
The article I linked to below discusses what I believe is an important concept for tens of millions of people determining whether they can continue to identify with the Republican Party. I noted below in a letter posted various places that embracing a rethinking of marriage means forcing people to abandon foundational faith principles in order to maintain their affiliation.
The repeal of Prop 8 represents repression of core religious beliefs. Jewish, Christian, and Muslim believers find their Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion threatened by overturning Prop 8. For many followers of the desert religions homosexual behavior is unacceptable. Instead it resides among the myriad sins entrapping humanity that lives in a fallen world with a fallen nature.
For them foundational scholarship concludes homosexual relationships separate believers from God. The Old Testament, holy to People of the Book, speaks of the character, identity, and purpose of God in a manner, which continuously addresses homosexuality. God is spoken of as masculine, and all humans become feminine in relation to Him. In addition to creating all things, God created the single institution of heterosexual marriage as the earthy manifestation of the relationship of absolute unity and love He seeks with each person.
Classical Semitic theology emphasizes searching for and identifying with God in the spiritual dimension. In order to be good actions and thoughts must reinforce the faith commitment to relationship. Therefore, when believers enter into heterosexual marriage here on Earth there is not a more profound affirmation and acceptance by faith by humans of Gods promise of eternal relationship. All other forms of sexual union must be considered a rejection of Gods promise and hope for relationship with Him. For tens of millions of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim believers any subsequent reasoning from scriptures must proceed from that basic understanding. Therefore, instituting gay marriage, when believers reject homosexuality, means placing these people outside the Constitutional boundaries guaranteeing religious freedom.
The words of Jesus in Matthew are appropriate here when He says render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars; and to God the things that are Gods. That word was sufficient foundation for the First Amendment to our Constitution. In this case rendering unto Caesar means using an entirely humanist approach to fabricate the desired characteristics of civil union and not touching concepts sourced in spiritual faith.
Naturally, there were pissing matches between the courts. At some point in the not so distant past, these separate courts were merged.
My point being only that "marriage has always been recognized under the law" misses the fact of historical separation of courts.
Huh?
Bond for Marriage License
[23 December 1771]
Know all men by these presents that we Thomas Jefferson and Francis Eppes are held and firmly bound to our sovereign lord the king his heirs and successors in the sum of fifty pounds current money of Virginia, to the paiment of which, well and truly to be made we bind ourselves jointly and severally, our joint and several heirs executors and administrators in witness whereof we have hereto set our hands and seals this twenty third day of December in the year of our lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy one.
The condition of the above obligation is such that if there be no lawful cause to obstruct a marriage intended to be had and solemnized between the abovebound Thomas Jefferson and Martha Skelton of the county of Charles city, Widow,1 for which a license is desired, then this obligation is to be null and void; otherwise to remain in full force.
th: jefferson
francis eppes
This is not about ‘gay’ marriage.
It is about having the government(your tax money) ‘fund’ whatever object one proposes to marry. Be it a man, woman, dog, sheep, or a rock.
I was taught that if you didn’t get married by a priest/minister/rabbi, etc of your faith, before God you were not married, but only involved in a civil contract-I was raised in a traditional Catholic family-I understand that thinking is considered passé by a lot of people, but is still what I believe-and no way would I go to some apostate priest to get married who performed the ceremony for anyone/anything but one man and one woman.
when you use religion in a legal argument you surrender reason and logic. IOW you lost before you start.
You may not like it but the fact is that is the way the courts operate.
There is no legal “love test” in marriage, just do you meet the criteria. The homosexuals are defining marriage based on a fondness for a sex act.
People get married every day by justices of the peace and what have you outside the church. They may never have set foot in a church and become legally married. However they did not engage in holy matrimony. So yes perhaps the only recourse left is to apply the term "holy matrimony" to Christian marriages
The author is also incorrect in stating that "Matters of inheritance, medical care, joint property, custody of children, real estate, royalties, social security, pensions" are purely contractual matters.
There are many circumstances where the courts cannot intervene, because it is defined by statute.
This list isn't complete. But, it's enough to demonstrate that these issues cannot be solved by contract.
Don’t bet anything of value on the possibility of a Constitutionaly focused SCOTUS ruling.
That is your personal religious belief, but as a Texan you know that people in Texas can legally marry privately, with no license and no government or Muslim, or Catholic, or any religious participation.
The distinction doesn't resolve anything, it simply illuminates how "holy matrimony" and "court" were tied together historically.
I wasn't disagreeing with your contention that marriage was a "legal" matter, I was only pointing out that "legal matters" used to be assigned to separate authorities, and "marriage law" was out of the jurisdiction of "courts of law," and in the jurisdiction of "courts of equity."
Courts of law and courts of equity were merged in the not so distant past, and most people today are ignorant of the history.
I think they sell pitchforks at Home Depot.
“Marriage has always essentially been a function of the church”
Don’t discount the state’s involvement, having a keen interest in creation of new taxpayers and keeping them off the public dole until they can earn confiscatable sums.
If it were purely a religious matter, there would be no fuss (save for forcing sociopolitical opponents into submission). Follow the money: the state provides incentives & benefits to committed relationships likely to procreate; now those who can’t are demanding those entitlements even though they have zero chance of doing that which the entitlements are intended to facilitate. All carrot, no stick.
What are you talking about? Where, when, who?
Globally? Throughout history? In the United States? All races and cultures? The Native Americans?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.