Standing for Religious Liberty and Marriage

Well, I cannot sign it. The section on marriage, in my opinion, is severely flawed. I agree that marriage is between one man and one woman. What I disagree with is the whole concept of government recognized marriage. The whole idea of the government taking over the sacrament/institution of marriage, issuing licenses, etc., is so disturbing and disgusting to me as to be intolerable. Marriage is an institution of the Church, under the authority of the local pastor. To have the government sponsor, define, or legitimize ANY marriage, is no different from having the same thing in regards to Baptism (as the Catholic church did, in medieval and reformation times).


Every citizen has the right to religious freedom. That freedom is hampered by the government's intrusion into it. The government needs to stop treating marriage as some kind of governmental and societal contract. Its not. It is a religious matter. This means I, as an individual, should not be forced to recognize ANY marriage, much less a homosexual union. Bill and Steve have the right to "say" they are married, and I have the right to tell them they are not. They have the same right with me and my wife. My marriage is between me, my wife, my kids, and God. Thats it.

 

The reason it fails to get signatures is that it is to ecumenical.

 

If every person was a member of a church and had a local pastor, then we wouldnt need government marriages.

When every person in the US joins a church, then your plan will work. But it seems that you are advocating only allowing religious based marriages....isnt that also discrimination to tell someone they can't get married unless they join a church and get married by a local pastor?

John

 

Then these non-churched people can opt for a civil union, which yes, under Ron Paul's scheme would be legal for gays.

 

No, what I am advocating is people can do what they want, and call it what they want. And I have the right to not recognize what they do, and decry it as sinful.

Should I be forced to recognize Buddhist marriages? Satanic marriages? Simply because they have a "license"?

 

Its already legal. Two people can make any kind of contract they wish, and call it what they wish. You can go to a lawyer, draw up a legal contract between two individuals, and it is every bit as binding as a marriage.

That is kinda my point. We need to quit allowing government in marriage at ALL. If they want a legal contract, they need to draw up a legal contract, and leave marriage alone.

 

You just proved my point about why we have to have legal government sanctioned marriages.

I will go one step further. As long as we have a high divorce rate we have to have govenment involved.....is the church going to force a parent to support his/her children if the partner divorces them and takes the children to another state?

Do you advocate giving judicial power to the church? And if you do, then which church? And what about the atheists, agnognists, and even those that believe in God but are still not saved or in church?

Have you really thought this all the way through?

John

 

This is an area I must disagree with the libertarian wing that I normally enjoy in my interactions. My disagreements with them are primarily theological but is rooted also in history.

There were two radical views in Church history on the marriage debate. The first is the Catholic/Episcopal view. They saw the church as being the arbiters of marriage as the church within the state.

The second view were the English Puritans. They saw that marriage was purely a state matter, not something the church should be involved.

My view takes a little bit of both views to combine them into a theological view of marriage.

First, marriage is a social contract. This is more than merely a religious right, but a social contract designed to demand respect far beyond the bounds of the church. As a result, there is a secular aspect to marriage which requires an acknowledgment of the secular, including government.

Second, marriage is a religious entity. Without marriage it is impossible to define or even conceive of marriage. Ordained by God, marriage was given to man as a distinct way of interacting with one another an with God.

Thus, marriage is both religious and secular requiring secular acknowledgement and religious expression. My friendly liberatarians merely want to make marriage religious, but they ignore the social dimension of marriage that has been recognized since Genesis 2. Some religious groups wish to make marriage secular, stripping marriage of the religious roots and foundations. Both are not Biblical. We see that there is both a social and religious contract within marriage.

 

You are completely misunderstanding. How does the government handle a parent that abandons its children when the parents ARE NOT married? Exactly the same. Parental rights and legal responsibilities are completely separate from marriage. For instance, if a man has a one night stand with a woman, and she has a baby, the man is STILL forced to pay child support.

And no; I am showing why government should NOT be involved in marriage. When marriage is a governmental institution, then it becomes, by law, and by virtue of civil rights legislation, protected from discrimination, etc. I should NEVER be forced to recognize someone elses marriage, and when it becomes a government entity, that is what happens.

 

In the poem does "They came for the LDS" come after the Socialists? Seems a suitable question considering the thread title.

The US Army came after the LDS and the LDS chickened out. Better to "fight and run away and live to fight another day."

 

So HavensDad, you seem to be favoring a Christian version of Muslim sharia law. In your view, for believers, the church laws would govern marriage and divorce and for unbelievers there would be a separate civil agreement that the government would regulate?

 

I think the problem would be resolved by removing every reference to religion and marriage in all legislation and replacing them with the proper grammatical form of "personal contract."

 

Actually, YOU are the one advocating a type of Christian "sharia law" which imposes Christian morality on the pagan public.

I am advocating government not having any authority in marriage whatsoever, and that each person can make whatever agreement that they want, between themselves.

Yes, for Christians this would mean that this marriage would go through their local pastor, and their local church. For others, they could do it however they wished. But the government would neither endorse, nor condemn any marriage. This also would be a personal choice of each individual.

 

No, I'm not. I haven't advocated anything with regards to marriage in this thread. I do advocate marriage as being defined as between a man and a woman. Anyway, sharia law in the U.S. and sharia law in Muslim countries aren't carried out the same way.

Opponents of sharia law in the U.S. point to having two standards--state and U.S. law and sharia law. They object that Muslim can settle disputes via their own religious laws rather than government laws.

In your scenario you would have exactly that: church law and state law.