Thursday, August 2, 2012

Prop 8.1.0 - New Release (bug fix)


Assumption #1 – There is no gray area.  Right is right and wrong is wrong.

Assumption #2 – The stance against gay marriage is because being gay is a sin.

*****************************
OK.  Let’s say I am gay and have been with the same woman for 20 years now.  We have never cheated on each other.
 
Let's also assume that because God has said my being gay is sinful, I cannot marry my partner.  Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman and cannot be entered into in a sinful state.  So, the church will not marry us.

Well, that is most definitely the church’s prerogative.  

But while other couples can marry at the court house, or on a cruise ship, or drunk in Vegas I cannot be married at all.  

I have to admit I’m unclear on why this is so, unless the government has agreed that being gay is a bad thing.

Truth of the matter is, the government has accepted many “Christian” laws into its legislation, thereby concurring with the church (in a way).  While keeping the Sabbath (commandment #4) and not taking the Lord’s name in vain (#3) skipped legislation, thou shalt not kill (#6) and thou shalt not steal (#8) made it in.  

And, again, while we don’t practice legislative punishment when we don’t honor our mother and father (#5), I think we can all agree that killing is bad, stealing is bad and we even have laws against falsely accusing people (#9).

No one in their right American mind would publicly admit to breaking commandments 1 or 2 (worshipping more than one god or statues).  And thank God (um…) that we don’t get punished legislatively for envying our neighbor’s stuff (#10).  Talk about overcrowding the prison system.

Yet there’s one commandment – the one wedged between Sacred Rules 6 and 8 – that I haven’t mentioned yet.  That is commandment #7.  Thou shalt not commit adultery.  

Referring back to Assumption #1, it would go to follow that cheating on your spouse is wrong.  I think, socially, most of us feel that is correct.  

Referring back to Assumption #2, the stance against marriage with or by adulterers is because adultery is a sin.  Right?  Oh wait, we don't have that stance.

Now I’m not sure if this is one of the commandments that we let slide a little bit, (like the Sabbath and the mom and dad thing), but I would hate to think that there is a loop hole in there that allows that as long as we cheat on our spouse with someone of the opposite sex and we seek counseling or forgiveness or anyway never get caught by our wife (or husband as the case may be) we are not violating the sacred institution of marriage.  No.  That isn't the case.  I think it’s fair to say that the church still feels strongly on matters of adultery.

The government?  Well, because it’s a private thing, we don’t throw you in jail for it - but there are other punitive consequences – at least in the states that don’t practice no-fault divorces.  In those states the partner that cheated could easily lose their house, perhaps have their bank account wiped out but regardless will bear the brunt of the divorce. 

Therefore I can assume, since the divorce isn’t performed by the church that, in the case of adultery, the government agrees that it’s a punishable sin.

So if both the church and the government agree that this is wrong, then why can adulterers marry?

If you have cheated I propose that your current marriage license gets annulled by the state and you never get to marry again.  I think that’s fair.  You are a sinner.  It’s no longer your right to enter into the institution of marriage.  Kind of like how felons can’t vote in some states. 

So I want to see Prop 8.1.0 on the ballots this November.  It should be a painfully written bill filled with double negatives and confusing text that ultimately adds a new provision to the Declaration of Rights to state constitutions which provides that "only marriage between a loyal man and a faithful woman is valid or recognized.”

I’m Katie Cameron and I approve this message.

*************************************


Disclaimer #1 – This is not in direct response to the Chick-fil-A nonsense.  I don’t particularly care about them. Food wise - I have only eaten there once (about 25 years ago now) and I found their food mediocre at best.  I knew they were Prop 8 supporters in 2008 and had I considered their food worth a revisit then, their political stance shooed me away.  Regardless, they are not publicly traded and it’s their right to speak (however ridiculous they sound).

Disclaimer #2 –  (While we are on the subject) I refuse to believe that everyone who supported the restaurant yesterday did so because they wish to discriminate against gay people.  I’m hoping, at least, that there are some Christians who, for whatever reason, feel it necessary to defend Christianity and show their support of a company that waves their Jesus flag openly. 

Disclaimer #3 - I am not gay and I have never had a romantic relationship last 20 years.

No comments:

Post a Comment