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