7 comments on “Rabyd Opinion – The Government, The Church and Marriage (Part Two)

  1. Good thoughts. Too many times it seems that we often can’t see the forest through the trees – as I read the Scriptures, I see things like mystery, unity, and fidelity as it relates to marriage. But these don’t seem to be narrow enough, so we often try and package it and say “the Bible says XY&Z”.

    • The problem with most people is that they want black and white answers and don’t really get into the mystery of the Bible or faith. On this issue as well as many others there is a lot God leaves to our own discretion. Thanks for the comment.

      Blessings and Cheers!!!

  2. I agree with most of what you say, but a lot of the push for wanting the state to recognize gay marriage is that it comes with legal protections and responsibility, especially in terms of child custody, estate planning and insurance, just to name a few things.

    The arguement has been made that a “civil union” achieves those ends while preserving the “sanctity of marriage” but to me that falls under the separate but equal umbrella we are trying to reject in terms of race. To me, the guising principle of the US is all people are equal under law.

    • All the things you mention for gay couples or other couples for that matter could be handled by contractual arrangements, if government was out of this all together. the only matter for the goveernement then to consider would be to equally handle in court all contracts signed by the respective parties. Once again if everyone is equal by law as you state than any civil union type contract would be covered by the law.

  3. Power corrupts, and corrupt power demands growing amounts of power. Once the state figured out that it could tax (license) marriage, then the state had to come up with regulations to justify their taxation, and then growing amounts of regulations to control who could get married, and who was allowed to “officiate” at such marriages. Marriage, at least in Florida, is a huge cash-cow which the state does very little to earn. Divorce is an even bigger cash-cow.

    Church institutions are little different, except that they claim that they have “biblical-authority” for getting involved in marriage. Church involvement in things like marriage grows as the power created demands increasing-levels of power.

    Prying the reigns of marriage from either the state or the church would require completely-rethinking those institutions, and would be the equivalent of trying to stop a loaded super-tanker by dragging your feet as anchors.

    • Unfortunately you are probably right about the state wanting to keep its cash flow coming which would have probably not been assailable except had the homosexual community taken the tactic of getting both the church and state out of the mix. Political correctness might have helped us there as the media would have seriously considered an homosexual group that made such an argument. The church will probably not give up that kind of control either.

      The real issue for us is to get the idea out there in some way where people must consider it. That is the chief difficulty right now is earning the right to be heard in the debate and so far not so good.

      Thanks for the comment

      Blessings and Cheers!!!

      • I suspect that the closest modern-equivalent to marriage in the Bible is common-law marriage. Only eleven states permit common-law marriage, and even though the rest of the states are “supposed” to honor common-law marriages from another state, they don’t honor them uniformly. If common-law marriage became universally-accepted, it would geld the states of their “marriage-authority” and go a long way towards killing that “marriage” cash cow they now enjoy.

        Possibly an even bigger nut to crack is religious institutions, because recognizing common-law marriages will require them to completely-retool their definitions of “adultery” and “fornication” and how they apply them. It might mean that they would have to discover what the Biblical definitions of those two words are. How novel… That a couple, who are “living together”, could actually be married, without the “benefit” of a “marriage license”, is totally-foreign to most church institutions. That change may happen when hell freezes over and we start equipping submarines to fly. In the mean time, there will always be more airplanes in the ocean than submarines in the sky.

        Never fear… It took me a long time to understand that common-law marriages are just as “valid” as “paper-marriages” are, and it took having friends who were in “paperless” marriages to get there. Maybe there is still hope for our society, but I am NOT holding my breath…

        Steve

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s