Sunday, March 19, 2006

The state and marriage

I've gotten quite a bit of feedback from yesterday's post about the (hopefully) upcoming constitutional amendment that the ACLU is trying to stop us from voting on. A note to Terry Frank: Your comment intreagued me so much that it will get a post devoted to it tomorrow when I have a few more minutes to spend discussing it in-depth. I'm glad you enjoy my piddling little work here enough to comment on it-it does my heart good to know that good people are reading.

Right now, I want to reply to the anonymous commenter who asked bluntly:

Is your belief that gays shouldn't marry based on your religious beliefs?

To that I respond that it would be imposible for me, as a Christian, to compartmentalize my faith life in such a way that my faith does not affect my politics. If it did not, it would be a hollow faith, as it affects everything else I do.

However, my religious faith is not the only reason I oppose the notion that gays should marry. Government has managed to turn marriage into a civil contract that can be made and broken. Marriage is no more a civil contract than I am a liberal. Marriage is itself a religious institution into which the government has no business interfering. All of the major religious faiths of our society agree that marriage exists between one man and one woman. Since marriage is a sacramental, and not a civil institution, just who is the State to tell the Church that marriage is something other than the union of one man and woman, excluding all others?


At Monday, March 20, 2006 6:54:00 AM, Blogger S Carpenter said...

Anonymous/SC here,

Since the law of marriage has been "divorced" from its religious foundation, do you see the NO GAY marriage constitutional amendment as a way to return marraige to the realm of the sacred?

When will the Conservative Christians propose to ban divorce and outlaw adultery?

Is theocracy your goal?


At Monday, March 20, 2006 12:30:00 PM, Blogger Chucko said...

In states where there have been homosexual marriages allowed, we are already seeing inroads being made by polygamists. So, I ask... where is this to stop? If one man can marry another, and eventually one man or woman can marry multiple other partners, shall we allow bestiality to become a legal form of marriage? What about incestuous marriage? Simply that one opposes homosexual marriage does not mean one is aiming for a theocratic state, or to outlaw everything their faith deems "immoral."

A link to peruse for those interested:

At Monday, March 20, 2006 5:07:00 PM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

Ahh, but people like SC are not interested in reality (I don't know for sure, but I suspect the guy works in some capacity for MetroPulse, which would explain his warped notion that we all advocate a theocracy.

SC and his friends advocate an atheocracy, and America (especially the South) does not agree with that vision of society, and the Left just can't seem to live that down.

At Wednesday, March 22, 2006 6:39:00 PM, Blogger S Carpenter said...

As Mark Rose posted on his blog: Tennessee's Constitution says it best: "...all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience...."

That's the one I wish we would live by and stop trying to make the Government do your religion for you.

As for the Metro Pulse, I've never worked there. I just thought Frank's insinuation of editorial misconduct needed a little support rather than a pot shot. She never backed it up.

Keeping it real,

At Thursday, March 23, 2006 2:23:00 PM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

The difference between the men who wrote our Constitution and the kind of society you are advocating is this: The men who wrote those words believed in and feared God, and would never have dreamed of allowing homosexual "marriage" in the State of Tennessee. If that is what you want, why not go live in one of those blue states where they like that sort of thing?

At Friday, March 24, 2006 9:08:00 AM, Blogger S Carpenter said...

Because I'm a Tennessean, Mr. Oatney.


At Friday, March 24, 2006 12:54:00 PM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

You are a liberal is what you are...

Anyone who would think that the religious protections afforded in the Tennessee Constitution somehow says that Holy Matrimony is anything other than between a man and a woman (when it does not discuss the question) is trying to read things into the law that are not there.

The reason the ACLU and these others do not want the issue brought to a vote is because the amendment will pass in a landslide. You know this, I know this, the ACLU knows it, as do the people at-large of Tennessee

At Friday, March 24, 2006 2:00:00 PM, Blogger S Carpenter said...

What is it with you and "name calling"? Can one not be a Tenneseean and liberal as well?

Well hoss, I am a Tennessean and I always will be god willing. My family has been here in east Tennessee since mid-1800s. Along with other progressive east Tennessee civil libertarians, who started the first abolitionist newspaper in the U.S., fought for the Union, fought against creationist non-sense in Rhea Co. and so forth. I also know we have our fair shair of fundamentalists.

But we all have freedom of conscience and I exercise mine. I resist putting religion into our laws which is nothing more than an to limit my freedom of conscience.

In any event, what I'm against is any constitutional amendment that serves to limit liberty of individuals. The constitution exists to limit government power.

I also believe that all humans have the natural and inalienable right to choose a life partner to whom they are lovingly committed.

Big sin, I reckon.

Have a nice weekend,

At Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:32:00 AM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

"Progressive civil libertarian" is an oxymoron, despite what your friends at the ACLU may tell you.

People have the right to marry the HUSBAND or WIFE they choose, or simply not to marry at all.

Your family history is intreaguing. Were members of your family in league with Parson Brownlow and his abolitionist crusades? Ah yes, fine example of toleration those people were...

My impression of you is that you are a decent, though misguided human being.

You are also in the minority on this issue, and I think you know that. That is precisely why you don't want this to come to a vote.

You can think whatever you like, but denying others the right to enact this amendment is to spit on the very fundamental values that a majority of Tennesseans hold dear. You are a blue-state thinker in a red state. You have that right, but you do not have the right to stifle the will of the majority.

I gather that you think I am a "fundamentalist." I am a whisky-drinking Catholic, thank you-the kind your family's abolitionist friends loved to hate. Our families, it would seem, fought on opposite sides in the Late Unpleasantness also.

One state, two state, red state, blue state...

Nonetheless-you are fun to spar with Scott-I'd like to buy you a drink sometime.

At Saturday, March 25, 2006 8:21:00 AM, Blogger S Carpenter said...

Alright then, make mine a Famous Grouse.

Good luck on y'alls house hunt.



Post a Comment

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page
Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits
Create your own visitor map