Filed under: happenings
{PREFACE: I believe government should not be in the business of marriage. I am for the smallest, most efficient government at every level: Local, State, Federal. I am intelligent enough to separate what I believe is acceptable for government, and what is personally moral. The two are not always aligned perfectly. Those that want to dictate a national morality based on Christianity might want to wake-the-heck-up, and realize that it’s never going to happen, and isn’t too good of an idea for myriad reasons. But I also believe that if government is going to be in the business of marriage, then there should be consistency, and a clear explanation of the secular morality used to guide decisions in order to be consistent in other considerations.}
Just a quick thought about the CA court’s decision to approve of gay marriages yesterday:
I hope that those championing this decision will now champion and fight for polygamists in CA and across the country. It seems like the logical next step in removing taboo-status from another lifestyle that a individuals choose. And what better time than now to take up the case of the polygamists in Texas?
From where I sit it looks like this: There is pocketed groundswell support for homosexual marriages to be recognized by government on the grounds that by setting them apart as illegal, it is a case of discrimination. As far as I can tell, there has been no religious morality used to win the opinion of the high courts.
Therefore, if that is the case, then what other pockets of dark places should have light shed on them in order to bring them into the fold of government-mandated acceptance?
Can anyone in government really have a bad thing to say about the polygamist lifestyle? If so, on what grounds? In the light of the CA and MA decisions, would it not be discriminatory to look at polygamists one way, homosexuals another way, and heterosexuals yet another???
C.S. Lewis had it right in Mere Christianity when he suggested that there should be 2 types of marriage: 1 recognized by government, and 1 recognized by your religion. Keep the two as separate as possible.
This is a working opinion of mine. I am seeing how my core belief systems play out in real scenarios, and sometimes am surprised by where it leads. It was this experimentation that led to my about-face on war. I knew that I was against people killing people, and that led to my opposition to abortion, capital punishment, and war. It’s very simple.
But I’d be lying if I said that this entire blog was written out of conviction. I think I’m trying to stir some stuff up both within myself and the larger conversation.
