I do think the issues of gay marriage and polygamy are linked. That is, I do believe there are ethical or religious reasons to object to both, but I'm not sure there's a single compelling legal or legislative objection to either. (For that matter,
I'm not sure why the State is involved in marriage at all.)
As a Christian, I'm very much invested in
what the Bible says about homosexuality. And the Bible isn't too keen on polygamy either, even if it does record the polygamy of several patriarchs. But as a Christian, my faith places me in the role of a stranger and a traveler: someone who is not supposed to treat this world like my home. Therefore I'm not supposed to waste my time trying to make laws based on Christianity, or forcing nonChristians to act like Christians. 1 Corinthians 5 flat-out tells me that what nonChristians do with their lives is none of my business: I should worry about introducing people to Jesus before I worry about changing their behavior. Grace first, then sanctification.
And so Christianity doesn't really give me very much to base the laws of a democratic pluralistic society on. I could look to the theocracy of ancient Israel (i.e. the Old Testament) for inspiration, but that's old news, old wineskins. (
And besides, I'm a bacon-loving Gentile.) Christianity equips me for operating within a nation, even within an oppressive nation like Nero's Rome, but doesn't equip me for making a "Christian nation." Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world."
So while I have religious objections against both gay marriage and polygamy, religious objections are not enough to make laws on. If I want to make a legal or legislative statement that "marriage should only be between one man and one woman," I need a legal or legislative reason to do so.
As I understand it,
the Founding Fathers were very much influenced and inspired by Locke's Natural Law. Compare the Declaration of Independence's
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" with Locke's three natural rights: Life, Liberty, and Estate. In short, the American system of government is based on the following premise: that the job and purpose of government is to defend the "natural rights" of its people.
This idea of "natural law" underlies both the Declaration and the Constitution.So, by this way of thinking, if you want to know whether the U.S. Government should or should not be doing a thing, you have to boil the government down to its essentials. Is this action protecting the Life, Liberty, or Estate of its citizens? (If you're not satisfied with this, the words of the Preamble of the Constitution work as a decent substitute: does this action establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, or promote the general welfare?)
When phrased like this, I don't see why either form of nonmainstream marriage should be prohibited for legal reasons. The only arguments I could muster against either are entirely religious and ethical in nature. The government should only deny marriage to people if such a marriage violates the goals and purpose of the government: that is, if it would infringe on someone's Life, Liberty, or Right To Property (such as in a marriage involving someone below legal age or involving a non consenting partner). Marriage is not a right--I wish people would stop saying it was--but it's also something that the government should have a good reason for denying. All the government needs to be concerned with is the protection of its citizens' life, liberty, and right to property--vague concepts like "decency," when separated from their religious/ethical sources, become nonsensical when they are used in government. The function and purpose of government is to protect its citizens and its citizens' rights. Going strictly by that as a guideline, there are only a few reasons that would justify denying someone State-marriage.
So in that sense, at lease, gay marriage is like polygamy. I think that these are two forms of marriage which are illegal in many parts of our nation without a good reason why they are illegal. And yet at the same time, I myself have ethical/religious objections against both.
(In other news, I've been looking for a place to toss this lit match. I think I'll just use that powder keg over there.)
How do we reconcile the legality of gay marriage and polygamy with our ethical and moral objections to them? Is it the government's responsibility to enforce moral stances or legal stances? Is there anything in scripture that can help us understand the conflict between religion and government?
True 
Comments (62)
@When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga - The European model was for government to buy off its people in exchange for peace and security and America would foot the bill.
That kind of a model is horrid and we are seeing it collapse now before our very eyes.@agapeartbeat - First of all...again, concerning David Parker's arrest he was trespassing. I understand being passionate about what you believe in, but he crossed the line. The sites you give are all anti-gay sites. The facts are skewed. It was hard to find any other information regarding him and his arrest, but he stayed for two hours and would not leave the premises until he was arrested. Other news agencies like the Boston Globe Archives report the allegations against him that he was sensationalizing his stance and wanted to be arrested in order to make the news. And in the video I found his mock-tears to be, at first glance, insincere. But who can be a true judge of intent but God.
So you present that case like undeniable proof that the homosexual agenda is to pollute the minds of our impressionable next generation. Perhaps some extremists are, but the gay rights movement just
wants the legal provisions provided under the institution of marriage. Just like the civil rights movement, it is under the law given to us and enforced on us by the US Government.
Now in the example of David Parker, I agree with @When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga - that your religious objections aren't something that the school system needs to cater to. But I also think that it was inappropriate to teach and read a book about homosexuality. I don't think a teacher should be allowed to promote any particular kind of philosophy or lifestyle choice or religion.
But it's not the role of a teacher to teach morals and ethics. It's the parents. And so if you're so scared that your own children are going to choose the belief system of a teacher they meet for a small portion of their lives over your own - you might need to reconsider your parenting. And then there's always other schools.
I think it's going to be pointless to continue a conversation with you @agapeartbeat because you insist that your "WHAT-IFs" are actually prophecies that will, without a doubt, come true. You insist that if gay marriage provisions are allowed morals, free-speech, and schools will forever be polluted.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga @agapeartbeat - My focus was again on the language of "christians" illogically using "defense and promotion" in reference to their war on homosexuality. The most basic provisions provided by the institution of marriage should be free to all within the bounds that the author of this original post outlined. The two of you have brought no new logic to justify new laws that further limit the freedoms of homosexuals and base decisions now on conjecture and "what-ifs" of the future.
@agapeartbeat - http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston-sub/access/829277481.html?FMT=ABS&date=Apr+29%2C+2005
@DanceofShadows@xanga - We will continue to see David Parker's case completely differently. If he had done anything violent or anything worthy of getting a restraining order... you would bet the school, someone on the other side of the issue or someone in the media would have reported it. Since they did not... including the link you posted... I will give David the benefit of the doubt that he simply insisted on staying until they gave him an answer and not because he was looking to get arrested. He was just simply THAT determined to get an answer but they instead disrespectfully blew him off and ignored him... that was the underlying problem. The school board also went way overboard with this parent in the restraining order (especially since no violence was reported) which is intolerance and bullying as well. You and I will never agree on that though.
Your suggestion that I might need to consider my parenting sounds like a comment by a non-parent. Even the best parents have to be careful in who influences their kids... friends, teachers or any authority figures that they spend a lot of time with. Don't forget how many hours a day for 9 months of the year a child spends in the classroom. That is no small amount of time. Kids are impressionable. Fortunately, my kids are doing very well in public schools and standing strong in their beliefs on their own. So according to you, maybe we as parents can take the credit for that. :o)
There has been enough problems cropping up in the states as well as Canada with gay marriage that aren't just "what-if prophecies"... they are evidence. It is your free will to turn a blind eye and ignore and assume bias and it is my free will to believe them until proven otherwise.
@agapeartbeat - Well said. I appreciate you taking the time to share your POV with me.
This is kind of small but I think it's important regarding the David Parker case - he was there for two hours. He was urged by officials to leave, but would not...resulting in an arrest. So if you were on a school board council and I was there demanding you change the school policy and allow a gay book to be read and you declined and I refused to leave the premises....what would you do? All you could do would be ask me to leave or try to forcibly remove me. The policy wouldn't be changed so he does what...peacefully protests? Even peaceful protests require permits and must be done in the right places. If change obviously isn't going to happen there, I would personally leave. What is the amount of time that you would let me linger...even if I was just sitting there quietly...after you had told me to leave. Even public schools are private property and trespassing is not allowed. Then, after knowing my MO -that I will sit there and waste your time- would you want to allow me back on the premises so I could waste more time and disrupt your school policy meeting? David Parker knowingly got himself arrested.
Final question - So am I understanding your stance correctly?
How do we reconcile the legality of gay marriage and polygamy with our ethical and moral objections to them? By making it illegal. Is it the government's responsibility to enforce moral stances or legal stances? Yes. Is there anything in scripture that can help us understand the conflict between religion and government? -Maybe- So far skewed news and reports of negative things happening in Canada as a direct result of gay-marriage rights are proof enough that religion and government are not in conflict. If the "christian" form of government is upheld nations prosper.
@LondonsMommy@momaroo - You said : "I find it absurd that any two humans cannot get married. As a Christian I don't think it is right for them to marry. But as an American, I think legally they must have that right. I can not and will not force my beliefs on anyone. A marriage certificate from the government has nothing to do with religion. I think years from now when our children are grown this is going to be a thing of the past, like slavery, and they are going to be amazed that this ever happened. " Well, the Bible also states to live as the world. So YOU shouldn't endorse it, as yourself.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - America was not settled by Christians; America was settled by American Indians and conqured by white men who happened to be Cristian and non Christian alike.
@ChaplainPaden - Indigenous peoples were displaced by farmers and industrial societies the world over beginning 10,000 years ago. So what happened in the Americas was not unique in the world.
Europeans who came to the Americas did the same thing. They were farmers, industrialists and above all, Christian.
Christianity began displacing paganism in the Greco-Roman world immediately upon the death of Jesus around 35 AD and that led to the formation of Western Civilization, the greatest civilization in human history.
The indigenous peoples who were displaced by American Christians were among the luckiest because they had the opportunity not only to become Christians, but to become Americans.
@Banky Edwards@facebook - Love v Virginia did no such thing. It merely affirms the 13th Amendment to the Constitution which affirmed what everyone but Southern slavers already knew: that black Americans were men and as such could not be discriminated against because of the color of their skin.
Homosexuality is a sexual proclivity. Where gays wish to stick their penises to acquire sexual pleasure does not equate with the issue of blacks being sold into chattel slavery.
Marriage equality is fundamentally different from polygamy from a legal perspective.
Marriage between two people already exists as a legal institution. The laws governing taxation, child custody, divorce, inheritance, etc., have been written. They're on the books. Gays are now asking to be allowed to participate in this existing institution. That's what marriage equality is all about: equal access to an existing civil institution.
A civil polygamous relationship, on the other hand, would require the creation of an entirely new body of laws regarding taxation, child custody, divorce, inheritance, etc. This institution does not exist. Polygamists are not being prohibited from participating in an existing institution; they would need an entirely new institution in order to engage in "civil polygamy." Theirs would not be an issue of equality, and therein lies the difference.
As a gay Christian, I have many differing opinions and thoughts on this matter, but I have found that those raised and steeped in a culture of their own defining are unable to see past their own limits and consider another person and another point of view, namely because they feel that God is on "their" side. I will refrain from commenting at the moment but will certainly read the ensuing discussion and straw man arguments from the increasingly desperate. The fallacies alone in the "history" and semantics involved are baffling to someone with even a mediocre education.
Arguing with someone over politics or religion has never changed anyone's mind. Developing personal relationships with those different than ourselves and being willing to listen (which can be a shortcoming of mine) is the first step in truly understanding where another human being is coming from.
I would prefer to discuss the issues (facts) and leave the ideas of "belief" and "religion" out of it all together. The fact remains that a segment of the population is denied their freedom and liberty as citizens due to another segment of the population forcing them to subjugate themselves to that other segments perceptions, beliefs, religion and self imposed (and nationally imposed) world/life views. This is and continues to be tyrannical, no matter how it is justified.
For someone to define my relationship solely based on sexual matters is demeaning and beneath an adult who claims the label of being a follower of Jesus. The same effect could be found if I decided to define others relationships and families based exclusively on what they "chose" to do with their genitalia. I would think that civilized adults could have a better and more honest discussion about life and community than to resort to name calling and actions that belie an infantile and juvenile reasoning process. Yes?
daemon
I have little doubt that homosexual marriages will soon be allowed. They are already allowed to have civil unions in some states, or is that in most states? Its basically semantics. I think the Christian community is more concerned about giving approval of homosexual behavior by agreeing to this re-definition of marriage. Marriage has always meant a heterosexual union with the likelihood of children born and raised in that union. There are obvious physiological/biological issues underlying this institution.
But, given that homosexual behavior is legal, then homosexual marriage will have to be legal as well. Someone said that he thinks the gays have as much right to be miserable as the rest of us.
What is curious about this "approving of homosexuality" angle is that the current decade long fad of promoting sexual "freedom" in the Christian marriage bed has given license to Christians practicing sodomy, the very thing they say is wrong if the anus is male rather than female! I thought they were all pretty much the same.