Traditional Marriage was never Traditional

The defenders of traditional marriage are not defending traditional marriage—they are defending their own unique religious version of marriage which is that marriage is a "God-ordained" institution that is between one man and one woman and has been so for all of history. By "God-ordained" they mean the Christian God. The alleged gods of other faiths don't matter.

History is filled with accounts of polygamy. The Bible claims that polygamy was common with people like Esau having two wives; Abraham was married to Sarah and Hagar; David had multiple wives and concubines both, as did Solomon. Marriage has not always been about one man and one woman.  

 

Christians claim marriage has always been between individuals of the opposite sex.

Remember the Christian emperor of Rome, Theodosius II, well he created a code of Christian law for the Roman Empire which specifically banned same-sex marriage. Why ban something that was never practiced?

How about the claim that the collapse of Rome came about because it tolerated homosexuality? Rome under Christian rule became more intolerant of homosexuality long before it collapsed. The banning of same-sex marriage was the first step of a series of anti-gay laws. Rome was tolerant of gays during its height and least tolerant before its collapse. Christians were tolerated and ruled Rome during the fall of the empire.

Many claim that marriage was a "divine institution" all along and that the state took control of marriage from the church.

Marriage was neither connected to the church or to the state for much of history. A marriage amounted to two individuals announcing their marriage to friends and family and setting up house. There may have been a "wedding feast" as depicted in the New Testament but there was no church ceremony. Early Christian churches had nothing to do with marriage. They did not perform marriages.

Marriage was considered valid if two individuals merely pledged themselves to one another, regardless if anyone else knew about the matter. Martin Luther wrote marriage was "of the earthly kingdom" and "subject to the prince, not to the Pope."

The state did not take over marriage. First, marriage was entirely private without interference of either church or state. Catholicism exerted control over marriage in 1545. It was the Protestant Reformations that brought in state control of marriage. Protestant leaders invited the state to take control of marriage. John Calvin's 1545 "Marriage Ordinance of Geneva" required a state permit and church consecration before a marriage was recognized. Of course they thought they had control of the state.

It seems to me the objections to same-sex marriage are the political equivalent of temper tantrums, attention-getting yet extremely difficult to implement.

 

 

Similar to the result of states refusing to set up health insurance exchanges in accordance with the Affordable Care Act marriage would become the federal government's responsibility. Folks could stand in the corner and hold their breath until they turned blue in the face, they still signed up for Obamacare, but they had given the authority over it to the federal government. Pouting doesn't work.

 

 

Ignoring the fact that no gay couple is going to want someone who deeply opposes their union to consecrate it no civil authority could force a religious institution to perform a ceremony that the institution opposes. That will never happen since it would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution — the part of the First Amendment that protects religious expression.  

 

 

Less obvious is whether that same protection applies to state employees like judges, clerks and justices of the peace who issue marriage licenses as part of their jobs. I doubt they will be protected since what they believe has no relevance to the completion of their official duties.

 

 

Government employees have obligations to perform their job. Rogue county clerks instructed to issue marriage licenses to any couple who asks for one, should be fired for refusing to perform the duties of their job.

 

 

Any couple who wants to have a fight will claim state-sanctioned discrimination. The state will say they're simply protecting the religious liberty of their employees, and the court will say you don't get to elevate employees' religious liberty over other constitutional requirements of their job.

 

 

Supporters of the decision have compared its significance to the landmark 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, and the current pushback by anti-gay marriage states is not unlike that sparked by the court's mandate for desegregation. But while the time and effort involved in creating a whole new desegregated school system actually made it easier for states and cities to drag their feet in implementing the requirements following Brown, the simplicity of legalizing same-sex marriage makes it harder to resist.

 

 

Considering all of the problems this country has, so much energy put into same-marriage is a waste. Besides with their acceptance and tolerance for serial adultery and fornication Christians long ago lost the right to the moral high ground on any topic. Voting for or against an individual based on their stand on same-sex marriage just might explain the situation in which this country finds itself.  

Why states are required to recognize each other’s marriage certificates

The fight to ban same-sex marriage has always been dead on arrival and if people would understand the Constitution this would not be a surprise.

 

Article !V, Section 1: Look at the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

 

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

 

The clause requires each state to recognize all marriages contracted in all other states in accordance with these other states' laws. That's because the Clause says "full faith and credit shall be given in each state", and $that Congress may prescribe the manner in which such acts/records/proceedings shall be proven and their effect. But it doesn't say that Congress may legislate that they have no effect in other states, or that states can disregard each other's marriage certificates.

 

Congress may require, by general laws, that more than just a marriage certificate/license be presented to prove that marriage was contracted. But it may not legislate that one state can completely disregard other states' marriage certificate. If it were true, a dangerous precedent would be set.

 

By that same logic, the Congress could allow states to:

–        refuse to recognize validly contracted heterosexual marriages from other states, because laws on who is eligible to marry vary state by state (some states allow first cousins to marry, most others do not; some states allow girls under 18 to get married, some others do not);

–        refuse to recognize divorce rulings from other states (e.g. let's say that a state opposes divorce on principle, bans divorce completely, and disregards divorce rulings from other states' courts);

–        – refuse to recognize Drivers Licenses from other states (after all, highway codes and Driver License exams vary from state to state and one state may refuse to recognize your driver license on the grounds that you may not have been tested sufficiently); how would you like not being allowed to drive into KY or VA because your DL is not considered valid there? or moving to VA and having to pass your DL exams all over again?

–         refuse to recognize death certificates from other states; thus, a person who is considered dead in one state may be considered alive in another.

 

These are but a few of the consequences of adopting such interpretation of the Clause. If Congress can allow states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages validly contracted in another state, it can also allow states to disregard these other documents. Such an interpretation assumes that the Clause is internally inconsistent, self-contradictory, and unclear. It is not a good faith interpretation.

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
         http://alumcave.blogspot.com/

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."

Napoleon Bonaparte

Summer MM Questions About Homosexuality

I enjoyed and generally agree with your comments in the Summer MM "Questions About Homosexuality."  

Reference your article in the Summer MM "Questions About Homosexuality;" specifically your comments concerning homosexuality being a choice. 

 

Scientists say chemical reactions create electric circuits which cause various areas of the brain to send messages to the body etc. Do our actions originate in our brain or does the soul in some fashion influence the brain?

 

Consider people infected with the rabies virus. Invisibly small changes inside the brain cause massive changes to behavior. Should the individual be punished for failing to exercise his free-will not to bite?

 

Then there is the case in 2002, a 40-year old male school teacher began to view child pornography websites, and soliciting prostitutes at massage parlors, activities which there are no accounts of him having done in the past. The man's wife turned him into the police when he was found making subtle sexual advances towards young children.

 

He was found guilty of child molestation and medicated for pedophilia. He was given an ultimatum; he could either pass a 12-step Sexaholics Anonymous rehabilitation program or face jail time. He chose the former but was expelled after asking the ladies in the program for sex. 

 

The evening before his prison sentencing, he took himself to a hospital, complaining that he had a massive headache and would "rape his landlady." An MRI revealed an egg-sized brain tumor located in the right lobe of the orbifrontal cortex, which is tied to judgment, impulse control and social behavior. 

 

Once the tumor was removed, his sex-obsession disappeared.

 

After he was remanded to psychiatric care, he complained of balance problems and a MRI scan revealed an egg-sized brain tumor. Further tests found the man was also unable to write or copy drawings and was unconcerned when he urinated on himself.

 

But seven months after the tumor was removed, and after successfully completing the Sexaholics Anonymous program, the man returned home. In October 2001 he complained of headaches and secretly collected pornography once more. But after a MRI scan revealed tumor regrowth and it was removed, the behavior again disappeared.

 

Should he be punished for failing to use his free will to make better choices?

 

I am not excusing homosexuality only the possibility that something within the brain could be overriding free choice. In a subsequent email I will pose the question if government was not involved and benefits to "the married" were not provided by the government and other social institutions would anyone care who commits their life to another? 

 

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
         http://alumcave.blogspot.com/

"A penguin walks through that door right now wearing a sombrero. What does he say and why is he here?"

Fwd:

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
         http://alumcave.blogspot.com/

"A penguin walks through that door right now wearing a sombrero. What does he say and why is he here?"

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Jenkins <jrjenki@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:14 AM
Subject:
To: Rick Cliett <rickcliett@hotmail.com>

One of the positive things about religion is we all can believe whatever we like and be comfortable. And, I realize I see things a little different than others, I tend to think literally and I like to consider the ramifications of beliefs and for what is said.

 

Early Christian preachers did not want the laity to have a copy of the bible in their own language. The clergy wanted to be the sole source and they could tell the people what to believe. One of the best ways to keep the attention of the laity is to scare them. Most of what is taught as Christianity is intended to keep the laity dependent upon the clergy.

 

Folks fall back on "God's Will" when their prayers are not answered. While the clergy assures them God does answer their prayers when it appears he does not obviously it is "His Will" being done. I take my personal experience and observations over the clergy any day and do not believe God answers prayers today. Does God hate amputees, people with autism or Downs syndrome, or those who are mentally or physically disfigured?   

 

Recently I read in the Christian Chronicle that God says "No" because he has something better in mind. Someone should tell that to the parents of a three-year-old girl who was kidnapped, raped, tortured and killed. I doubt being told their child's death was "God's Will" would be very consoling.  Did you know in the Sex Trafficking trade there is a market for 3yr-to-7-yr-old girls and boys?

 

We are told not everyone will be saved. Certainly it is not God's will that people be lost. While God has his preferences I do not believe he exercises them today.

 

As we pray without thinking so do we sing;

 

Tonight we sang about "our raptured souls, can here no longer stay" but we say we do not believe in the "rapture."

 

Another song was about our satisfaction with "just a cottage below, a little silver and a little gold; but in that city where the ransomed will shine, we want a gold one that's silver-lined." I find that ludicrous. I want the gold and silver here and am more than willing to take a shack in heaven. I chuckle when that song is sung, Christians telling God what Heaven means to them and what they expect.

 

Our last song which was written with 8 stanzas with number 5 saying: "comfort every sufferer watching late in pain; those who plan some evil from their sin restrain." God will not do either. He cannot. For him to refrain anyone from evil requires his taking away their free will and I see nothing in the Bible that suggests he will do that.

 

Many years ago Tom Holland, a preacher/song leader wrote a book Appropriate Songs at Inappropriate Times. He told the story of a cruise he and some of the members of his congregation took. They met each day for bible study and singing. The first song on the first day was

Living below in this old sinful world
Hardly a comfort can afford
Striving alone to face temptations call
where could I go but to the Lord

He said he laughed when he thought of a group, on a cruise with all sorts of luxury, singing "hardly a comfort can afford."

No reply is necessary.  We all will continue to believe what provides comfort as do the Muslims, Hindus, Atheists and Christians of all ilks.

 

 

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
         http://alumcave.blogspot.com/

"A penguin walks through that door right now wearing a sombrero. What does he say and why is he here?"

 

In 1610 when Galileo Galliei observed the four largest moons of Jupiter he disproved the belief that the entire universe revolves around the earth as well as the belief the earth was the center of the creation.

 

At the time, most philosophers and astronomers believed the Earth stood motionless at the centre of the universe. Astronomers, philosophers and clerics believed the Sun was at the centre of the universe. Subsequent investigations led to the Catholic Church condemning Galileo’s observations as "false" and "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture."

 

Galileo was warned to abandon his discovery. He was eventually tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", and spent the remaining nine years of his life under house arrest.

 

Today, Christians accepting evolution experience the same objections. As the discovery that the earth is not the center of creation is accepted by Christians so will be that mankind is not either. The bible does not change but our understanding of it does, like it or not truth will prevail.

 

Your enemy is not science it is certainty.

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
         http://alumcave.blogspot.com/

"A penguin walks through that door right now wearing a sombrero. What does he say and why is he here?"

Prayer..Superstition

Among the reasons I do not believe God answers prayer and that he is not active in our lives is the terms used to reference prayer. We teach God is a loving God but look at the terms we use: 

 

Pray fervently

Pray hard

Prayer works

 

The first two some how describe how to pray. The last suggests the act of praying is enough and that God does not have to do anything. What we teach keeps the laity looking to the clergy for help. They pray for us. We need them.  

 

We also teach that God knows what we need before we ask. If he does, why doesn’t he provide it without our having to ask? If you see a friend needing help and refuse to do anything before he asks would you be a friend. If you required that he ask several times before you helped would you be a friend? If you required groups to request on his behalf would you be a friend? You would not but that is how we describe God.

 

Prayer is more superstition than it is a belief. Superstition is the belief in supernatural causality---that one even causes another without any natural process linking the two events—such as astrology, religion, omens, witchcraft, prophecies, etc., that contradicts natural science.

 

The word superstition is sometimes used to refer to religious practices (e.g., Voodoo) other than the one prevailing in a given society (e.g., Christianity in western culture), although the prevailing religion may contain just as many superstitious beliefs.

 

I don’t expect anyone to agree. I have no doubt I am right because I can see the lack of results from prayer and I know others agree because of the things they do not pray for. They know God does not answer prayer but they are afraid admitting it somehow is no right. Believing what is not true and expecting what is not going to be is what is not right.