Gay Groups Should Actively Support a Ban on Divorce and Re-Marriage

Gay Groups Should Actively Support a Ban on Divorce and Re-Marriage
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/30/75020/387


by GlennGreenwald
Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:50:20 AM PDT



<snip>

Thus, the premise which is being sold in order to justify attacks on gay equality - that our secular marriage laws must comport to Christian doctrine - can be used just as strongly to compel a ban on divorce and re-marriage. Given that huge portions of the population are restricted by those equally Christian measures, gay groups can much more effectively fight against anti-gay measures by insisting that if Christian doctrine is to ban gay marriages on the ground that such marriages are contrary to Christianity, then divorce and re-marriage, which is at least as contrary to Christian doctrine, must be banned as well.

Comforming marriage laws to Christian doctrine requires a ban on divorce and re-marriage.

If Christian values, along with a desire to promote a pro-family agenda, are the motivations behind the gay marriage ban, one would expect that these same advocates would be advocating a ban on divorce and re-marriage as well, institutions at least as un-Christian as same-sex marriages. And yet, while 15 states have now approved referendums enacting gay marriage bans into their state constitutions, none of them has voted to ban divorce and re-marriages, or even to make them more restrictive.

Texas has one of the most permissive divorce laws in the nation. "Second and third marriages" -- concepts as foreign to Christianity as are same-sex marriages -- are not just common, but also accepted, both socially and under the law.

How can Christians possibly allow - and, worse, enthusiastically participate in - the continuation of permissive divorce laws which plainly violate Christian beliefs?

After all, there is little doubt that Christianity prohibits divorce every bit as much as it does same-sex marriages. As one Methodist minister and Associate Professor of Old Testament put it:

Jesus himself explicitly prohibits divorce and remarriage in the New Testament (in Matthew 5:31-32, 19:3-9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18). For Jesus, remarrying a divorced person constitutes adultery, a serious sin which the entire Bible has much to say about.

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D. of Andrews University, explains that while some liberal Christians claim that there is a narrow exception in the Gospels allowing divorce on the grounds of adultery, there is no question that:

The teaching of Jesus is fundamental to the study of the Biblical view of divorce and remarriage because Jesus clarifies the reason for the Old Testament concession (Deut 24:1) and reaffirms God's creational design for marriage to be a permanent, indissoluble covenant. . . . .

God's original plan consists of a man and a woman being united in a marriage bond so strong that the two actually become one flesh (Gen 2:26; Matt 19:6; Mark 10:8). The "one flesh" unity of the couple is reflected especially in their offspring who partake of the genetic characteristics of father and mother, and the two are absolutely inseparable. Jesus affirms that it is God Himself who actually joins together a couple in marriage and what God has joined together no human being has the right to separate.


<snip>

The rhetoric about civil rights and equality is failing miserably - it is falling on deaf ears - because the vast majority of people aren't having their equality and rights abridged by these referenda. But if it is made clear to them that the principle they are embracing will, should and must abridge not just the marriage opportunities of gays but also their own divorce and marriage rights, perhaps they will pay a little more attention.


More:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/30/75020/387



That will be the real test for how committed these advocates and their adherents are to the agenda they profess to support.
More:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/30/75020/387

would oppose such a proposal. I suggest it be in the form of a constitutional amendment. Ban Divorce. If "christians" are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage they will embrace this idea 100%. However, as I hunt and peck, the religiously insane in this country are formulating talking points to refute the notion.

Give up your tax exempt status and I'll gladly welcome you religious zealots into a debate about our country's future. Give it up retroactive to reagan's first day in the white house.

What does it say about the "sanctity" of marriage when people such as Britney Spears can get married on a weekend and a few days later is allowed to annul that marriage? The very lax divorce requirements in the United States today, to me, is far, far more damaging to the institution of marriage than anything. Especially more than two men or two women marrying.

The opponents of same-sex marriage don't like to consider that aspect. It's high time they did.

restricting marriage age. . .months after Georgia passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, legislators acted "surprised" to discover that Georgia marriage laws allowed anyone to marry (without parental permission) if a girl was pregnant. Now they've had marriages between 13 and 14 year old children and the latest....a 37 year old pregnant woman married a 15 year old boy.

Someone should have been exploring every one of those statutes long before that marriage debate ensued. But it seems to me that we keep making the same mistakes over and over again - we repeat the same lines that no one pays attention to instead of going through every archaic state law giving special rights to married people only and pointing out where they harm others significantly. And we ain't gonna win until we show a larger, greater harm with the wording of these amendments.

and leave us secularists married in civil unions alone. Carrot and stick...

Marriage is a union between A Man and A Woman for the purpose of raising Children to worship Christ.

Let's get out there and see how many signatures we can get for that!

And let's do it at the same time the Christian groups are collecting signatures for their amendments.

You'd have to be dumb as an eggplant not to tell the difference.

I've often wondered why these people don't push for laws that would forbid atheists to get married, or Jews, or Wiccans, or whatever non-Christian group they choose. While we're at it, why don't we push for a law that would forbid people who are beyond childbearing age from getting married? After all, isn't having children the only reason for getting married????

The masses will never see how ridiculous these anti-gay laws and amendments are unless we bring it home to them with an equally offensive amendment. So let's see: I propose a law or amendment forbidding the following groups from marrying:

1. Atheists
2. Post-menopausal women
3. Paralyzed people
4. Women who have had hysterectomies (sp?)
5. Men who have had vasectomies

Start the signature-gathering NOW!! :sarcasm:

and an infertile woman and a sterile man might conceive a child.

Then again, if Gawd wills it, a lesbian couple might become impregnated through (for example) immaculate conception.

Or an angel may deliver a baby to a couple of gay married men.

On the other hand, it is against Catholic law for a man without a functioning penis to get married.

Canon Law 1084 Section 1:
"Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature."

Canon Law, 1084 Section 2:
"If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null."

Wednesday, May 18, 2005
No Wedding For You!

The Sundance channel is showing a documentary, "Forbidden Wedding," which describes a Brazilian couple whose marriage is not recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. The groom, Hedir Antonio de Brito, is a parapalegic who is also impotent:
http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=77128

"De Brito was two weeks away from marrying Elzimar de Lourdes Serafim, a widow, in August 1996, when he received a shocking letter from the local bishop denying their application for a marriage certificate. According to canon law, any man or woman who is impotent and unable to have intercourse cannot get married."

The bishop was correct in denying the marriage certificate, for Canon Law 1084 Section 1 states that "Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature."

Why?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes that there are two ends to marriage: the unitive, which is the good of the spouses, and the procreative, i.e. the transmission of life. Therefore, for a marriage to be valid, as the encyclical Humanae Vitae states, "each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life" (11). This is why contraception is not allowed in marriage- in effect, a married couple who use contrception are invalidating their own marriage.

More:
http://disturbedjoe.blogspot.com/2005/05/no-wedding-for-you.html

And one that certainly should be considered. As the post says, the majority of people who approve these amendments will never care unless one is passed that bites them on the ass. I don't understand the amendment craze, anyway. Is this a modern phenomenon, or am I just ignorant of history? In the 50s and 60s, did Southern states pass constitutional amendments to enshrine segregation forever? I know I could look it up, but it's easier just to ask you guys... someone always knows the answers!!

Some friends of mine are toying with the idea for an initiative to be proposed in Washington if the state Supreme Court rules against equal marriage. The only non-religious argument made against equal marriage before the Court was that marriage exists for the conception of children. Therefore, the law would:

1. Require all applicants for a marriage license to sign an affidavit affirming that they are capable of procreation. Failure to sign would mean the marriage license is incomplete and will not be issued. Signing when they are not capable of procreation -- vastectomy, tubal ligation, hysterectomy, other sterility issues, long-term medication that makes pregnancy unwise or dangerous, etc. -- would be lying under sworn oath to commit fraud and would be punishable as a Class C felony.

2. Within three years of the date of the marriage, or three years from the law taking effect for extant marriages, all couples living in Washington must file a certification attesting to having procreated. Couples who were married in Washington who do not file this certification in a timely manner will have their marriage license revoked and their marriage automatically dissolved. Couples who were married outside of Washington must file a certification before claiming any marital benefits within the state if their marriage is more than three years old; failure to file will result in their marriage not being recognized as valid (citing the precedent of Washington's DOMA law.) ONLY the naturally conceived offspring of the husband and wife may be certified: artificial conception, surrogates and adoption will not be counted as valid procreation.

State law prohibits initiatives from covering more than one topic, so it does not have a provision that would ban divorce in cases of procreation. But I think this "REAL Defense of Marriage Act" would provoke enough debate as it is :evilgrin: But as amusing as it would be to see the RRR fanatics sputtering against the initiative, I hope it never needs to be put forward.

Start collecting signatures for it at the same time, in the same states, where the regular anti-gay groups are collecting signatures for other initiatives.

In Washington, the earliest that an initiative to the people can be filed is ten months before the next general election. The season opens in 2006 on January 9th. Also, the people considering proposing this would rather not have to file with the state Public Disclosure Commission, obtain a post office box, apply for the tax ID number needed to open a bank account, open the bank account required by the disclosure laws, pay the various fees, etc. unless they need to.

If you are interested in the process and laws for filing an initiative in Washington, the state's Secretary of State has a document you might be like: http://secstate.wa.gov/documentvault/2006%20Elections%20Calendar-1196.pdf