Biblical Marriage: Coming Soon To A Voting Booth Near You

Jay Jay Snow (no relation-- I hope-- to FOX/White House paid liar, Tony) has posted a terrifically snarky response to Senator Bill Frist's incredibly stupid attempt to rally the dwindling Republican base this November. Frist warns that gays will marry unless Republicans run to the voting booths and preserve "Biblical marriage."

Jay Jay writes:

The President wants a marriage amendment based on Biblical principles? I suspect those principles he is talking about are only the ones that apply to gays and lesbians.

Unless the amendment includes all marriage principles contained in the Bible, it is discriminatory, immoral, unethical, and hypocritical. An amendment that is according to “Biblical principles” would have to look something like this:

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1.
Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Genesis 29:17-28)

Section 2.
Marriage shall not impede the man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Samuel 5:13; II Chronicles 11:21)

Section 3.
A marriage shall be considered valid if and only if the bride was a virgin at the time of the marriage ceremony. If the wife was not a virgin, she must be put to death. (Deuteronomy 22:13)

Section 4.
Marriage of a believer and a nonbeliever is strictly forbidden. (Genesis 24:3)

Section 5.
If a married man dies and leaves no children, his brother must marry the widow. He must then impregnate her so that she might bring up children in the dead brother's name. (Genesis 38:6-10; Deuteronomy 25:5-10)

Section 6.
If a man is caught forcing a virgin woman to have intercourse with him, he may pay her father and she will be his wife. She shall have no say in this matter. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Section 7.
A man my kidnap a female of his choice to be his wife. (Judges 21.20-23)

Section 8.
A father may give, by contest, his daughter to the winner to be his wife. (Josh 15.16-17)

Section 9.
If a man dislikes his new bride and her parent's cannot prove her virginity, she is to be stoned to death. (Dt 22.13-21)

Section 10.
A man may take his Aunt to be his wife. ( Exodus 6:20)

I wonder if people who support a Constitutional marriage amendment realize what such an amendment would do? It would not only ban same-sex marriage, but it would also take states rights over marriage away and hand it over to the federal government. All marriage. That means that the federal government could regulate marriage in anyway it saw fit. It would start with same-sex marriage, but as the cliche goes, "It's a slippery slope."

And now, a little history...

The participants in a marriage usually seek social recognition for their relationship, and many societies require official approval of a religious or civil body. Sociologists thus distinguish between a marriage ceremony conducted under the auspices of a religion and a state-authorised civil marriage.

In many jurisdictions the civil marriage ceremony may take place during the religious marriage ceremony, although they are theoretically distinct. In most American states, the marriage may be officiated by a priest, minister, or religious authority, and in such a case the religious authority acts simultaneously as an agent of the state. In some countries such as France, Germany and Russia, it is necessary to be married by the state before having a religious ceremony. Some states allow civil marriages in circumstances which are not allowed by many religions, such as same-sex marriages or civil unions, and marriage may also be created by the operation of the law alone as in common-law marriage, which is a judicial recognition that two people living as domestic partners are entitled to the effects of marriage. Conversely, there are examples of people who have a religious ceremony that is not recognized by the civil authorities. Examples include widows who stand to lose a pension if they remarry and so undergo a marriage in the eyes of God, homosexual couples, some sects which recognize polygamy, retired couples who would lose pension benefits if legally married, Muslim men who wish to engage in polygamy that is condoned in some situations under Islam, and immigrants who do not wish to alert the immigration authorities that they are married either to a spouse they are leaving behind or because the complexity of immigration laws may make it difficult for spouses to visit on a tourist visa.

In Europe it has traditionally been the churches' office to make marriages official by registering them. Hence, it was a significant step towards a clear separation of church and state and also an intended and effective weakening of the Christian churches' role in Germany, when Chancellor Otto von Bismarck introduced the Zivilehe (civil marriage) in 1875. This law made the declaration of the marriage before an official clerk of the civil administration (both spouses affirming their will to marry) the procedure to make a marriage legally valid and effective, and reduced the clerical marriage to a mere private ceremony.

And why is a separation of church and state marriage necessary?

That's why.

Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about a church's decision to marry or not marry couples. Change of attitude inside a church's walls is the business of the church. Period. Change therein must come from... er, within.

The fact that churches are exerting influence over civil ceremonies, thereby negating the constitutional rights of citizens to enter into a legally-binding contract recognized by all 50 states as well as the federal government, is what pisses me off to no end.

Gays marrying will not damage any "good Christian" marriage, and the Fristian attempt to make you believe otherwise is a lie, designed purely to get enough Republicans to show up at the polls this November... so BushCo can cheat another election by claiming that "Biblical marriage" supporters turned out to vote.


So you think you know Delilah?
Judges 16:19-- And she made him (Samson) sleep upon her knees; and she called for a man, and she caused him to shave off the seven locks of his head.