Vows sworn in churches

Published January 31, 2015

by Carter Wrenn, Talking About Politics, January 30, 2015.

Lord, deliver us – the Supreme Court is about to tell us who can and can’t marry.

 

Marriage as an institution twists and turns back into the mists of time but will a judge even ask how – and why – it began? Are roots of marriage biological? Anthropological? Or theological? Is marriage a holy institution formed by God and nurtured by angels and prophets? Or was it created by a government long ago, by a Pharaoh or Hammurabi?  

 

Christians – or, at least, most of them – agree Holy Matrimony’s roots start in the soil of a sacrament; that a marriage isn’t created by a $20 government license but by a vow sworn in a church alongside a sacrament with the power to make a man and wife “one flesh.” And they’d also argue, hopefully politely, that while Sam and Dave or Judy and Jill can do a lot of things, they can’t do that. 

 

But, of course, courts have their own way of looking at things. A judge may think angels and sacraments joining souls don’t matter much beside Sam and Dave having the same right to a marriage license as Jack and Jill. But, in a way, instead of illumination it simply compounds a tragedy when judges see more virtue in Sam and Dave’s temporal rights (like filing a joint tax return) than they see in sacraments and vows sworn in churches.  

Read More NC SPIN >>

January 31, 2015 at 10:06 am
Norm Kelly says:

So, it's possible that calling it something else could include most if not all of the benefits of marriage? If it were called a civil union, and institutions, hospitals, government agencies, the all-powerful IRS, and others could recognize the joining? Then we could leave religion and the church out of the picture entirely. And we wouldn't have to worry about extreme gay activists trying to force churches to participate in their 'marriage' because it wouldn't be a marriage but a civil union. Where civil unions are performed by judges, justices of the peace, and other people/groups that choose to participate in unholy unions.

Of course, there's no way the extreme gay activists will go along with calling it something else. Without using the same name, gay activists can't continue to force others to participate. Using the same name, gay activists believe they can force those who choose not to participate/support the activity into actually participating and supporting the activity. And it's now a fact, based on the activity of extreme gay activists, that their goal is to force everyone else to support and participate in their activities. Anyone who chooses not to support their activity will be brought to court and forced to participate or pay a hefty fine. Or, God forbid, forced to attend 'sensitivity training' seminars. Which means there are 2 things I will never participate in: a gay marriage and sensitivity training seminars. One I choose to stay away from, the other my Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms allow me to stay away from. Unless, of course, that lib/socialist extremists continue to redefine what freedom is according to the US Constitution. Which they are continuing to use the courts to do! We have 2 groups working together to change America and the definition of 'freedom': libs/socialists and extreme gay activists. Talk about transforming America. And neither for the better!

January 31, 2015 at 11:21 am
Richard Bunce says:

We need to get the government out of the relationship approval/licensing business.