     |
|
| The Bible and the Marriage Amendment |
07/25/04 |
by Rev. Andrew JJ Paton
Senator Lautenburg (D) doesn’t like the idea of making the biblical ideal for marriage the definition of wedlock in the USA. He said its "mean-spirited" to propose that.
I think he came to this conclusion by considering humanity the measure of all things. His views are based on whatever gives maximum freedom to the most people.
He opined on the Marriage Amendment: "The Constitution is about expanding individual rights – not taking them away." Come now – there are things the document precludes as well.
America’s founders conceived the constitution as a tool for living by Judeo-Christian ethics. They produced hundreds of letters that, by biblical quotations, demonstrate the nature of their world view. Our NJ Senators are children of ideals different from those held dear even 100 years ago.
New isn’t always better.
Mr. Lautenburg told the senate that this constitutional marriage amendment would etch the markings of intolerance, discrimination and bigotry into a document that is based on the enduring truth that everyone is created equal. Ah, there’s that phrase again: "created equal."
Can a nation really major on Equality while jettisoning the preferences of the Creator?
The issue is: If the Creator has communicated ideals for how life should be conducted here in the creation, where can those instructions be found?
Our country was started by people whose moral compass was the Bible. There are legislators who believe that such is no longer appropriate.
Opposition to the marriage amendment included the words: "As U.S. Senators, many of us are from different backgrounds, but we all share a solemn oath to uphold the spirit and the letter of the U.S. Constitution."
Americans who still seek to conduct their lives with biblical obedience need to concede that the USA has indeed changed.
There are now many "different backgrounds" to consider. It’s no longer enough to say an idea is right "just because the Bible says so." Its concepts will stand debate.
We don’t need a state religion but if enough Americans want a godly marriage norm – so be it.
Our representative said: "New Jersey established a domestic partnership law. The Federal Government has no business telling us we can’t do it. States should continue to have the ability to decide whether same-sex couples should have inheritance rights or pension rights or whatever other legal rights should be respected in a domestic partnership."
By all means call a same-sex relationship a domestic partnership, but don’t confuse it with the marriage ideal.
This ideal is best stated as one man and one woman true to a solemn covenant binding upon each other for life. If there are children from that union they will grow within the sanctuary that the two people, out of whose love they came, are bonded together in honor, selflessness and commitment.
Yes, that ideal is a hard one!
Yes, the world divorce rate proves how far short we fall of what the Creator had in mind for families.
Yes, there are second marriages that work better than the original one.
Do not however dumb-down the ideal because of the current social trends.
A sailor needs a fixed star to navigate.
Sen. Lautenburg lamented: "The Constitutional Amendment being offered today would do much more than ban same-sex marriages. It also would ban civil unions, and domestic partnership laws."
That doesn’t necessarily follow. He just doesn’t want this biblical ideal to be enshrined in our US constitution. It will make those seeking to live by non Judeo-Christian laws uncomfortable. For that matter it will annoy those keen on bigamy too.
The Jewish psalm says: "Make Your face shine upon Your servant and teach me Your decrees. Streams of tears flow from my eyes for Your law is not obeyed."
We get emotional when we see God’s precepts being flouted.
Our job is to remember that on election day.
from AnUnseenWorld.com
Sex and The Bible