And don't forget the concubines!
I read an interesting perspective on same-sex marriage today. One of my friends on Facebook said that he did not think the states should be involved in licensing marriages. If that was the case, there would have been no need for a Supreme Court decision.
This made me think about same-sex marriage from a different angle: An economic one. It made me wonder if legalizing same-sex marriage was not a commerce issue.
For instance, according to the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution, states do not have the power to nullify or impair contracts. That just makes sense, doesn't it? You shouldn't be able to sign a contract in Maine and then tear it up in Nevada, should you?
Marriage is a legal contract.
So think about it, what if individual states were given the power to not acknowledge the marriages of other states, or even other countries? Someone could marry someone of their own gender in Vermont, and then go to Texas and marry someone of the opposite gender.
It could get worse. What if, in retaliation for Texas not recognizing legal Vermont weddings, Vermont decided not to recognize weddings from Texas? What if that started a chain reaction which resulted in all the states deciding not to recognize the marriages of others? What if other countries followed suit?
A really determined person could take advantage of those laws and have hundreds of spouses spread throughout the globe!
Then again, maybe that's what the opponents to same-sex marriage wanted? They keep saying they believe in the "Biblical view of marriage." Marrying multiple people is clearly within the Biblical view of marriage.
Abraham had multiple wives. David had multiple wives. Solomon had multiple wives.
And don't forget the concubines!
Seriously, this is a pretty snappy addition to the "Biblical view of marriage" argument, from Deuteronomy 21:15-17, NIV:
"If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him."
So yeah, it's pretty clear that the Bible didn't define marriage as "one" man and "one" woman, as people seem to like to say. Of course, that was the Old Testament, and some other, contradictory things were said in the New Testament, so maybe God changed his mind? Of course, that may have been because Jewish polygamy clashed with Roman monogamy at the time.
God's opinions about marriage seem to sway with the prevailing human opinions.
So maybe God has changed his mind about same-sex marriage. I mean, he's supposed to be all powerful, right? And if God is all powerful, isn't he allowing same-sex marriage to happen?
So maybe, if you believe in the Bible, you should stick to the nice things about it, and stop using your book to be hateful. Somehow, I think Jesus would approve.
This blog really makes one say, "Hmmm.
ReplyDeleteWell done!