drieuxster (drieuxster) wrote,
drieuxster
drieuxster

Bible, Law, Marriage and the State

Yes, I know that most of my Evil Liberal Friends are all a part of the ongoing vast sinister plot to advance their wicked Gay HomoSexual Zombie Marriage Initiatives. But they may be interested in the problems that are starting to purculate out there in the dark nether regions where the so called 'social conservatives' are lurking just beyond the camp fire lights.

One of the fun gigglers is this little issue that Frau Meir was born Roman Catholic, and has since turned into a so called "evangelical christian". A bit of an Irony, since, well the Roman Catholic Church, facing the questions of when, where, and how to apply the doctrines of "anathama" are once again considering the process of actually really, really, this time we mean it, banning Divorced Persons from taking communion. The truly scary part here is that the Roman Catholic church is threatening to impose this doctrine irregardless of the political allignment of the divorced person.

I think that it is reasonable to expect that this might have an influence on those persons who are Religiously Roman Catholic, and not merely culturally Roman Catholic.

Which of course makes me always wonder, why don't more folks ask the question:

</i>Are you Religiously Goyish? Or merely Culturally Goyish?</i>


but let us not get that side tracked into the heaping mound of really amusing open questions. As I noted in my kvetch about Why I am a Monogamist there is clearly a need to work out why it is that as a nation we have decided that 'marriage' is an issue that the state should be involved with to begin with. This would of course include the question of why we have decided to replace the common law doctrines about what it takes to establish that one is married, and the statuatory policy that is all the buzz in the current phase of decay.

Clearly if one can survive the 7 years of cohabitation required by common law, there is a reasonably good chance that the marriage might actually take. It's not like this piece of common law just fell out of the cultural heritage for lack of anything better to do on the weekend.

As I have also kvetched about the problem here, there is that big issue about "which biblical literalism" do americans really want to think that they have always held. Complicating the so called vast rightwing religious konspirakii is that little problem of the 'mormons' - are they "evangelical christians" - and are the ones who still hold to the church teaching about polygammy still a part of the so called VRRK? These would be problematic points, were we talking about those who were more than merely Culturally Goyish.

So before we get too bogged down in the ideological struggles to advance the whole Gay HomoSexual Zombie Marriage Initiative, since even the metabolically challenged are still persons, we might really want to work out which of the various "great american cultural contexts" is the One True And Only context in which this matter should be, and of course has always been, debated. Or would that actually require of the Culturally Goyish that they understand not only their own cultural religious context? But also the history in which it was developed?

Can such an adventure be embarked upon without the grand risk that it will lead, as these things do, to Stabbing Our Valiant Fighting Forces In The Back, for not correctly divining which is the One True and Only position that the Greatest Military Leader EVER! has of course always held. Thus violating the divine principle of supporting the president to support the troops in a time of defering the tax burden onto the unborn.

To help folks understand, trust me, some of my best friends are civilians. I mean it! My father even married a couple of them. But I don't think that means we should be granting them any sort of special privileges. So if folks want to get bogged down defending their mono-culturalism, religious or merely cultural, I am more than willing to be supportive of a mono-culturalist position. Just so long as it does not require me to actually offer up special privileges to mere civilians merely because they think that majikally they should have some sort of 'civil rights' because of some secular dogma about the nature of persons.

After that, it should be, well, obvious, that I am open to discussing the sort of Multi-Culturalist position that would allow even Civilians to be considered at least the equivolent of the unborn.
Subscribe

  • Who's Getting Who's Crazy On?

    Fox & MSNBC Reporters at Values Voters: Rude, Disruptive, Lazy - the folks at faith to action have another take on the values conference, where the…

  • The asymetric problem

    A friend of my recently raised the fear point - what happens when some stateless actor up and does a nuke strike on some american friendly space. { I…

  • Which family values?

    A man who had long been vocal in his opposition to abortion was shot to death Friday morning while staging an anti-abortion protest outside a…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments