Does anyone else find it weird that Christians should be allowed to define marriage?

Question

People got married long before the advent of Christianity and now there is all this debate about Gay marriage...

If marriage is supposed to be a religious thing then how can the USA keep a Wiccan Church, Liberal Christian Church or a Native American church from performing marriage ceremonies for gays?

And how can the government say that those ones don't count if all religions are to be considered equal?

Wouldn't that be a direct violation of the separation of church and state?

Someone will challenge this in the Supreme Court and end the whole debate rightly... I'm sure of it.

Answer 1

YES!!!!! Well said...written.

Answer 2

To whom it may concern,

You may well be correct in that the Supreme Court may decide this issue.

But I think you are mistaken about a few things.
First, there is no such thing as "separation of church and state". This is a myth. You cannot find it in the constitution.
Second, Christianity did not define what a marriage is. It was decided thousands of years before Christianity existed. The idea of one man and one woman for life can be found in Jewish scripture in the book of Genesis. It can also be found in historical documents prior to this.

It has been modified somewhat with the idea of polygamy. But marriage by definition has always been between the genders. It has never been defined as between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

I hope this is helpful to you.

Answer 3

Well, if I were you I'd probably think it quite weird too, if I maintained a steady diet of secularist propaganda that has predominated our public schools and the mass media for the past 40+ years, who teach secularist marketing concepts that democracy means upholding that is only alleged to be neutral values for public consumption, including the virtue of diversity and pluralistic practice of governing our nation. This is not what our forefathers meant by democracy at all, nor its legislation. They believed in the rule of the majority. This means that they understood that believing in values that are somehow "neutral", and the idea of legislating diverse philosophies of life in one society to be just an illusion. Everyone has a particular world and life view that will conflict with at least someone else's, if not most of those in a society. No, their view would be to tolerate variant views, at least individually, if not subculturally, and promote any majority consensus and view culturally. They saw the lowest common denominator of Americans in the majority view to practice a Judeo-Christian life and world view. There is nothing "neutral" or pluralistic about this philosophy of living, just as there isn't for a secularist view. These views clash, and one must outrule the other for a society to function and survive.

May I say that a major part of this discussion is the apriori assumptions on both your part and mine, which are two contrasting world and life views, combatting for predominance in our American culture and societies. You apparently hold to a secularist view of life, seeing that any religious philosophy of life should be compartmentalized to issues around personal religious practices of worship and church, and should not interfere with public life (such as marital law, government, schools, and one's place of employment). My philosophic world view of life is that all aspects of life, including the purpose and function of government, schools, recreation and work have a religious meaning to them, since God is not "god", but "God", Who's involved with all aspects of human life. So I believe that religion should not be divorced from culture and society as secularists apparently believe.

Having said this, it is important for you to understand that the majority of cultures and nations around the globe always have believed and practiced religious and socio-political integration, and do still believe that the underlying and predominant religious convictions of that culture and public aspects of life should not be separated, including the institution of marriage, and that there isn't any conflict in being able to uphold both together. And, these also have agreed, since the beginning of human civilization that gay marriage isn't an option.

Now, the difference in the 18th century American experiment to other governmental bodies and states throughout history before this time was that any religious institution and/or denomination should not dictate law, policies and social mores and issues, but rather by the majority of its aggregate voters via their governmental representatives. Yes, we evangelicals do believe in the separation of church and state, contrary to what was practiced in monarchal and ecclesiastical (church) government of England at the time. This is why we even declared our independence from them in 1776, right?

The problem with the secularist understanding of what this means is not found at all in the US Declaratioin of Independnce nor the US Constitution. In fact, you won't find the phrase "separation of church and state" in either of these foundational documents. Rather it is derived by a distortion to its original intent by Thomas Jefferson's letter to a Baptist denomination. It was not separation of the voters' religious convictions and state, but church and state! And, Jefferson meant that the state was not to interfere with church polity and expression, not that religious mores and ideals of the people who attend church should have no bearing on government laws, policies, and sociocultural issues, including marital law. He would have understood this view as being unthinkable for America. How do I know this? Well, a quote from Jefferson makes this clear, ""The only foundation for useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion."

The question really comes down to is this, in a democracy, the majority vote always should have predominance about establishment and enforcement law, no matter what human philosophical system of thinking is behind it all! Else, wouldn't that be inconsistent with its tenets? And, the American majority at least in those 200 years since the nation's birth until possibly recently preferred a Judeo-Christian philosophy to be implemented to government law, policy and public life.

And, on the contrary, American evangelical Christians are totally in favor of having and keeping this kind of government that you apparently desire, that being that this practical form of governing highlights the rights of each individual to vote, speak about what he or she believes, and freedom to worship, or not to, any religious deity. And, concerning American law, since personal values will differ, the rule of the
majority of our representatives in government must be upheld and obeyed, in order to uphold law and order.

Btw, do you believe that this is the best form of government, or it is only conditioned upon whether the rule of the majority agree with you? Or how 'bout you possibly agreeing with the rule of the minority (whether atheist, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, native American, or liberal Christian) as having maybe particular times of the year where their views are upheld for the enforcement of public law and policy, at the expense of the majority? (Sorry, giving "equal" weight to other views as well is impossible to legislate in an entire particular culture. Someone's views will always be discounted, since there can be only one aspect of law in a cohesively functioning society that can upheld publically, while all other views, although tolerated individually or subculturally, must be discounted nationally. Otherwise, it'll lead to at least chaos in governing the nation, and most likely civil war will result in dividing the nation, such as what is going on in Iraq between the Shiites and the Sunnis.) Now, wouldn't you calling the traditional Judeo-Christian view of all of life, including a public one by majority vote, being upheld "unjust" (rather than you being in agreement to its enforcement despite your disagreement as a voter in the minority) anti-democratic in some fashion? If its the latter, then you are not really for democracy, are you?

By the way, this aforesaid form of American government has been in practice, to the envy of the world, from the late 18th century until just recently, starting in 1948, when the US Supreme Court chose to reinterpret the intent of that letter of Thomas Jefferson to the Baptists, with a foolish meaning that this Jeffersonian doctrine of the separation of church and state means to protect the public from the influence of religious values and practices.

What? This 1948 judicial understanding of this doctrine ignores almost 200 years of how it was indeed practiced, and successfully at that! It has only been since 1948, less than 60 years of governing, has your view been predominant due to judicial decisions, but not by popular vote. The US Supreme Court Justice Reinquist, before he retired, stated that this1948 ruling has made this Jeffersonian doctrine absolutely meaningless, leaving it to be reinterpreted in any capricious way that the US courts of tomorrow choose.

And, its ruling as it is today compels us evangelical Christians to abide by its unfortunate reinforcement, which again was not done by popular vote, but by judicial fiat. Now, fiat does mean "being forced". Therefore, a secularist view unfairly is only represented in our public schools, still today, although the vestiges of the traditional view are still upheld, by a thread maybe, when it comes to some national law, such as traditional marriage. But, why not take it to a vote rather than legislate from the bench? Where's the freedom of the majority to make a decision about this, even if the majority would vote for just a secularist view to still be represented? Activist judges are tearing apart the unified fabric of our culture, not Christians! And, you and I know that the majority of te people do not want anything else but traditional marriage. So, why can't that be respected by all and upheld?

Btw, all our presidential forefathers throughout the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries were known to be religious, upholding a Judeo-Christian ethic of American life and cultural expression, even Thomas Jefferson himself, who was a deist. If you doubt me about this, I'll be more than glad to send you quotes from all of these presidential forefathers indicating this to be true. They were not at all familiar with the secularist view of American life and world view to which you apparently ascribe.

Answer 4

It all boils down to money and power. The richest get a say, the most powerful politically get a veto and the one with the best arsenal of weapons emotionally, psychological and physically get the monopoly over all.

In Arab countries, Christianity doesnt define marriage, Islam and its Syariah laws do... hehe

In countries that have been mutilated and colonised by Christian nations, their "Christian" values and sub-values were forced onto the people.

Its all about power, wealth and control in the end

Answer 5

God defined marriage long before the Christian religion. God also gave the commandments by which our laws in the USA derive. The Creator and the Lord of the Constitution is the same God that defined marriage and our laws.

Even the Supreme Court says your "separation of church and state" is a misused statement.

Jesus said, "a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand." In my lifetime, I've seen a great division happening in my country where a handful of people are trying to rewrite the history of this country. If one stands and declares the truth of God in any circumstance, trouble comes their way.

Patrick Henry even said, "United We Stand, Divided We Fall." I believe this phrase came from "Divide and Conquer."
If you can divide a country, you can conquer it.

Shi-ite vs Sunni means Islam can't stand. Check out Iraq. Hundreds dying daily - brother against brother.
Republican vs Democrats means our government doesn't function. There is a problem in America to the point of high treason that this country is becoming divided.

Our News Media has a blindness and they cannot see the veil over their face. No one is even trying to find the division.
The country is being asked to tolerate homosexuality and gay marriage by 5% of the population. Another 5% atheists want Christianity and Jesus removed from every public place. No one cares about any other religion - just Christianity. The whole plot is to remove Christianity from America. A little different from Radical Islam, they want both Christians and Jews removed from society.

Apart from the truth of God, man goes in circles and self destructs.

Answer 6

the government is not saying that the churches can't perform marriages.. what it is saying is that they will not issue a license for you to make it lawful.. some of these liberal churches are now going to allow gay priests to marry.. go get one of them to perform the so called marriage.. you are considered equal under the constitution.. but gays have no more to say about what is marriage than christians do.. in case you haven't read it properly I will give you a hint... It is the LAW.

Answer 7

I think it's weird they should be allowed to use hospitals or call the police and fire departments. Does prayer not provide what they need?

Answer 8

God invented marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, in the Garden of Eden. It is recorded in the book of Genesis in God's written Word, the Bible. http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Answer 9

Welcome to the world. Christians define what's okay for themselves and for everyone else

Answer 10

The only argument against gay marriage is bible scripture. Seems to me like a clear-cut case of religion mixing with the state.