Thursday, April 30, 2015

Wacko or Prophet?

Former Arkansas governor and potential 2016 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee seems well aware that the Supreme Court may legalize same-sex marriage nationwide after hearing oral arguments on the contentious issue this week. But that doesn't mean he concedes that the court has the ultimate authority to decide the issue. Here's Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor, last night at the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference in Houston.
I respect the courts, but the Supreme Court is only that — the supreme of the courts. It is not the supreme being. It cannot overrule God. When it comes to prayer, when it comes to life, and when it comes to the sanctity of marriage, the court cannot change what God has created. [Mike Huckabee, via CNN]
Last week, Huckabee warned that America's dramatically increased support for same-sex marriage could lead "toward the criminalization of Christianity" and an America in which "criminal charges" could be brought against religious Americans who fight against same-sex marriage. Ben Frumin

13 comments:

  1. Doesn't sound like too much of a leap of faith when two gay businessmen get their heads handed to them for talking to a republican....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Huckabee is correct in one way but by politicking the question he will almost certainly lose the argument. In saying the Court cannot overrule God he has the basis of an argument to transform the original meaning of marriage. In my long held view, the word marriage is a term invented by the followers of God and the union is of a religious nature and not a secular one. Society has conveniently allowed the term marriage to assume both moral(as originally intended) and legal meanings.

    If we accept the church as the origin of the term marriage then surely the church has the right or even the obligation to decide the issue of same sex unions. We sometimes get the absurd situation when same sex agnostics try to push the envelope and claim the right to get married. Do any but the extremists want to support such a proposition?.

    Not sure about America but most countries have a legal mechanism to allow secular unions without the involvement of the churches. Registry offices provide such a service but at least in Australia not for same sex couples. Some form of legal practice is not only required but is desirable to ensure same sex relationships are legally recognized. To be accepted as “marriages” such relationships are certainly not appropriate and although I speak as an agnostic, I agree with the churches that they have a god given right to decide who can marry under the auspices of their faiths. Remember, marriage is faith based and to deny the faith as proclaimed in the Bible makes the position of same sex proponents untenable.
    As for Huckabee, a falling star perhaps, a final twinkle before he too will be consumed by the darkness of eternity. So many throughout the world, full of good intentions but lacking in the essential qualities of leadership are seen for a day then forgotten. Think of your past, America has been the lucky country and whenever a great leader was needed, along came the man of the hour. In the present time I sense such a need and side issues such as the one discussed here are of no great moment.

    Cheers from Aussie

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here in the U.S. marriage can be either a religious rite, performed by a cleric which is recognized by law, or a secular proceeding performed by a judge a justice of the peace or some other certified official, which is also recognized by the law. Since we have separation of church and state, at least officially, there is little or no distinction between the two types of "marriage". As to criminal charges brought against someone for being a Christian, that is just insane. For most of us, same sex marriage is rather repugnant, but essentially harmless. And, of course there is the other side of the coin same sex divorce, but that's another matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "For most of us, same sex marriage is rather repugnant, but essentially harmless."

      The verdict is out on the official outcome on its effects to society.... But as I say below... if the government is in the business of civil unions for any, it must be in the business for all.

      Delete
  5. Mick
    My thanks for the response and the clarification, I was aware that secular unions were performed in US of course but I was not aware of the majority view that same sex marriage is somewhat repugnant but essentially harmless. On a non political level I can agree with you on this point but I worry that in your country and in mine, the politicians will hijack the debate for purely political purposes.
    Cheers from Aussie

    ReplyDelete
  6. Until recently king most States held secular "marriages" and they were/are called "civil unions."

    As mentioned by Mick above more same sex marriages will lead to more same sex divorces, will lead to more determination of beneficiaries, division of property, more paperwork, basically more work for lawyers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This of course is where turning our backs on the constitutional principle gets us into trouble.

    A couple of points
    One fundamental principle of our republic is the concept of self-governance. We self-govern hundreds of time per day and most of it comes not in reaction to formal law but from how others react to what we do. Whether it is cussing in a restaurant, public nudity, inappropriate ‘petting’, burping out loud, talking loudly on a cell phone in a crowed venue or cutting in front of someone in a line, the people around us tell us if we are doing right or wrong. So it should be with all activities that deal with our values or our morals. Gays, in public should be dealt with just as any … say… over amorous couple might be treated. We certainly have no business dictating what occurs in their bedroom but law has no business telling people what is morally right or wrong to a body public.

    On the other had we have recognized unions.

    In our society and indeed throughout medieval Europe, marriage was and is the purview of the Church; not to say that that definition is universal but for our purposes it is. To me, the issue of the recognition of gay ‘marriage’ is an one exclusively for the church or synagogue or high priest.. a place and a ceremony where the government should have absolutely no jurisdiction. A ceremony that should have little secular recognition other than perhaps respect.

    Where we get into trouble is the state deciding to selectively recognize these ‘marriages’ and turn them into civil unions. The decision by government to recognize the union created in a church DOES NOT relieve it of its responsibility to treat ALL citizens, regardless of their religious affiliation, equally. Equality is after all, a clear unquestionable responsibility of the state… not of its citizens.

    If the state is in the business of creating contract associations between two citizens… it must make itself available for ANY two citizens. There should be no question before the Supreme Court… this is really quite simple stuff…. either the state is in the business of creating legal associations between 2 people or it isn’t … If the state wants out of that business then everyone will have to seek a lawyer to create a formal contract recognized in secular law, but if the state is in that business for any, it must be in business for all.

    This is of course where we really get crossed up with the intent of the constitution… the difference between the words ‘Provide’ and ‘Promote’; The difference between self-governance and state responsibility.

    People say that the constitution is irrelevant, out of date… not modern. The problem here is that for the sake of expedience and wishing to invoke change to the country that a resounding majority is not ready for, we circumvent Article V. It of course allows us to change the constitution in any manner we chose. The bar is however high… too high for some who wish to force their version of society on everyone. Too high in fact for those people to even muster enough support to lower the bar… so they ignore the fundamental law that underpins … or is supposed to underpin all other laws…

    All of this creating legal quandary over which citizen has the right to associate with which citizen... or whether a citizen has the right to not associate with another by forcing unwilling people to enter into legally binding contracts that they choose not to participate in..

    Screwy Huh....

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's called cleansing the gene pool.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought of that when I read this article.... helping women lead more productive lives... or is planned parenthood and pushing gay lifestyle just eugenics in disguise...

      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/nyregion/baby-boom-among-new-yorks-affluent.html?_r=0

      Delete