Sanctity of Marriage

Posted: February 2, 2012 in Uncategorized

A pastor is calling for a nationwide boycott of Starbucks because of Starbuck’s support of same-sex marriage. Given my love of coffee, this of course leads me to ask what America’s favorite holy book has to say on the subject.

We find Leviticus 18:22 condemning homosexuality as an abomination. This is, of course, the same book that condemns shellfish as an abomination (Leviticus 11:11). The anti-shrimp movement hasn’t caught on nearly as well as the anti-same sex marriage movement, however, leading one to question such selective Bible use.

On the other hand, the Bible condones a number of non-traditional marital scenarios, as summarized in this borrowed image below (hopefully SOPA/PIPA won’t be shutting my page down because of this unauthorized reuse). We have men with wives and concubines, rapists and their victims (the rapist must pay the victim’s father and marry the daughter), soldiers and their prisoners of war (liberated into the holy bonds of marriage), and last but not least, polygyny (notably absent, however, is polyandry).

If marriage is a biblical institution, then why are proponents of its sanctity not fighting for a definition of marriage along the lines of: “Marriage is a union between one man and one or more women”? Why promote such an unbiblical definition that insists only one woman be included in the marriage to one man?

But we should question that initial assumption – that marriage is a biblical institution. If marriage were a biblical institution, then justices of the peace should not be permitted to marry people. Nor, for that matter, should anyone other than a Christian minister be allowed to marry anyone (which I suppose would mean that Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and so forth would have to be required to return to their country of origin if they want to get married outside of the eyes of Christianity). And it should not be legal to marry someone without a mention of God at all; an atheist marrying another atheist at an outdoor venue should be a complete travesty of a biblical institution. The fact that all of these things are perfectly valid shows that marriage is a state institution, not a biblical institution.

The very sanctity of marriage itself denies it a place in our secular government. Secularism protects everyone, and as the First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Legally defining marriage on a religious basis is quite simply against the highest law of the land.

If the sanctity of marriage is paramount to Christians, then why are atheists among the lowest divorcees in the country? There are many things that are legal that Christians may choose not to practice (premarital sex, the sanctity of the Sabbath day), but this does not mean that our secular government should be establishing Christian morality as the law.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s