Thank You Republican/Tea Party types for making my point as to why DOMA and Prop 8 were unconstitutional; if your opposition to same-sex marriage and banning it by law is based on your religious values then those laws are clearly unconstitutional under the separation of Church and State provisions of the First Amendment.
Bill Armistead, Chairman of the Republican Party in Alabama
“I am disappointed to learn that SCOTUS has struck down DOMA and will now require that federal benefits be extended to homosexual couples. This is an affront to the Christian principles that this nation was founded on. The federal government is hijacking marriage, a uniquely religious institution, and they must be stopped. This is a nation founded on Christian values and the Bible is very clear on marriage – one man and one woman. Alabama’s state law banning gay marriage will prevent these benefits from being extended in Alabama, but our tax dollars will still go to support a lifestyle that we fundamentally disagree with.”
Of course any student of the Bible knows that Armistead’s views on marriage being between “one man and one woman” are not even close to true. In Genesis chapter 16 we read that Sarai gives her hand maid Hagar to Abram as his wife; Sarai was Abram’s first wife and by giving him Hagar she created a plural marriage.
In Genesis 25 we learn that Abram – now Abraham – takes another wife, this one’s name is Keturah. Let’s see, so far that makes three wives in this plurality.
In Genesis 30 Jacob marries Bilhah and Zilpah after already being married to Leah and Rachel. Seems like the Biblical definition of marriage being between “one man and one woman” isn’t quite so clear, now is it? Perhaps Mr. Armistead should pay a little more attention in Sunday school.
In Deuteronomy 21 the inheritance rights of children born into a plural marriage are established.
In Samuel 2 we read how David took his two wives, Ahinoam and Abigail with him when he went to Hebron.
In 1 Kings 11 we learn that Solomon had 700 wives – 700!
In 2 Chronicles 13 we can read how Abijah had fourteen wives.
FOX Huckster Mike Huckabee
“My thoughts on the SCOTUS ruling that determined that same sex marriage is okay: “Jesus wept.”
And this would be? Jesus wept because the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Constitution? Of course He did Mike, of course He did; whatever. If Jesus is weeping it’s more likely because of the hate being spewed in His name by so-called Christians like yourself, and less likely based upon the Court’s decision to allow people freedom of choice in whom they will marry.
Congresswoman Michelle Bachman
“This decision is one that is profound because the Supreme Court not only attacked our Constitution today, they not only attacked the equal protection rights of every citizen under our Constitution, they attacked something that they have no jurisdiction over whatsoever, the foundational unit of our society, which is marriage.
“That is something that God created. That is something that God will define. The Supreme Court, though they may think so, have not risen to the level of God.”
How did the Court attack the Constitution? Was it by upholding it?
Marriage, by-the-way Congresswoman, IS regulated by the state, and hence the Court certainly DOES have jurisdiction over it.
And, since laws in this nation aren’t supposed to founded on the religious whims of fanatics like the soon to be retired Bachman, pointing out that her views of the legality of DOMA and Prop 8 are strictly religious in nature she helps make both mine and the Court’s point.
Senator Rand Paul
“If you change one variable — man and a woman to man and man, and woman and woman — you cannot then tell me that, you can’t logically tell me you can’t change the other variable — one man, three women. Uh, one woman, four men…. If I’m a devout Muslim and I come over here and I have three wives, who are you to say if I’m an American citizen, that I can’t have multiple marriages? I think this is the conundrum and gets back to what you were saying in the opening — whether or not churches should decide this. But it is difficult because if we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further. Does it have to be humans?”
Attacking the rulings from the point of view that it might lead to polygamy, and of course the inevitable far-right white bread Christian leap that it will lead to people marrying animals, which is such a leap it doesn’t deserve to be answered. But of course he couldn’t resist the dig at Islam, throwing out the fear card that this will lead to a Muslim state of polygamous Shariah law. His fear of course is that the First Amendment would, and in all reality should, protect the right of the Islamic belief of plural marriage, being a religious tenant. Funny how religion in America to these types only extends to their own narrow views of Christianity.
June 27, 2013 at 08:45
You support gay marriage, which is fine, but seem to be against polygamy. I say that because you make it sound so far fetched. Tell me this though, If all the parties involved in a relationship want a plural marriage whats wrong with it? If you are against it, you are just like all the people who are against gay marriage, a non supporter of civil rights…… ooooh you don’t want to be tagged with that title….
June 27, 2013 at 08:57
By the way I don’t mean to sound attacking, Im just playing the devils advocate. I killed it with the last line though, sorry.
June 27, 2013 at 10:58
Not sure how, or why, you think I was attacking polygamy. I quoted scriptures in the Bible to debunk the conservative view marriage has always been defined as between “one man and one woman”, and then quoted SEN Paul to show his views on the subject of plural marriage. I do not believe it’s constitutional for the government to define marriage in any way based on scripture, or religious views.
July 10, 2013 at 11:32
If that’s the case, then maybe Mormons want to get more behind gay marriage than they have been in the past, especially if it leads to the legalization of polygamy, and maybe some justice for the wrongs of the Edmunds Tucker Act. I’m not saying that the church would bring it back if it did become legal, but given that it was a religious exercise at the time, and the law was specifically designed to attack that religion as opposed to any real moral objection, then the law was a violation of the 1st amendment and should have been struck down as such.