i just ran across your blog. I am a chattanooga native. I was scrolling through and i saw the picture of the firemans statue all frozen. That is one of my favorite sites in Chattanooga. I used to sit across the street at a friends apartment and smoke my cigarette and stare at the frozen statue.

Yea, I would have liked to live in those apartments for a while. They seem to be in such a great spot.

Gid,
Your post has some interesting comments, some I agree with others I do not. The first thing you should clarify is your statement that:

As a Christian, and yes I know not all Christian agree with me on this, I have a requirement to stand for what Christ stands for, marriage being one of those things.

While as a christian you are required to stand for what Christ stands for, the institution of marriage as man has defined it, is not the same as God's definition of marriage. I think you should be very careful in using God's law to defend man's law or at least insinuating this.

Maybe you?re right though you need to go into more detail for me. How is mans definition of marriage different than God definition?

My argument is that God?s view of marriage is the correct one and is the one to be modeled. i.e. 1 man 1 woman. My problem is that man is in the process of trying to redefine marriage as was defined by God.

How do you tie gay marriage to polygamy? I've heard this tie made a lot, but never heard an argument to convince me it was true. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just trying to understand how you make the connection.

Michael,

I hate having long comments because you are less likely to read them, so please bear with my wordiness.

What is going to be the standard by which we define marriage? Is it going to be a man made standard, a standard that is derived from human history, or a standard that is based on theology?

A standard based on theology would be a solid foundation to build on even though the Episcopal Church showed us this past year that you can twist the bible to say what you want to hear. But, by far this is the best choice. God protects his church and is faithful to leave a remnant in spite of apostasy.

A standard derived from human history is shaky at best. Because of absolute truth being present in this world, reflections of truth can be seen in even the most fallen culture. A standard base on human history could in someway reflect what God had intended, but it would only be a marred reflection of what God had planne.

But what you asked about was evidence linking polygamy and gay marriage. I believe this is where a man made standard comes in. If we allow gay marriage we have removed the two most viable standards and gone with the spirit of the age. Right and wrong will no longer be decided by law but by how a judge interprets that law. This is exactly what happened with gay marriage, and is happening right now in Utah. Check out this link. http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2551499

Once law is based on what you feel should be right and is not based on a foundation of truth, anything can happen. All it will take is just one panel of judges to rule that a ban on polygamy is unconstitutional and literally any marriage ban would be judged unconstitutional. There would be no reason that a 58 year old father could not marry his 18 year old daughter. Again, you would have some that would say my last sentence is a red herring, but the red herring is theirs! The foundation of law becomes personal feelings and not right and wrong.

Here is just a quote from www.sltrib.com link:
[quote]
..and justices responded with sharp questions about whether the ban [on polygamy] is constitutional.
Attorney Rodney Parker argued his client has a right not only to believe in a religious tenet of polygamy but also to practice his belief in a meaningful way.[/quote]

Let me know what you think....

As far as what I think, I'll give you the brief version, and since I haven't really sat down to arrange my thoughts as a response, it may be kind of incoherrent, but I'll try.

First, I am of the opinion that the USA is not a Christian nation (which many people I know will disagree with right away), but a nation made up of several religious groups, and some who have no religion at all, so to base the decision totally on Christian values somewhat alienates citizens who are not of that faith.

One can make the argument, rather sucessfully I might add, that marriage is a religious issue and not one to be decided by law. So, my opinion is this, if you don't want to call it marriage, then don't but from a purely legal standpoint I think same sex couples should be able to have the same legal rights that a married couple has. If you don't want to call this marriage, that's fine, call it civil unions or whatever floats your boat.

I may not be homosexual or I may even think it's a sin, but there are lots of sins that are not laws. If you are worried about the sanctity of marriage why not outlaw adultery as well? One could make the argument that adultery erodes the institution of marriage just as much as same sex couples being married do, or perhaps more. So should every sin be illegal? All of the sudden we are no longer a democracy, but a theocracy if we go down this road. Considering the love of democracy and freedom that all Americans have (after all, we just invaded Iraq to bring freedom and democracy to it's people), I'm not sure this is the road we should go down, unless of course it's a Christian theocracy and not an Islamic one, then I guess it's ok to be a religious government. You may argue this is a red herring, but I could argue it is no more a red herring than your polygamy analogy.

Finally, in closing I'll state one more thought and then be on my way. Making same-sex marriages or civil unions illegal is not going to stop homosexuality from existing. Not only that, if it were legal, it will not usher the end of civilization and bring a stop to all life on this earth. Same sex couples exist today, the fact of civil unions or gay marriage existing is not going to cause more people to turn gay because they can get married. What is being sought by these couples is a legal recognition of their union (call it marriage or not).

Sorry it has taken so long for me to get back to this. I?m very busy. I hope my reply does justice to the thought you put into your comment. First, thanks for sharing your thoughts. An open dialog is always fun, and a few of your points gave me some things to think about while I was coding today.

It is not that I want to outlaw homosexuality or infidelity but rather my hope is that marriage and the sanctity of it would have its proper place as the pillar of society. Sin and the dealing with sin is Gods job. Though, he has given Christians the responsibility to deal with sin within the church.

Civil Unions
I am against civil unions because doing so would falsely recognize the gay life style as a healthy alternative to a heterosexual relationship and would falsely give credence to the lie that rearing children in a same sex relation is no different than rearing children in a heterosexual relationship.

I know the above sentence seems inflammatory but there is a lot of evidence to back it up. Check out this link. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01
Please make sure you notice who published a lot of those studies. They were not published by the religious right or republicans but rather academia.

As for America not being a Christian nation I would agree in part though, we did not start out that way. Check out a few quotes from our founders.

Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration -

"The only foundation for...a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican
governments."

Patrick Henry -

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not by religions, but by the gospel of Jesus Christ."

Quote from Delaware's Constitution framed in 1776

"Everyone appointed to public office must say, I do profess faith in God the Father, and in the Lord Jesus Christ his only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God and blessed forevermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine
inspiration." -

Benjamin Franklin, eldest member at the Constitutional Convention

"I've lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: That God governs in the affairs of men. If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We've been assured in the sacred writings that unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it. I firmly believe this, and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."

John Jay - First Supreme Court Chief Justice

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Abigail Adams, wife of John Adams

"A patriot without religion in my estimation is as great a paradox as an honest man without the fear of God. Is it possible that he whom no moral obligations bind, can have any real Good Will towards Men? Can he be a patriot who, by an openly vicious conduct, is undermining the very bonds of Society?...The Scriptures tell us righteousness exalteth a Nation."

Alexis de Tocqueville, French historian -

"I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion - for who can search the human heart - but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of their republican institutions.

A few more comments from one of our founding fathers:

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

It's nice to talk about issues with people who don't resort to personal attacks. The whole gay marriage thing tends to stir up a lot of emotion and some people tend to get very worked up about it, nice to not get called a poopie-head for having a differing opinion.

As Eric noted above, not all of the founding fathers were die hard Christian, but I'll grant you that some, and maybe even most were. In my personal opinion, a gay couple being recognized legally does not infringe on my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, so whether I agree with it or not is immaterial, it's not my business, nor is it the government's in my opinion.

You bring up an interesting new point though that is a logical progression from same sex marriages could come same sex couples raising children. And you could make the argument that a child's growth could be affected negatively by such a thing. There is one small problem though, this is already happening. Same sex couples are raising children, even if only one has custody of a child and the couple is not officially recognized by the government, it still happens today. Would being raised by a gay couple be any worse on a child than coming from a broken home? Should gay parents all have their children taken away from them? Is an orphanage or a set of foster homes any less damaging on a child's development? There are a lot of rough situations that children grow up in, and I'm not of the opinion that gay parents are any worse than some other situations children grow up in.

Thomas Jefferson

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that they are a gift of God? Indeed, I tremble for my countrymen, when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Eric,

Jefferson was making the point that organized religion being in control of government is a bad thing not that religion and faith should not influence government. I don?t know this for a fact, but my guess is that he chose to use the priest as an example of the church overstepping its bounds. The reformation had taken place 250 years or so before and Jefferson knew his history.

[QUOTE]
In my personal opinion, a gay couple being recognized legally does not infringe on my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, so whether I agree with it or not is immaterial, it's not my business, nor is it the government's in my opinion.
[/QUOTE]

God is just and his hand will judge us as a nation and as an individual. I think Jefferson?s statement rings truer now than it did then.

Indeed, I tremble for my countrymen, when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." Jefferson

Michael,

I agree the American family is dysfunctional. Many things happen in our lives that should not. Some children are abused, neglected, and raised in broken homes, and I hate the effect that it has on those children?s lives and our nation as a whole. We do live in a pond and the ripple affects us all. My hope is that we would preserve what is good and not promote what isn?t.

John Adams

"Statesmen, my dear sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."

James Madison, Fourth President, "architect of the Constitution" and "Father of the Bill of Rights"

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God." -

I have trouble understanding how a Constitutional amendment will protect the sanctity of marriage. Michael already mentioned that "adultery erodes the institution of marriage just as much as same sex couples being married do, or perhaps more." Also, what about plain old divorce? That's pretty anti-marriage.

As to amending the Constitution: first, that's the only way it would happen. Otherwise lawsuites would spring up claiming it was unconstitutional.

I recently read through the amendments and found that all of them except one fit into one of these two categories: 1) protecting (or expanding) the liberty of the people, or 2) limiting the power of the government. Of course the one exception is the 18th amendment, which is "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors ... is hereby prohibited." And as we all know, amendment 21 repealed that one.

So, how would an amendment defining marriage as 1 man, 1 woman either protect the liberty of the people, or limit the power of the government? I guess I don't see doing either.

One more thing that is probably worth noting. Constitutional amendments require 2/3 majority approval of congress (both senate and house) or the states (if my high school history memory is as good as it once was). I don't see this happening, but I guess it's possible. The nation is pretty evenly divided among liberal and conservative right now, so I don't see 2/3 of America passing a ban on gay marriage, but stranger things have happened.

Call me cynical, but I think all the talk of gay marriage bans among politicians is more of an effort to rally the base, but I'm not sure I think even it's supporters believe that it will actually pass.

Even our fearless leader George W stated that he was in favor of civil unions, but it didn't get a whole lot of press when he said it. He said that he thought civil unions were ok, but should be differentiated from the term "marriage". Cheney said something similar in the debates in 2000. I don't think there is even a unified front on the Republican side on exactly where they stand. Some favor civil unions, some don't. If a constitutional ban were to pass, I think it would be worded to allow leeway for civil unions later on, or it would never get 2/3 approval.

Of course, this is all just speculation on my part.