Law (and Marriage) Has Sacred Origins

HPMOON: Wow. Not a single supportive comment among the 30-or-so.
**************************************************************************************
Not so. I fully support giving gay people the right to marry.
If you're referring to people supporting the position of Cal Thomas, puh-leeze. The man gives idiocy a bad name.
If you're referring to support for those who voice opinions I disagree with, I fully support their right to have an opinion opposite mine, wrong-headed though they be. I do not support their attempts to deny equal marriage rights to same-sex couples based simply on the fact that they have matching genitalia.

Wow. Not a single supportive comment among the 30-or-so. The anger here is transparent, insecure, and arrogant. Meanwhile, people on "the other side" of this issue are not automatically hostile and thoughtless monsters, just because they don't agree with you. Moreover, they happen to represent the existing mainstream of American society -- so whether or not you are anxious to see that mainstream swing over to above 50% who will support gay marriage, don't get ahead of yourselves. You won't get anything done.

That aside, these comments present a daunting measure of the Washington Post readers' diversity.

Abandoning marriage as an institution ordained by God is another step toward believing in anything...and nothing.
==

Why is that no Christian takes as adversarial a stance to divorce as he does to gay marriage?

Because they are hypocritical religious bigots.

Quite stupid too, because divorce has ruined more marriages between a man and a woman than a single gay marriage.

Hammurabi's code, for example, predates the Bible.

Laws that are in the Bible have their underpinnings in Hammurabi's code.

It is silly to use something that ancient for our laws today.

Thankfully, we have moved away from much of that nonsense for centuries. The US Constitution, for example, makes no mention of the Bible. You are deluded if you think that it was based on the Bible, because it is rather obvious that anything based on something else heavily would at least mention it.

Tsapp77:

"I definitely believe that allowing same sex marriages will be an anathema for the
future of our society. Our society is already precariouly close to moral depravity."

Has it ever occurred to any of you that if a proud and longstanding history of brutal gaybashing for some seventeen hundred years hasn't worked *yet.* it's not likely to 'undeprave' you now?

Hmmmm, "New World" is actually an "aging probability wave"??? Interesting!!!

C C N L:
Whoever You'ar This below is for your-Eyes only or the likes whom never seen:

.......,..... _
.........../'_/)
.........,/_ /)
........./.../
..../'_'/' '/'__'7,
.../'/ / / /" /_\
...('( ' /' ')
\........./
.'\'........ _.7'
...\.........(
....\.........\
.....\.........\

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... A.O.

And where did the Jewish scribes get their ideas for the Commandments??

www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10cl.htm

"The Book of the Dead was written circa 1800 BCE. 2 The Schofield Reference Bible estimates that the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt and the provision of the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai occurred in 1491 BCE., some three centuries later.

Thus, many religious liberals, historians, and secularists have concluded that the Hebrew Scripture's Ten Commandments were based on this earlier document, rather than vice-versa.

"Hail to thee, great God, Lord of the Two Truths. I have come unto thee, my Lord, that thou mayest bring me to see thy beauty. I know thee, I know thy name, I know the names of the 42 Gods who are with thee in this broad hall of the Two Truths . . . Behold, I am come unto thee. I have brought thee truth;

I have done away with sin for thee.

I have not sinned against anyone.

I have not mistreated people.

I have not done evil instead of righteousness . . .

I have not reviled the God.

I have not laid violent hands on an orphan.

I have not done what the God abominates . . .

I have not killed; I have not turned anyone over to a killer.

I have not caused anyone's suffering . . .

I have not copulated (illicitly); I have not been unchaste.

I have not increased nor diminished the measure, I have not diminished the palm; I have not encroached upon the fields.

I have not added to the balance weights; I have not tempered with the plumb bob of the balance.

I have not taken milk from a child's mouth; I have not driven small cattle from their herbage...

I have not stopped (the flow of) water in its seasons; I have not built a dam against flowing water.

I have not quenched a fire in its time . . .

I have not kept cattle away from the God's property.

I have not blocked the God at his processions."

Mr. Thomas is correct. Many of our laws indeed have a foundation in the Bible, or at least in the lawmakers' interpretation of the Bible at the time.

Our history has shown that the Bible can be interpreted to support many things. For nearly a century it was believed that slavery was supported by the Bible, and that the separation of the races was part of God's divine order, as outlined in both the OT and NT. The Rev. Dr. Richard Furman made an impassioned appeal to the governor of South Carolina on behalf of the Baptists of that state in which he outlined, at length, Biblical support for the institution of slavery. (His exposition is found here: http://tinyurl.com/m42mfk).

Today we view such positions as completely unsupported by the Scriptures, and rightly so. Our understanding of the Bible has changed over the decades, both as scholars have delved into the "original texts" and as we have come to better understand the culture in which the texts of the Bible were written.

Again, Mr. Thomas, you are correct when you point to the Bible as one source (of many) of our laws. But in doing so you must admit that our use of it as a source has been selective, subject to cultural interpretation, and never completely consistent with the WHOLE of its message.

Oops! As per my previous post, I get better punctuation from students than I demonstrated myself; my apologies!

Cal Thomas wrote:
"If every law that has a biblical foundation were invalidated because of its source, murder would be legal, as would stealing and "bearing false witness" (lying) in court."

Foundational? Does this mean that before the Bible (specifically Exodus) or in areas without the Bible murder, stealing and purjury were legal. Does Cal really think not killing people became law only because of the Bible. I get better writing from junior high students.

Just in case Cal cares, I am Christian and strongly against murder, stealing, and perjury, but I don't think the Bible is 'foundational' for those values.

I definitely believe that allowing same sex marriages will be an anathema for the
future of our society. Our society is already precariouly close to moral depravity.

Speak to us again, Reverend, how Justice delayed is not Justice Denied. This time, since it's gay people, as opposed to the last people your God 'couldn't countenance.'

The modern english word " marriage" derives from the latin "maritare" which was a simple non-religious mutual agreement. So, keep religion out of marriage!

Marriage was not instituted by god, especially the christian god. Pagans had the institute of marriage long before judaism or christianity came along. Atheists got married without religion, as did agnostics.

Cal needs to get his history right.

PS, Cal, please get a new picture for your intolerant, hateful rants here.

The one you are using makes you look way too smug and, uh, (your small-and-shallow-god forbid), even gay.

Tell you what - before you religious conservatives start championing the cause of "traditional marriage", you should honor your own marriage vows! Sens. Ensign and Vitter, Gov. Sanford, former Rep. Pickering, former Sen. Craig, etc. All of them against giving taxpaying, voting GLBT Americans the same rights as straight ones do. And all of them were caught cheating on their wives.

Get your own house in order before you decide who others can marry.

If every law had a biblical foundation source, we would have slavery and Senator Ensign (and his mistress) would receive capital punishment for his adultery with his friend's wife (Leviticus 20:10).

We would open our borders and welcome all comers from the South (Leviticus 19:33).

Contrary to what narrow-minded Huckabees like Cal want, a cherry-picked biblical foundation is not the criteria for law in anything other than a theocracy. This includes civil unions.

If you're worried about what threatens marriage, harp on divorce and alcohol instead. Their are much bigger threats to your "sanctity" than your common enemy, bogey-man "gay agenda" scapegoat.

Well if God existed, you'd be right.

Since he does not, the argument does not hold.

What's that? He does exist?

I don't believe you. Let him speak for himself.

Tell him not to be shy, I won't bite.

it's just so silly: if you're against tutti-fruity ice cream, don't eat it, and if you're against gay marriages, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Jacob, a Patriarch, married both Leah and her sister Rachel. King David literally had hundreds of wives. So definitions of marriage can vary from book to book and even from verse to verse in the Bible. I really feel that people who "appeal to biblical precepts" on this issue are revealing that their own reading of the Bible is prejudiced by the religion and church in which they participate - and if they want to engage in a broader conversation with the rest of us, they need to first acknowledge that. "God said so" is a very freeing argument, but in this case it's either naive or intentionally misleading.

This may be the most insecure argument I have ever heard against any political issue ever.

If you need laws and a church to keep you in self control then you need to make sure never to own a gun, ever. Did you know we humans were able to survive way before any of these modern religions came into being? Did you know that murder was wrong before the 10 commandments? Oh lord how did they figure out how to build all them cities and stuff with out the bible.

Hmmm, Marriage: Sacred Rite
or Civil Right?

Both!!! (if you are heterosexual). There is another rite/right for homosexual coupless i.e. Mutual Masturbation (as noted by a simple Google/Bing search).

it is (incorrectly) arrogant, small-minded and preposterous to assert that laws about murder, theft etc...are "from the bible". these ideas existed long before the bible was written. the fact that they are IN the bible is commendable, but they are not FROM the bible. further, our laws are not FROM the bible either - if they were we'd have laws about how to cook goats, what to wear and most importantly to whom (and how) to pray. thank god the founders ignored the bible when making our laws.

Nanook here, from Canada, where we have had gay marriage for the last five years. And guess what? The sky has not fallen, the family unit is as strong as it has ever been, not one single religious person has been forced to perform a gay marriage ceremony, and organized religion is alive and hating everyone who isn't exactly like them each and every Sunday morning in chrches all around us (We even have a gay church because we also believe that God loves everybody. Radical, eh?). Not one of the religious right's prophesized disasters has come to pass. The lord has not brought fire and brimstone upon our sinning heads, nor have we been plagued by locusts or any other insects. We're doing just fine thank you. Gay marriage is about equality, folks, not religion. Once you make it about religion, then religion makes it about hatred, because as we have seen on these very pages and many, many others, hatred is what religious people do best. Heading back to the 'gloo for a little seal snack. See ya, eh?

This opinion could have been taken from the comment's section of any of these pieces. I hope this guy wasn't paid for this. Because his views are far from scholarly.

Thomas is the epitome of Christian conservative arrogance.

Not only can you be good without god, but there were good people in the world thousands of years before the human invention of organized religion.

What a patently silly argument from Cal. Why is he given a forum. I'm all for freedom of speech, but let him post this on his blog or in the comments section, but not as a columnist or discussion starter on the pages of the Washington Post online. There should be a minimum standard of coherency and cogency. Cal's tripe consistently fail to meet a basic standard.

Because the Bible says so would only be an effective argument if everyone in the United States agreed the Bible should be our Bill of Rights. It would still be a fallacious argument.

Arguments backed by biblical scripture are invalid and unsound in spite of or in addition to the scriptural element.

Be honest about why you oppose same-sex marriage. The mere thought of it disgusts you, and you don't want to feel that way. Am I right?

Epic fail, Cal.

-John Griffith

You're not advancing the dialogue whatsoever. I don't think the suggestion was throw out laws simply because they mirror moral laws set down in religious script.

Hopefully the goal of the state and of a religion is to promote a civil society. Outside of religion you may also promote a just society which may have very similar goals as religion but with fewer limitations. For example, just society suggests a man or woman should both be able to be a judge. In some religions, only a man can attain certain rank and privilege within the church.

Your assertion that same-sex marriage will lead to a communist regime is laughable. Will you, or anyone else, simply stop maintaining your faith if the couple across the street can marry? You don't have much faith if so. It's a perversion to say this debate is about what straight people cannot do once gays can marry. The debate is whether same-sex couples can marry and enjoy the same protections as their peers.

Sir, what does this have to do with unisex marriage? Seriously, where were you going with this?

You have failed to touch on the subject at hand-- marriage equality. Although, your lack of commentary makes it very obvious where your sentiments lie. You oppose homosexuals and their right to marry, on the premise of "The Bible says..." just like many other homophobic Fundamentalists out there. You justify this mindset by pointing out other times the Bible is cited for a political objective, despite those objectives had a liberating intention. Not oppressive, as denying basic civil rights to a group is, as shown not allowing homosexuals to marry. It's very sad.

Furthermore, we don't have to use the Bible for roots of Law. Murder, rape, etc. are merely things that would be detrimental to the society, thus you can't allow it. Cultures as a whole survive, because of rules set in place to unite that group and maintain some order. No theology should be necessary. Besides, murder, perjury, rape and so on, are all illegal in NonChristian nations too, so I'm sorry, you claiming that the Bible is the root of Law doesn't hold water.

Nice try, though.

We have laws because people are sinners and need to be restrained when they won't be constrained by the power and presence of God in their lives.
**************************************************************************************
We have laws against acts such as murder, rape, theft, and perjury because such acts involve one person deliberately doing harm to another person, which ultimately threatens the survival of our society. The tribe can't survive if its members are constantly attacking each other.
Allowing same-sex couples to marry will not in any way harm our society; therefore, there is no good reason to forbid it.