If getting married after a divorce is sinful...

[levi501]

Excellent point in this thread.
Fundies argue that an active homosexual is an unrepenting sinner while ignoring the far more pervasive unrepentant sin of heterosexual sex with someone other then the first person married.

 

[MethodMan]

It has everything to do with rights! Why should one part of the country be discriminated against because Christians don't like gay people? The last time I checked, we are not a theocracy, no matter how hard Bush is trying to change that.

Ok What right have they been denied?

 

[Lynden1000]

The OP only mentioned homosexuality tangentially. The main question - and the one no one has really addressed or answered - is why Christians do not make a concerted effort to ban remarriage after divorce when Jesus makes it about as unequivocally clear as he possibly could that such an act was adulterous.

I'm thinking that no such effort is made because Christians have simply given in to societal whims or have decided that such a ban against divorce would be just too darn inconvenient, thus they look for ways to "reinterpret" Jesus' words about divorce, much in the same way that the homosexual community tries to "reinterpret" biblical passages condemning homosexuality.

 

[MethodMan]

The OP only mentioned homosexuality tangentially. The main question - and the one no one has really addressed or answered - is why Christians do not make a concerted effort to ban remarriage after divorce when Jesus makes it about as unequivocally clear as he possibly could that such an act was adulterous.

As stated, the adulterous sistuation is an event. It is of Man's doctrine that the sin would continue. Why? If a man remarries under this doctrine, he would have to divorce his 2nd wife to make right the first act or remain celibate and sin of adultry against the second wife - thereby, he would have to commit a sin to correct sin. Some doctrines would say the second marriage was never sanctioned by God - Speaking for God. Again - that would be from a doctrine standpoint.

I'm thinking that no such effort is made because Christians have simply given in to societal whims or have decided that such a ban against divorce would be just too darn inconvenient, thus they look for ways to "reinterpret" Jesus' words about divorce, much in the same way that the homosexual community tries to "reinterpret" biblical passages condemning homosexuality.

Which is why I made the comment about expecting Christians to stop appearing to be hypocrits.

 

[Laura]

Ok What right have they been denied?

Uh...the right to get married and all that goes along with it (power of attorney, adopting children together, etc).

 

[MethodMan]

Uh...the right to get married and all that goes along with it (power of attorney, adopting children together, etc).

Those aren't rights - they are privilege

 

[Autumnleaf]

The New Testament makes it pretty clear that getting a divorce (with the possible exception of getting one after your partner commits adultery, depending on how you interpret things) is sinful, and that getting remarried after a divorce is committing adultery.

As such, why aren't Christians in the United States fighting to make marriage between two divorced people (again, with the possible exception of divorce after adultery by the other partner) illegal? Why aren't they fighting to make sure that those couples are not entitled to the same legal rights as couples who are married in a way God approves of?

There are far, far more people in that situation (being married after a divorce for a reason other than adultery) than there are people in same-sex relationships. This is a far, far more rampant sin (assuming you see same-sex relationships as sinful, but this is addressed to people who do).

So shouldn't making marriage illegal between two divorced people be far more important than fight gay marriage?

Good point about hypocrisy among adulterous Christians remarrying. We should be working just as hard against it as we are against gay marriage.

 

[beechy]

Those aren't rights - they are privilege

Marriage has been deemed a 14th Amendment fundamental privacy right under the U.S. Constitution. See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (Holding that "[m]arriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.") You may disagree with the Supreme Court, and that holding may change over time, but the current state of the law deems marriage a right, not a privilege.

 

[Laura]

Those aren't rights - they are privilege

So if you weren't allowed to get married, it would be okay? Because it's not a right, but a privilege?

And how do you earn the privilege of getting married anyway? Is there an test you have to take or something?

 

[Autumnleaf]

Marriage has been deemed a 14th Amendment fundamental privacy right under the U.S. Constitution. See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (Holding that "[m]arriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.") You may disagree with the Supreme Court, and that holding may change over time, but the current state of the law deems marriage a right, not a privilege.

At the time of that law marriage was defined as between man and woman. Not sure how it can be twisted...

 

[loriersea]

Good point about hypocrisy among adulterous Christians remarrying. We should be working just as hard against it as we are against gay marriage.

Why aren't they? After all, there are MANY more remarried couples, and it is far, far more socially acceptable, than same-sex relationships. So why are there no conservative Christians calling for this?

 

[beechy]

At the time of that law marriage was defined as between man and woman. Not sure how it can be twisted...

If the issue could be dismissed so simply, courts across the nation would not be reaching such varied conclusions (indeed, they wouldn't be hearing the cases at all).

I think the Massachusetts Supreme Court said it best in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health when it confirmed the lower court's observation that:

Marriage is a vital social institution ... The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In turn it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations.

The Mass. Supreme Court went on to affirm the lower court's ruling that it had "failed to identify any constitutionality [sic] adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples."

In other words, the fact that marriage may traditionally have been reserved for opposite sex couples does not mean that such a restriction is constitutional.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Marriage has been deemed a 14th Amendment fundamental privacy right under the U.S. Constitution. See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (Holding that "[m]arriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.") You may disagree with the Supreme Court, and that holding may change over time, but the current state of the law deems marriage a right, not a privilege.

Loving v. Virginia was a case involving a MAN and a WOMAN who faced CRIMINAL charges due to the participants being of different RACIAL heritage.
What the precedent did NOT do is remove ALL constitutional requirements that a State and/or its corresponding citizens use to qualify and grant recognition, benefits and/or incentives to their corresponding model of marriage.

IOW - there are many forms of marriage (not just same-gender) that still do not meet any one State's constitutional model of marriage and there is still the ability of any given group to have a marriage ceremony without requiring the State recognize it, enter into a legal contract i.e. wills, power of attorney, medical power of attorney, etc., and without it being a crime - pending complicating the issue with additional law considerations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_attorney

 

[MethodMan]

Marriage has been deemed a 14th Amendment fundamental privacy right under the U.S. Constitution. See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (Holding that "[m]arriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.") You may disagree with the Supreme Court, and that holding may change over time, but the current state of the law deems marriage a right, not a privilege.

Loving was specific to Viriginia's antimiscegenation law.


Gay people have not been denied marriage so the equal protection clause does not apply.

 

[MethodMan]

If the issue could be dismissed so simply, courts across the nation would not be reaching such varied conclusions (indeed, they wouldn't be hearing the cases at all).

I think the Massachusetts Supreme Court said it best in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health when it confirmed the lower court's observation that:


The Mass. Supreme Court went on to affirm the lower court's ruling that it had "failed to identify any constitutionality [sic] adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples."

In other words, the fact that marriage may traditionally have been reserved for opposite sex couples does not mean that such a restriction is constitutional.

In fact they ordered the state to make provisions, didn't they? Why hasn't the case made it to the Supreme Court?

 

[beechy]

Loving v. Virginia was a case involving a MAN and a WOMAN who faced CRIMINAL charges due to the participants being of different RACIAL heritage.
What the precedent did NOT do is remove ALL constitutional requirements that a State and/or its corresponding citizens use to qualify and grant recognition, benefits and/or incentives to their corresponding model of marriage.

Here we go again. First of all, why are you always so fixated on the criminal penalty in that case? It has no impact on Loving's precedential value with respect to marriage as a fundamental right. Loving has been upheld for this proposition in cases like Turner v. Safley 482 U.S. 78 (1987), and Zablocki v. Redhail 434 U.S. 374 (1978).

The fact that the parties in that case were a man and a woman also is not decisive because the court did not speak to the gender issue. That is, it did not say: Marriage is only between a man and a woman.

Are you saying that Loving is only useful for cases about interracial marriage? It has been cited for a much broader precedential proposition than you are suggesting. (Again, see Turner and Zablocki, supra).

IOW - there are many forms of marriage (not just same-gender) that still do not meet any one State's constitutional model of marriage and there is still the ability of any given group to have a marriage ceremony without requiring the State recognize it, enter into a legal contract i.e. wills, power of attorney, medical power of attorney, etc., and without it being a crime - pending complicating the issue with additional law considerations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_attorney

As you and I have pounded through in many a thread, the fact that a same-sex couple can achieve certain of the rights granted a married straight couple through private contractual means does not mean that the constitutional equal protection and due process requirements have been met. Moreover, not all of the rights granted a straight couple can be achieved privately, like how married spouses can't be compelled to testify against one another in court.

 

[beechy]

Gay people have not been denied marriage so the equal protection clause does not apply.

Again, and as I think you're probably aware, this dismissal is too simple. Insofar as marriage is, at it's heart, about choosing your partner, the argument is that it is being effectively denied gay people who would only choose someone of the same sex.

 

[beechy]

Loving was specific to Viriginia's antimiscegenation law.

Yes, that was the law at issue in that case. However, the constitutional questions addressed have application beyond those particular laws (See, e.g., Turner v. Safley and Zablocki v. Redhail as cited in my above post).

 

[MethodMan]

Again, and as I think you're probably aware, this dismissal is too simple. Insofar as marriage is, at it's heart, about choosing your partner, the argument is that it is being effectively denied gay people who would only choose someone of the same sex.

And yet you will fail to get the USSC to declare your postion on re-defining marriage as a constitutional right for quite some time. If it is not a constitutional right, were does this right come from?

 

[Autumnleaf]

Why aren't they? After all, there are MANY more remarried couples, and it is far, far more socially acceptable, than same-sex relationships. So why are there no conservative Christians calling for this?

You can't fight everything all the time. I suppose if you asked conservative Christian leaders they would agree remarriage is bad and done too often while they refuse to make too much fuss over it. Even the Catholic Church is accepting of it under the guise of marriage anullment for the first marriage. Maybe they are trying to avoid alienating their members who divorce and remarry. Such hypocrisy saddens me. I dread answering for others who partake of it because they know better and should not be doing it.

Personally, I address Christian remarriage in the re/marriage forums when it comes up. Of course, like many here point out, most Christians in the situation rationalize their way through it and accuse me of being legalistic for raining on their parade.