THE FOLLOWING IS TOO GOOD TO BE HIDDEN

The following is too good to be hidden in the Replies to some numbskull's Comment online. So, my apologies, JohnL, but I am "outing" your brilliant reply! (With very minor punctuation editing.)

"Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

"When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

"I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

"I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15:19- 24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

"Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

"I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

"A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

"Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

"Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

"I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

"My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?  (Lev.24:10-16).  Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14).

"I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging."

(Post by JohnL in Comments section of a yahoo news story, 23 April 2013. Yahoo won't let me post the URL.)

MARRIAGE EQUALITY AGAIN

In the United States, the principal Constitutional arguments in favor of same-sex marriage are the following:

--First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” 

--Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U. S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 1):

“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. …” 

--Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U. S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, also known as the Comity Clause):

“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” 

--Privileges or Immunities Clause of the U. S. Constitution (Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 2):

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  

In invoking these Articles and Amendments, we remember that their original and enduring purpose and intention have been specifically to protect minorities against oppression by majorities. 

The main arguments against same-sex marriage (either preachments about morality based on the supposed edicts of somebody’s god, or gross expressions of disgust) are refuted by the following facts:

1. In the United States, the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion (in the First Amendment) protects both sides of the marriage-equality controversy:  The religious groups that condemn homosexuality cannot be forced to perform or recognize same-sex marriages; but groups that accept same-sex marriage are free to do so—and the state, which may not establish (impose) any religion, may not impose either a ban or an acceptance.  This includes the individual States, whose laws must conform to the Constitution.

2. Ignorant people confuse “marriage” with the “Holy Matrimony” of the Christian wedding service, which is for them a divine dispensation.  The secularization of American society has contributed to this confusion by increasingly ignoring the religious phrase and substituting “marriage.”   

3. Marriage is not “Holy Matrimony.”  “Holy Matrimony” is a specifically Christian religious concept (its defenders base their argument on the Christian Bible and its god), and it is not shared by many other religions—not even all Christian churches admit “Holy Matrimony” as a “sacrament”—and in  the United States this religious concept (including the idea that a union between two people must be only between one man and one woman) cannot be imposed by some citizens on others without violating the First Amendment.

4. Unlike the state regulation of marriage, religious ceremonies like those of “Holy Matrimony” are not a legal requirement in most countries except a few theocracies (like the Islamic countries that brought us the Taliban, al-Qaeda and DAESH) or borderline theocracies with a state religion (like the Catholic military dictatorships of Franco’s Spain and most Latin American countries not long ago).  

5. Marriage (not “Holy Matrimony”) is a civil contract registered with and regulated by the state.  It is, in effect, a kind of incorporation.  That is why couples are required by law to go to a demographic registry and fill out a marriage license.  They register with the state. 

6. Marriage (not “Holy Matrimony”) existed all over the world long before Christianity, and still exists outside Christianity, in order to ensure the orderly transfer of property—and not just through inheritance.   That is why modern countries require a state-issued marriage license and, if the marriage is dissolved, a civil divorce decree that, among other things, apportions the couple’s assets and assigns obligations, sometimes as established by law.  The prenuptial agreements that dispose of the couple’s property in the case of a dissolution of the marriage are contracts—modifications of marriage contracts. 

7. In plain English, couples have “contracted marriage” for centuries, and have been regarded as in a valid marriage as soon as they or their representatives have signed a “marriage contract” or even made a witnessed “oral contract” to marry, leaving the church wedding for later.  Western history is replete with examples and discussions of this fact, amply demonstrated in the controversies over the marriages of  Eleanor of Aquitaine, and of Henry VIII of England, to cite only the most famous.  (The practice is corroborated by the wedding of Grace Kelly and Prince Rainier of Monaco in 1956: as required by Monegasque law, the couple signed a civil contract in the throne room of the Grimaldi palace the day before the church wedding in the cathedral of Monte Carlo.)  Everyone with a little property did this, not just royalty.  This practice explains why a person who proposes marriage and then backs out can be sued for “breach of contract” (the recognized alternate wording is “breach of promise”).  As a side-light, look up “handfasting.”  

8. Through marriage, the state recognizes the common rights and obligations of two people (two for most of us, except that the Bible relates that Yaweh allowed Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and presumably anyone else, a variable plurality of wives—and except in Islam, which allows a man up to four wives and an unspecified number of “concubines” [sex slaves], a few other non-Western societies, and—until well into the 20th century—Mormonism, an offshoot of 19th-century American Evangelical Christianity). These rights include the right to shared property and the obligation to honor debts contracted by the couple.  (Ask any divorced person who had a joint credit card.)  Tax relief and other privileges conceded by the state are also included.  

9. These and the other rights and obligations of marriage are civil rights and obligations, and therefore, under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, they may not be denied to any adult citizens capable of functioning as members of the state.   

10. Furthermore, regulation of  marriage is not necessarily a States’ right.  In the first place, the Supreme Court overrides States’ rights at will: In Brown v Board of Education (1954), in order to integrate the races in public schools, the Supreme Court arrogated to itself the previously recognized right of the States to regulate and control public education.   

11. More important, in Loving v Virginia (1967), when it struck down State laws that made interracial marriages illegal, null and void, the Court superseded the States’ right to regulate marriage.  And it was a unanimous decision.  So there is nothing constitutionally inviolable about the States’ “right” to regulate marriage—including the “right” to define marriage.   

12. Reactionary homophobic Christians, Jews and Muslims try to tie marriage to reproductive capacity. Yet many humans as well as all other kinds of organisms reproduce and bring up their young without benefit of marriage.  Single-parent families have always existed and are an ever growing sector in the U. S.  On the other hand, many marriages are barren, while orphanages all around the globe are overcrowded.   Is God not doing His job?   

13. Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize abortion in Roe v Wade (1973)—abrogating, by the way, the States’ supposed right to control abortion—breaks all juridical links between marriage and reproduction.  That is, if reproduction were the justification for marriage, then killing the unborn, thus thwarting the reproductive process, would invalidate the marriage. But the Court made no such pronouncement in announcing its decision in Roe v Wade, and no court challenges to marriages ensued.  Marriages remained valid.  Therefore the reproductive function cannot be said to be the basis for marriage, and its absence cannot justify prohibiting marriage.    

14. In fact, the societies which most forcibly linked marriage to reproduction did so in order to maintain population numbers as a prop for their imperialist expansion—the ancient Hebrews, the Roman Empire and Nazi  Germany—all notoriously non-Christian. This is plainly shown in the Old Testament, the surviving texts of Roman law and in Roman histories contemporaneous with them, and records, still in existence, of Nazi laws and propaganda.   

In summary, the difference between (A) what the Constitution of the United States allows or protects and (B) what a large part of the population approves of should be perfectly clear to anyone with any capacity for logical reasoning.  A is not equal to B. --- B is not equal to A.