free hit counter
The Christian Case for Marriage Multiplicity - Redneck Clubhouse - Of, By and For Rednecks!

Sunday Gota Meetin' Religion and the discussion of right and wrong

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 5th, 2013, 03:35 PM
Rawlings's Avatar
Rawlings Rawlings is offline
Classical Liberal
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Heavenly Places
Posts: 287
Likes Given: 52
Liked 17 in 15 Posts
Rawlings has a spectacular aura aboutRawlings has a spectacular aura aboutRawlings has a spectacular aura aboutRawlings has a spectacular aura aboutRawlings has a spectacular aura aboutRawlings has a spectacular aura about
Default The Christian Case for Marriage Multiplicity

By John Zmirak • July 5, 2013
The American Conservative



Excerpt:
On the other hand, we should be very worried about the implications of marriage’s redefinition for the liberty of Christian citizens and their institutions. How far are we, really, from a court ordering the Catholic churches of California to perform homosexual unions—–and when the bishops refuse, fining the church into bankruptcy? Are we really that confident that future Supreme Court justices will see the First Amendment as trumping their inflated reading of the Fourteenth? Obviously, we have to fight. The issue is over what ground and with what weapons.

The ghost of civil marriage does not deserve our loyalty. In fighting for it, we are going against the grain of American individualism and goading libertarians to join our enemies—–who will, as always, use them then toss them aside. Instead, we can make common cause with libertarians and invoke for our self-defense some cherished American principles, such as freedom of association, contract, and even religion.

And here is how: instead of demanding that the state enforce a single model of marriage contract—–one that is already hopelessly compromised—–we embrace freedom of contract and insist on it for ourselves.

. . . An arrangement like this should entirely satisfy the libertarian demand for freedom of association and contract—and claim it also for Christians. Christians should be satisfied that our model will prevail without the assistance and entanglement of the state. Of course, the Rousseauian left will not be satisfied: they will settle for nothing less than state-enforced “virtue” and mandatory “freedom.” But with this strategic retreat to more defensible ground, Christians and other social traditionalists will gain breathing room. We don’t need a Theodosius, but without a Constantine we may well find ourselves in the catacombs once again.
The Christian Case for Marriage Multiplicity | The American Conservative
__________________________________________________ _________

I've been arguing this for years. This is not merely the correct response for Christians, but for all freedom-loving persons fed up with the left shoving its "morality" via the state, i.e., the tyranny of state-enforced “virtue” and mandatory “freedom.”
__________________


Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there is without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters. —Edmund Burke

Last edited by Rawlings; July 5th, 2013 at 04:05 PM.
  #2  
Old July 6th, 2013, 06:11 PM
trlrtrash13's Avatar
trlrtrash13 trlrtrash13 is offline
Trailer Park Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Trailer Park
Posts: 4,295
Likes Given: 397
Liked 972 in 790 Posts
trlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to beholdtrlrtrash13 is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rawlings View Post
And here is how: instead of demanding that the state enforce a single model of marriage contract—–one that is already hopelessly compromised—–we embrace freedom of contract and insist on it for ourselves.
This is a very reasonable approach, but I'm not sure how much support it could garner with the religious right at the moment, nor the "Just Say No" wing of the Republican party formerly known as the Tea Party. They have shown a staunch determination to cut off their nose, even if their face insists it will not feel the spite.
__________________

You know what date is on this coin? 1958. It's been traveling 22 years to get here. And now it's here. And it's either heads or tails, and you have to say. Call it.
  #3  
Old July 7th, 2013, 02:03 AM
moomin's Avatar
moomin moomin is offline
€COM#1
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: The Freezer
Posts: 6,994
Likes Given: 766
Liked 1,828 in 1,622 Posts
moomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant future
Default

A sensible approach backed by taxpayer money. Unless, of course, you don't want perks and tax breaks for the local Lacrosse team when they marry.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content copyright ©2000 - 2018 usmessageboards.com all rights reserved