ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, March 06, 2015

The danger of being correct

It's fascinating how the New York Times buries the lede in its complaint about the Alabama Supreme Court's failure to do what it is under no legal burden to do in the first place.
ON Tuesday the Supreme Court of Alabama prohibited the state’s probate judges from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This decision effectively throws down the gauntlet, challenging the federal courts to make earlier federal rulings stick — including last month’s refusal by the United States Supreme Court to stay a federal judge’s decision requiring the state to recognize same-sex marriages. It draws on a disturbing line of thinking in the history of American federalism, one that, were it to gain currency as a model, could compromise our entire system of law....

Since the United States Supreme Court will rule on gay marriage in June, it’s easy to dismiss the Alabama court’s ruling as quixotic. But it raises a real issue: not what state courts can do, but rather what they should do. Because state and federal courts operate on entirely separate tracks, the state court’s position that it need not follow lower federal court rulings is technically correct. Yet if our judicial system is to function smoothly, both court systems must, from time to time, refrain from exercising their legal discretion to ignore the other’s handiwork.
Apparently the New York Times is operating on outcomes-based logic. We're supposed to believe that our entire system of law is threatened by a state court's legally correct position? If being correct is "dangerous defiance", what does that make those being defied?

Labels:

214 Comments:

1 – 200 of 214 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Quartermaster March 06, 2015 8:13 AM  

Much of our "legal" system is lawless. They uphold what they want, rather than the law. The Federal courts are quite bad about this and have demonstrated it clearly with queer faux-marriage.

Anonymous Salt March 06, 2015 8:24 AM  

Even the Courts have worked on outcome based logic. Here, if I read this correctly, the NYT is merely pointing to the obvious end which we're on the road towards and with which it agrees. Problem is, there are people who still wish to see our system per the rubric of what was, being termed "dangerous defiance", not what is now.

"But it raises a real issue: not what state courts can do, but rather what they should do."

Nothing new here. The dismantling of America continues. What is obvious, though, is that the dangerous defiance shall be truly dangerous once it becomes openly belligerent. Battle lines are being drawn.

Anonymous Stingray March 06, 2015 8:24 AM  

not what state courts can do, but rather what they should do.

What a telling statement.

Blogger bob k. mando March 06, 2015 8:31 AM  

Stingray March 06, 2015 8:24 AM
not what state courts can do, but rather what they should do.



of course, the Constitution was written with the idea that the .gov should be responsive to THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

but not ALL of the people ... because MPAI. rather the will the people who qualify for the franchise.

( which is why Representatives used to be far more respected than Senators, because Senators represented the will of the State bureaucracies )

considering that almost every single time this issue has been put to a vote ( even in California ) it gets shot down by a federal judge ... as in accordance with the 10 Amendment ...

there's a lot of federal judges need impeachin'.

Blogger Josh March 06, 2015 8:31 AM  

SEC SEC SEC

Anonymous clk March 06, 2015 8:33 AM  

0nce the scotus rules on the gay marriage issue it becomes a federal right and will overrule the local state courts.... and this is one if those mixed fed/state issues.... which ultimately ends up in fedral hands.

Simplistically I would argue that anything based in the bill of rights would be a fed juristiction issue....

Blogger Nate March 06, 2015 8:34 AM  

I mean the state's motto is "We Dare Defend Our Rights". And the Times is surprised? Really?

The amendment to the state constitution passed just a few years ago by a margin that borders the insane. You would have a hard time getting that big a majority to agree on what day of the week it is. And they wonder why the Alabama Courts are pushing back?

And isn't it interesting how important tradition and protocol are now that the liberals want to protect their new territory.

Blogger Nate March 06, 2015 8:36 AM  

"0nce the scotus rules on the gay marriage issue it becomes a federal right and will overrule the local state courts.... and this is one if those mixed fed/state issues.... which ultimately ends up in fedral hands."

Bama's preparing for that already.

The state will simply get out of marriage completely. That's already started.

Blogger toadbile March 06, 2015 8:36 AM  

NYT calls it "dangerous defiance" because it's "come the revolution your kind will be the first up against the wall" kind of dangerous; they are so close to achieving their dream they can smell the crematoriums.

Blogger Nate March 06, 2015 8:41 AM  

'NYT calls it "dangerous defiance" because it's "come the revolution your kind will be the first up against the wall" kind of dangerous;"

That revolution happened 50 years ago.

Come the next revolution... it will be the lefties up against the wall.

Anonymous Salt March 06, 2015 8:42 AM  

they are so close to achieving their dream they can smell the crematoriums.

They do think they are. Little do they know, though, that the sound of the bell is not of their victory. Tell them, "The bell tolls for thee."

Anonymous dh March 06, 2015 8:52 AM  

Nate--

The state will simply get out of marriage completely. That's already started.

If the idiot Karl Rove had of pushed that back 10-15 years ago, instead of wedge gay marriage amendments, we wouldn't still be talking about gay marriage, at all.

Instead, now the GOP has invited the big hand of government into their knickers to give things a twist.

Time for a reset. Issue no licenses, issue no benefits based on marriage, issue nothing at all looking like a positive based on marriage.

Anonymous Alexander March 06, 2015 8:55 AM  

The Iron Law of Utopic Fantasies strikes again:

Whenever an entity pictures the coming revolution, they always envision themselves as the future commissar, not the newly decreed peasant, and certainly not the anonymous body in the ditch.

NYT, maybe you ought to expand your selection of possible future outcomes...

Anonymous Difster March 06, 2015 9:03 AM  

Guys like Ron Paul and Tom Woods have been talking about nullification of Federal law for a long time. The states simply need to start ignoring Federal mandates that they see are unconstitutional. The Federal government has zero standing to rule on marriage related issues because the Constitution doesn't grant them that authority.

Blogger Student in Blue March 06, 2015 9:04 AM  

It makes me wonder if, 100 years into the future, people will look at today's times and conclude that the coming great instability was caused by people being "intolerant of gay marriage".

Kinda like how the 'Civil War' is painted as being solely about slavery.

Anonymous dh March 06, 2015 9:07 AM  

Difster, I dont know about you, but I am excited to find out which way the Supreme Court goes in making up new rights. It could go that the 5th amendment creates a penumbra of rights that overshadows marriage, it could go to the 3rd amendment inculcates equality of marriage, it could go back to the old stand by "interstate commerce", or yes it could go the international law route.

Can't wait really. But whats not in question is that the Court is going to rule that the lower court circuit split forces them to create a uniform legal basis for gay marriage.

Anonymous Rabbi B March 06, 2015 9:18 AM  

There is a very simple solution to all of this brouhaha:

GET THE STATE COMPLETELY OUT OF THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

The state has no business defining what marriage is, creating it, or dissolving it. It is a religious institution ordained and defined by G-d:

"Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' "and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man [or the state] separate."

Whether one holds to a Biblical worldview or not is irrelevant. No one in his right mind should want a sliver of state involvement.

There are not a lot of silver bullets in life, but I think forbidding the state from having anything at all to do with the religious institution of marriage would be one silver bullet that would mean the death knell, on multiple levels, of one of the most destructive state-run systems ever created. There is nothing that has served to undermine the family more.

In the same way that a government may base its authority on pre-existing laws, ("self-evident truths" of G-d, such as are enumerated in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights), true marriage is established by G-d and not by earthly governments. Any marriage license (a fairly recent 'requirement', by the way) which a government issues simply reflects and recognizes "that which G-d has joined together", but it does not create a marriage, nor may it dissolve one.

The push for gay marriage is merely the symptom of an insidious disease that far too few have the tenacity or iron will it will to eradicate. As is too often the case, well-meaning people only continue to react to the enemies' tactics and have little idea about which battles are key to decisively winning this war, let alone how to wage war more effectively than their opponents who, at least for now, are successfully framing this fight on their own terms and cunningly choosing the best ground to fight on.

This is a war worth fighting. Is it not a war for for the preservation of Western civilization itself, of which the family is one of the most basic foundations stones? The family unit makes up the strength (or weakness) of a nation, and when marriages (even bad ones) remain intact, a nation is strong.






Anonymous MrGreenMan March 06, 2015 9:24 AM  

If we operated on the principle that there was no need for a trial, but we should just act how we know the Supreme Court will decide since everybody knows how it will decide anyway, Obamacare would have been shut down and forgotten on the ash heap of Mr. Obama's one-and-done first term. Another principle for thee not me.

Anonymous Stilicho March 06, 2015 9:24 AM  

The state will simply get out of marriage completely. That's already started.

Yep. There is no doubt that the Supreme Court will find a right to homosexual marriage emanating from the penumbras. The next battlefield will be forcing states like Alabama to recognize gay marriages from other states under the full faith and credit clause. It's rather telling that leftists will argue that exercise of a "right" that has no basis in the Constitution in one state must be recognized in another, and simultaneously argue that the exercise of an enumerated right (concealed carry permits) need not be recognized by other states. It's who/whom all the way down.

Time for a reset. Issue no licenses, issue no benefits based on marriage, issue nothing at all looking like a positive based on marriage.

Can't argue with that.

Blogger Nate March 06, 2015 9:29 AM  

'Time for a reset. Issue no licenses, issue no benefits based on marriage, issue nothing at all looking like a positive based on marriage."

Different counties handled it differently... Baldwin County for example simply forbid all county employees from marrying anyone. They gave out licenses to anyone.. but... If you want to get married in Baldwin county... you have to go to a church to get it done. good luck finding a church in baldwin county that will do that for ya. (actually now there are two fake churches set up by gays to do exacty that).

Many other counties just stopped giving out marriage licenses completely. Which I believe was a better plan.

Anonymous John Regan March 06, 2015 9:31 AM  

They totally ripped off the idea of that op-ed from me

Anonymous Crude March 06, 2015 9:35 AM  

Yet if our judicial system is to function smoothly,

Smooth functioning of the judicial system is not my primary concern. Is it anyone's?

Anonymous Roundtine March 06, 2015 9:37 AM  

One more area of law being ignored by the states. Move along.

Anonymous viking March 06, 2015 9:38 AM  

It is funny that they think that the actions of the state supreme court "could compromise our entire system of law" as opposed to the habit of federal and other courts to create new law out of thin air and pass rulings that are no more than a given judges preference. Seems like that is much more a threat to our system.

Blogger grendel March 06, 2015 9:40 AM  

It's so predictable how everything becomes a rule of law issue with the leftard concern trolls when they're not getting their way.

Anonymous bw March 06, 2015 9:44 AM  

were it to gain currency as a model, could compromise our entire system of law...

That is so 19th Cent

everything becomes a rule of law issue with the leftard concern trolls when they're not getting their way.

Because they are liars, they are forced into these inconsistencies, and anyone enabling them thus becomes a liar as well.

Anonymous John Regan March 06, 2015 9:45 AM  

@grendel: yes, the 'rule of law' is applied very selectively by the left.

Anonymous Stilicho March 06, 2015 9:46 AM  

First you demonstrate the morality of your position:

The state has no business defining what marriage is, creating it, or dissolving it. It is a religious institution ordained and defined by G-d:

"Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' "and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man [or the state] separate." ...

In the same way that a government may base its authority on pre-existing laws, ("self-evident truths" of G-d, such as are enumerated in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights), true marriage is established by G-d and not by earthly governments. Any marriage license (a fairly recent 'requirement', by the way) which a government issues simply reflects and recognizes "that which G-d has joined together", but it does not create a marriage, nor may it dissolve one...
This is a war worth fighting. Is it not a war for for the preservation of Western civilization itself, of which the family is one of the most basic foundations stones? The family unit makes up the strength (or weakness) of a nation, and when marriages (even bad ones) remain intact, a nation is strong.


Then you demonstrate the immorality of the enemy's position:

There are not a lot of silver bullets in life, but I think forbidding the state from having anything at all to do with the religious institution of marriage would be one silver bullet that would mean the death knell, on multiple levels, of one of the most destructive state-run systems ever created. There is nothing that has served to undermine the family more...
The push for gay marriage is merely the symptom of an insidious disease ..


Then you chose a battlefield where the enemy is at a disadvantage:


Guys like Ron Paul and Tom Woods have been talking about nullification of Federal law for a long time. The states simply need to start ignoring Federal mandates that they see are unconstitutional. The Federal government has zero standing to rule on marriage related issues because the Constitution doesn't grant them that authority.

Then you close with and destroy the enemy or let him destroy himself as the case may be.

Anonymous Roundtine March 06, 2015 9:49 AM  

Because they are liars, they are forced into these inconsistencies, and anyone enabling them thus becomes a liar as well.
Ding ding ding. Watching Russ Douthat tie himself in knots over the Burwell v King case had me thinking the exact same thing. Charlie Brownism.

Anonymous Stilicho March 06, 2015 9:52 AM  

One more area of law being ignored by the states.

That's what's so encouraging about the state level movement to legalize pot...just states ignoring D.C. This will only increase as D.C. has less wealth with which to bribe the states.

Anonymous DissidentRight March 06, 2015 9:56 AM  

Guys like Ron Paul and Tom Woods have been talking about nullification of Federal law for a long time.

Tom Woods' writings on nullification are excellent. I would like to see states take the next step after that: declare that since every branch of the Federal government has a longstanding policy of plainly misinterpreting and ignoring the Constitution, and that since the states only created the Federal government to serve their interests (as indicated in the Constitution), that the long-suffering states will finally be withdrawing any and every delegated sovereign powers that they please.

For all the people who think the State should have zero involvement in marriage: have you considered that this means the State can't resolve disputes over marriage, like divorce and child custody? Even if you want to go the anarchocapitalist route with private courts, you are still going to need some kind of entity to resolve marital disputes, which means entity will need to have a legal definition of marriage. The government of any functional society (whatever form that government takes) will absolutely need to be involved in marriage.

could compromise our entire system of law

Sounds like a feature, not a bug, since our system of "law" involves a bunch of dictators making everything up as they go along.

Blogger JDC March 06, 2015 9:59 AM  

In my old ELCA days I saw this practiced regularly. Many of us knew they wanted to allow same-sex blessings in the churches, and to ordain homosexual clergy (by they I mean the higher ups - the executive council and the presiding bishop). So what happened when a St. Paul church ordained their own pastor - an outspoken homosexual? Not much...the congregation wasn't allowed to vote for one year and then the sanctions were later lifted. In their ruling they stated that they wanted to use discretion in discipline. Discretion, because they knew where they would be taking the church in the upcoming years.

I also personally acknowledge my own tendency to do this very thing.

The state will simply get out of marriage completely. That's already started.

At my last conference we discussed this for the LCMS. Our church (and many other churches) are already taking this step by changing our constitutions to read that we will no longer participate in the state sanctioning of marriages. We will still be performing weddings, I just won't be signing any marriage certificates. Some people have grumbled about what message this sends to the community (e.g. we won't be seen as welcoming). My simple response was so what...if the government is going to play around with the definition of what constitutes a marriage - it is our duty to stand up for what we believe in.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 10:16 AM  

".....have you considered that this means the State can't resolve disputes over marriage, like divorce and child custody? Even if you want to go the anarchocapitalist route with private courts, you are still going to need some kind of entity to resolve marital disputes, which means entity will need to have a legal definition of marriage."

Yes, I have, and I had this very much in mind when I posted my earlier comment. It would be the best thing that could ever happen. This is perhaps the most destructive part. Divorce lawyers, family courts, and all the officials who populate them make their livings destroying families. I do not know how they sleep at night, to be honest. It's a bogus argument. I'll resolve my own family disputes, thank you very much.

Modern notions of property inheritance and disposition, the "power of the purse", division of assets, etc. are just that: Very modern notions. Strictly within the biblical paradigm, modern society's ideas about marriage and divorce are untenable and unsupportable. What's good for the gander is not good for the goose.

"you are still going to need some kind of entity to resolve marital disputes"

Why?

Anonymous Alexander March 06, 2015 10:22 AM  

Maybe, if there wasn't a government program to hold your hand all the way and plunder families of their financial assets while breaking apart the most basic unit of civilization...

... people would take it more seriously, and be less inclined to cause disputes in the first place, and more promptly and reasonably settle the disputes that did occur.

The 'entity' however, does exist. It's called your family, her family, your church, your community. Government has done an excellent job of denouncing each of these in turn and to varying degrees destroying them, and then acting shocked that it is the only 'solution' left in the room.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 10:22 AM  

"My simple response was so what...if the government is going to play around with the definition of what constitutes a marriage - it is our duty to stand up for what we believe in."

And it's our duty to stop rolling over and take back what was stolen from us. The sooner the better.

"you are still going to need some kind of entity to resolve marital disputes, which means entity will need to have a legal definition of marriage.""

No. A thousand times, no. The state is not allowed to resolve anything and therefore it has no need to define anything either. No quarter can be given to this enemy, the stakes are simply too high.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 10:25 AM  

". people would take it more seriously, and be less inclined to cause disputes in the first place, and more promptly and reasonably settle the disputes that did occur."

A friend of mine described to me how his father required siblings who argued with each other to remain in the same room together until the argument was resolved and harmony again reigned.

One of the most basic principles of life: They were forced to work it out, to compromise, to show deference to the other, to demonstrate love. Notice that I did not say, "feel love".

A society which requires married couples to get along and does not provide an escape hatch will be stronger for it, will be far tougher and more resilient, resistant to adversity in other areas: economically, militarily, politically and morally.

Does anyone actually think the state has any vested interested in this most basic of principles?

Anonymous Stilicho March 06, 2015 10:27 AM  

For all the people who think the State should have zero involvement in marriage: have you considered that this means the State can't resolve disputes over marriage, like divorce and child custody? Even if you want to go the anarchocapitalist route with private courts, you are still going to need some kind of entity to resolve marital disputes, which means entity will need to have a legal definition of marriage. The government of any functional society (whatever form that government takes) will absolutely need to be involved in marriage.\

No.

The legal aspect of divorce is simply a matter of dividing commingled assets. No different than two cohabitants going their separate ways who previously had joint accounts or joint ownership of property.

Child custody would be no different legally for married vs unmarried parents.

Anonymous Stilicho March 06, 2015 10:30 AM  

The state is not allowed to resolve anything and therefore it has no need to define anything either. No quarter can be given to this enemy, the stakes are simply too high.

The state has already surrendered this issue from a legal perspective when it allowed unwed mothers to treat the fathers the same as ex-husbands for support purposes. Ditto on the issue of assets and cohabitation.

Anonymous Sevron March 06, 2015 10:32 AM  

I could see having a law or laws to govern the rights of parents to their children, and simple common asset laws that amount to "Anything you owned before your mutual living arrangement is yours, anything purchased during is split 50/50". I'm not saying that's the most fair, but the only practical way I can think of to keep the lawyers out is to have simple, inflexible rules.

Anonymous Alexander March 06, 2015 10:34 AM  

Ah, well then, that's really simple.

Divorce is outlawed. Legitimate children are by right are in the custody of a father if the mother separates herself from the family, bastards belong to the mother.

There, I have given you a simple, inflexible law. And like you, I am not concerned if it is fair or not.

Anonymous Alexander March 06, 2015 10:36 AM  

Asset division is a non-issue because divorce is not recognized.

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 10:38 AM  

Lincoln was a monster. I don't get how forced political union is any less evil than forced economic union.

Blogger Nate March 06, 2015 10:39 AM  

"Lincoln was a monster. I don't get how forced political union is any less evil than forced economic union."

that moment... when I must acknowledge agreement with wrf3... no matter how awkward it is.

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 10:39 AM  

Nate wrote: The state will simply get out of marriage completely. That's already started.

How will that happen, unless the state gets out of divorce completely?

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 10:40 AM  

There, I have given you a simple, inflexible law.

Thank you . .

Occam's Razor . . .

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate . . .

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 10:42 AM  

"How will that happen, unless the state gets out of divorce completely?"

Simple logic. If it's out of marriage completely, it is also out of divorce completely. How can you exercise the authority to dissolve something you did not create? Simple.

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 10:45 AM  

Rabbi B wrote: How can you exercise the authority to dissolve something you did not create?

It's easy. The same way it started before. People who are married under the aegis of the church refusing to submit to the authority of the church for the dissolution of a contract and thereby going to the state for redress. The state will be more than happy to expand their sphere of influence.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 10:46 AM  

There are rights that are INALIENABLE . . . we did not create them and they are self-evident. The state is not permitted to infringe upon these rights, but to help preserve and protect them.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera March 06, 2015 10:48 AM  

>0nce the scotus rules on the gay marriage issue it becomes a federal right and will overrule the local state courts....

Why the zero in place of the letter 'O'?

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 10:49 AM  

" . . . going to the state for redress."

Not if the state refused. Which they should.

"The state will be more than happy to expand their sphere of influence."

Well, no kidding.

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 10:50 AM  

Rabbi B wrote: There are rights that are INALIENABLE . . . we did not create them and they are self-evident.

You drank the kool-aid, didn't you? If they were both inalienable and self-evident, all nations at all times would adhere to them. But they don't. Furthermore, the US is moving away from them because they aren't self-evident to the newer generations. Rabbits don't live like wolves. They never have and they never will.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera March 06, 2015 10:51 AM  

OT: Alpha Game ate two of my comments. I was logged in to WP, went to the "Trust this site with your blah blah?" page, said yes, then the post loaded back up and *poof*, nothing.

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 10:52 AM  

Rabbi B wrote: Not if the state refused. Which they should.

Goodness, but that kool-aid must be powerful stuff. How can they, when the very purpose of a state is to settle redress?

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 10:52 AM  

Can anyone refute Alexander's 'inflexible law'? I believe it is based firmly in precedent.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 10:54 AM  

" . . .that kool-aid must be powerful stuff."

The Kool-aid is not kosher.

"How can they, when the very purpose of a state is to settle redress?"

Not in matters related to marriage and family.

Anonymous Alexander March 06, 2015 10:55 AM  

What would the state redress? A church cannot force anyone to split or not split assets, or remain or not remain in a home, or declare or not declare yourself divorced. All a church can do to punish someone who breaks the church contract is to refuse that person admittance into the church.

Which they certainly should do, but unless the state is going to demand that the church admit John Doe (which I'm sure they'd love the power), there's nothing for them to do.

It's because the state bundles so much of its law with the marital status that is has so much power in divorce. But marriage with little legal power but enforced by social acceptance does not grant the state the same opportunities.

Anonymous Stilicho March 06, 2015 10:59 AM  

How will that happen, unless the state gets out of divorce completely?

It doesn't have to get out of divorce. What happens when two, unmarried cohabitants who have a child and jointly held assets split up and cannot agree on custody/visitation and division of assets? The courts decide those issues on the same basis as it does for married couples. It just isn't called a divorce. I'm not advocating for divorce here, I'm simply stating that the legal mechanism generally operates in the same manner for married vs unmarried couples. In those states where it does not (in some particulars, anyway) due to archaic notions of dowry, alimony, etc., it is far easier to alter those few laws than it is to redefine the basic building block of society.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 11:00 AM  

@wrf3

If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!

The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?

Anonymous Stilicho March 06, 2015 11:02 AM  

It's because the state bundles so much of its law with the marital status that is has so much power in divorce.

No. This is a misapprehension of the role of the state in divorce. The state declares the marriage ended, but its primary role is resolving disputes about children and assets...the same issues it deals with when unmarried cohabitants split up.

Blogger Student in Blue March 06, 2015 11:04 AM  

@wrf3
You drank the kool-aid, didn't you? If they were both inalienable and self-evident, all nations at all times would adhere to them.

So you're saying that the founders of the US and authors of the Declaration of Independence were whackos and Kool-Aid drinkers? Because they used the exact same kind of language for similar things.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 11:06 AM  

@wrf3

Before someone objects that the passage is referring to believers, my point is that the passage contains some basic principles. My main point being that there are matters the state is not competent to judge or resolve.

But then again ... the divorce rate among professing believers runs higher than most. They seem more than happy to get in bed with the state if it suits their desire to end it - no matter the reason.

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 11:11 AM  

Rabbi B wrote: If any of you has a dispute with another...

Just a reminder that I know the Scriptures better than you do. What you don't seem to want to face is that the church can't enforce that its member adhere to this. It's purely voluntary. If one person wants to run to the state for redress, there's nothing that the church can do about it, and the state isn't going to say "no" to an expansion of its powers.

Anonymous Difster March 06, 2015 11:13 AM  

Marriage, from a legal standpoint should be handled no differently than any other contract dispute that goes to court. The legal system should only see it as a contract. And generally, disputes should be handled through mediation rather than the court. In fact, the marriage contract could specify that.

There need be no legal definition of marriage just as there is no legal definition of Software Service Contract that makes it special or different than any other type of private contract.

Blogger CM March 06, 2015 11:14 AM  

My big question is insurance... the intrusion on marriage by the state began as simple record keeping for census. The historian in me likes that.

I have been a big fan of how Augustan Rome took care of marriage... a marriage formed by contract with witnesses had to be dissolved by contract with witnesses. Of couse government not involved could require the same if a dispute was brought to the court.... bring them evidence of your marriage and dissolution in civil court. And insurance companies or any other entity that needed documentation could request the same.

So documentation becomes more like receipt or proof of purchase than a legal license in the hands of the government.

Anonymous DissidentRight March 06, 2015 11:14 AM  

Divorce lawyers, family courts, and all the officials who populate them make their livings destroying families.

They do that NOW, but it was not always so, nor do you want to build a society where that is so.

"you are still going to need some kind of entity to resolve marital disputes"

Why?


Because people have disputes over marriage and children just like they have disputes over contracts and property rights. The idea that society can exist without a formal method for resolving disputes is naive. In fact, having a good formal method is a hallmark of good society.

Strictly within the biblical paradigm, modern society's ideas about marriage and divorce are untenable and unsupportable.

And? Say you think your wife has committed adultery. Punishment: stoning. Your wife claims innocence. Who resolves the dispute, and how do they do it?

people would take it more seriously, and be less inclined to cause disputes in the first place, and more promptly and reasonably settle the disputes that did occur.

I agree. But you've just mitigated the problem, you haven't eliminated it. The problem of serious, thoughtful disputes will remain. And it's essential that they be resolved in an equitable, objective manner.

The 'entity' however, does exist. It's called your family, her family, your church, your community.

And if any of those four separate entities disagree over the resolution (seems more than likely), what then? Which of those entities can be considered experts at authenticating claims or evidences or proofs of guilt/innocence? Which of those entities do you trust to objectively administer punishment?

The state is not allowed to resolve anything and therefore it has no need to define anything either.

Really? The States of western civ have a long history of resolving interpersonal disputes, and prior to the cancer of Marxism I think they did as good a job as anyone could have done. And I'm not suggesting that the State have the authority to define marriage any more than it should have the authority to define murder or theft. God defined marriage. What is necessary is for the State to to use God's definition when it resolves disputes.

The legal aspect of divorce is simply a matter of dividing commingled assets. No different than two cohabitants going their separate ways who previously had joint accounts or joint ownership of property.

And if all the income is provided by the husband and all the assets are in his name (I think this was common until fairly recently), then what? No joint ownership. What about alimony?

Child custody would be no different legally for married vs unmarried parents.

Not if one of the spouses is at fault, say for breaking the marriage vow. At least it should be different in that case.

Divorce is outlawed. Legitimate children are by right are in the custody of a father if the mother separates herself from the family, bastards belong to the mother.

Given the fact that the unfairness of current family laws has had a significant impact on men's desire to get married, making family law unfair to women could easily reduce their desire to get married. I see no reason why, if the husband is at fault (for adultery or violence) that the wife should be screwed by separation.

Can anyone refute Alexander's 'inflexible law'? I believe it is based firmly in precedent.

There's a precedent for alimony.

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 11:14 AM  

Student in Blue wrote: So you're saying that the founders of the US and authors of the Declaration of Independence were whackos and Kool-Aid drinkers?

Oh, absolutely. Many of them, anyway. And that's not a bad thing. But to think that what was "self-evident" to the founders is self-evident everywhere and at all times is the product of either complete delusion or wishful thinking. It certainly doesn't correspond to the easily observable evidence.

Anonymous Darth Toolpodicus March 06, 2015 11:15 AM  

@Nate

"that moment... when I must acknowledge agreement with wrf3... no matter how awkward it is."

My thoughts exactly. Even a broken clock is right twice daily.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 11:16 AM  

"If one person wants to run to the state for redress, there's nothing that the church can do about it, and the state isn't going to say "no" to an expansion of its powers."

Yes, that's the world we live in. But WE are commanded to be in the world and not OF it.

Maybe we should ask ourselves how it is that the church failed so miserably in this regard. I believe judgment always begins in the house of G-d.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera March 06, 2015 11:16 AM  

2c: I'm of the opinion that the moral law is self-evident and most people just don't care enough to materially inconvenience themselves.

Anonymous Darth Toolpodicus March 06, 2015 11:20 AM  

@RabbiB

"
The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? "

You are missing some key context about the historical background of this passage. At that time and place the Courts were a public spectacle...like theater or a spectator sport. The admonition wasn't to undercut all mortal legal process, but rather to avoid holding up the brethren to ridicule on that particular stage.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 11:21 AM  

And I'm not suggesting that the State have the authority to define marriage any more than it should have the authority to define murder or theft. God defined marriage.

The thrust of my point.

What is necessary is for the State to to use God's definition when it resolves disputes.

How? Unless marriage is a state institution, which you just agreed with me that it is NOT.

Blogger CM March 06, 2015 11:22 AM  

You are missing some key context about the historical background of this passage. At that time and place the Courts were a public spectacle...like theater or a spectator sport. The admonition wasn't to undercut all mortal legal process, but rather to avoid holding up the brethren to ridicule on that particular stage.

You mean like... judge judy?

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 11:25 AM  

"You are missing some key context about the historical background of this passage."

Part of the the context is that the Jewish people have always had a system in place for resolving disputes among themselves, marital or otherwise that would arise in a community, and we still have the system today. It's called a beit din.

Our public courts today are no less a spectacle than they were back then. I am just saying we need to be more judicious about which disputes we bring into the public non-believing arena. Believers in public divorce court should be anathema.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus March 06, 2015 11:26 AM  

If your entire system of law is threatened by a state court's legally correct decision...then you need a new system of law.

Anonymous Alexander March 06, 2015 11:27 AM  

I offer a new proposal. I still hold by my previous one, but this one would ensure much more hilarity.

Custody by last name.

In the majority of cases, this means custody to the father.

In relationships of HARDCORE! feminists and beta husbands, this will mean custody to the mother.

And SJW hyphenated retards can enjoy the entire morass of the legal system.

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 11:28 AM  

Aeoli Pera wrote: 2c: I'm of the opinion that the moral law is self-evident...

Sure. We're goal-seeking creatures. The problem is that we don't have fixed goals. What's "self-evident" to one person isn't "self-evident" to another. Cf. what color is this dress?.

Blogger Al Cibiades March 06, 2015 11:28 AM  

What a joke. It's faux liberal activism that has compromised our entire system of law. We should simply ignore unjust Federal laws that abuse the rights of states. The local, state, and federal jurisdicitons are meant to solve citizen disputes and problems.

A federal system that oversteps its bounds is going to consistently impose clunky solutions poorly tailored to those that bring the case to begin with and leaves the rest of us wondering why we should worry about the concerns of say, homos in SF for example. I mean do they really have to worry about what others think outside their bubble to feel better about themselves as opposed their own neighbors with whom they actually interact with?

There are no Lincolns on their side to enforce the rulings and few with the will to fight to impose them. A firm civil disobedience movement could likely be bloodless and inspiring to many if it subscribes to a strict constructionist viewpoint and doesn't get sidelined by ancillary concerns.

Anonymous Darth Toolpodicus March 06, 2015 11:31 AM  

Yes, triails were public spectacles where rhetoric carried the day. From an article on the subject describing Athenian courts which were presumably similar to those of Corinth:

"In Athens, there were suits and law problems going on continuously. In fact, one historian said everybody in the city of Athens was a lawyer, more or less. I'll show you why. Let's say you had a problem with a guy, and you wanted to settle it. The first process you followed was known as private arbitration. A private arbitrator was given to you. A private arbitrator was given to him, and a neutral third party was chosen, and those three people were supposed to resolve the problem. If those three people couldn't come to any agreement and couldn't solve the problem, then your case was turned over to a court known as the Forty, and the Forty would appoint another arbitrator. There were certain public arbitrators, not private now, but public like a public defender. Everybody 60 years old, for the duration of his 60th year, served the community as a public arbitrator; and so if you couldn't get your thing settled by private arbitration, then public arbitrators were assigned to your case.

Now, if that didn't do it, there was a multiple jury court in Athens made up of 201 people for small cases, and we have records of anywhere from 1,000 to 6,000 people for big cases. You could have a jury of 6,000 people in your court case. Talk about a hung jury. How'd you like to convince all them? Well, it was a majority situation; but the idea simply being this: that with juries that big, and with the process this involved, everybody got into it. Everybody in his 60th year, knowing he'd have to be a public arbitrator, would have some sense of knowledge about the courtroom process; and all the jurors in those large juries were 30 years and older; so by the time you hit 30, you'd be involved in all of that. Law was a big deal; and, as I said, everybody was more or less a lawyer. If you weren't really in on the case, you were in on it in terms of sharing your opinion, discussion, and everything else, 'cause it was so much a way of life."

Anonymous Stilicho March 06, 2015 11:32 AM  


And if all the income is provided by the husband and all the assets are in his name (I think this was common until fairly recently), then what? No joint ownership. What about alimony?


There is no need for alimony. She wants to be free and equal, let her work. If the father would rather have her stay at home to raise their children, he can, conditionally, increase the child support he pays to make that possible, or he can offer to care for them himself.

all the assets are in his name

Dude, that is legally irrelevant. Courts already look at when assets were acquired, how acquired, and their source when deciding these issues. How the assets are held/titled is of limited import.

Child custody would be no different legally for married vs unmarried parents.

Not if one of the spouses is at fault, say for breaking the marriage vow. At least it should be different in that case.


I think I see the basis for your objections: you want the state to enforce your preferences and are willing to cede the power to define marriage over to them and accept "gay marriage" in order to accomplish this.

The fact of the matter is that there is nothing special about state-sanctioned marriage any more than there is anything special about state-sanctioned divorce from a legal perspective.

Anonymous DissidentRight March 06, 2015 11:33 AM  

How? Unless marriage is a state institution, which you just agreed with me that it is NOT.

I don't care if it's the State, it could be a private court and you could call it whatever you want. My point is that there are going to be disputes over marriage, and somebody is going to have to resolve them justly, or else society will devolve into might makes right. The idea that there won't be any disputes, or that all the disputes will be "obvious" (whatever that means) is silly. And yes, marriage has certain similarities with a business partnership or whatever, but it also has certain differences. That is, it better have certain differences, or else it's not really a marriage.

Believers in public divorce court should be anathema.

No question.

Custody by last name.

Do we really need to give women more reasons to gratify their sexual desires outside of marriage? We want to encourage people to get married, not discourage them. And that means ensuring that the risks of marriage are reasonably balanced. Would you enter into a business partnership where you were expected to assume all the risk, but without any commensurate increase in reward?

Blogger JDC March 06, 2015 11:36 AM  

This morning my 11y/o asked a question about Aristotle's dictum (it came up in her lesson on archeology). I explained that the reverse certainly seems true today - the benefit of the doubt has been commandeered by the critic, not the document itself. So we must trust the critics conclusion that we need to willingly alleviate ourselves from our freedoms for their determined greater good.

Anonymous Alexander March 06, 2015 11:41 AM  

1. My second proposal was a joke. I stated it as such.

2. No, I think we've had more than enough of the government trying to 'encourage' marriage. Or trying to 'reasonably balance' society.

Men need incentives because 1. sex right now is cheap and 2. it's cheaper to provide for yourself than it is for a family. Withhold sex from unmarried men and don't financially rape them, and the male side of the equation balances itself out.

Likewise, take away all the free handouts for bastards and single moms and the women are going to look for a man to supply the financial support she's no longer getting from daddy government. And the MAN WILL BEAT HER UP is a red herring designed to give the government an excuse to get involved in the marriage because:

1. Most men don't want to have sex/be married to/ love a bruised meatsack.
2. Social stigma
3. Wife's brothers and father are unlikely to put up with that sort of nonsense.

Or you know, back in a time when people lived in the vicinity of family and people HAD family. Again, government policy destroyed and then decreed itself the only solution.

And it's not like what I proposed was some strange revolutionary ideal. The notion that legitimate children belong to the father has stood the test of time.

Note: Of course, the very idea that women will forego marriage because a man might beat them is nonsense. If the Boston Bomber teaches us anything, it's that if you're not getting marriage proposals, extreme acts of violence are a good way to get the women to want to sign on for a piece of you.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 11:49 AM  

" . . . and somebody is going to have to resolve them justly, or else society will devolve into might makes right."

Does anyone here really think that the state and state sanctioned 'family' courts have the best interests of our children and families in mind? Resolve them justly? Since when?

As long as the state the power to legally define marriage, sanction it, and dissolve it there is nothing that prevents it from re-defining it for people who want same-sex marriage or who want to marry their dog.

I have witnessed and continue to witness first-hand the state's aptitude for dispensing justice and resolving marital disputes. I remain unimpressed to say the least.

Anonymous DissidentRight March 06, 2015 11:52 AM  

She wants to be free and equal, let her work.

So everyone here is raising their daughters to consider themselves to be equal to men? I'm not talking about short range policies designed to punish feminists (which I support, but that's a side issue), I'm talking about policies that you would use for a sexually traditional society. If the man is adulterous or violent, and the woman is not at fault, then the law should protect her. If the woman is adulterous, and the man guiltless, then the law should protect him and deny her alimony.

Dude, that is legally irrelevant. Courts already look at when assets were acquired, how acquired, and their source when deciding these issues. How the assets are held/titled is of limited import.

You're right. And I also mentioned income. In a traditional society, all the income is generated by the man. He acquired them, their source is his effort. Then what?

I think I see the basis for your objections: you want the state to enforce your preferences

What I want is for whoever is doing the enforcing (doesn't matter if it is the State) to enforce the natural, moral definition of marriage.

and are willing to cede the power to define marriage over to them and accept "gay marriage" in order to accomplish this.

I have already said that I don't think the State (or any dispute-resolving organization) should be able to define marriage. Marriage already has a definition. Just like murder.

The fact of the matter is that there is nothing special about state-sanctioned marriage any more than there is anything special about state-sanctioned divorce from a legal perspective.

I'm sympathetic to that idea, and I would like to embrace it, but it's just not clear that this is really the case in a society with traditional gender norms.

1. My second proposal was a joke. I stated it as such.

2. No, I think we've had more than enough of the government trying to 'encourage' marriage. Or trying to 'reasonably balance' society.


Yes, yes. Exception: Second sentence in 2. I think historical alimony reflects a perfectly reasonable attempt to balance husband/wife differences; in the case where the husband cheats, it is ridiculous to punish the wife.

I agree with everything else in your post. I think that women withholding sex until marriage is all the incentive men need.

Of course, the very idea that women will forego marriage because a man might beat them is nonsense.

Okay, I was wrong about that. But if both husband and wife know that he will suffer no consequences for adultery, but she will, that will warp their behavior.

Anonymous DissidentRight March 06, 2015 11:57 AM  

Does anyone here really think that the state and state sanctioned 'family' courts have the best interests of our children and families in mind? Resolve them justly? Since when?

No, I don't think that. And I think I'm being perfectly clear about not referring to the current situation, but rather to a traditional society (like we had before Marxism, and like we hope to have at some point in the mid future).

As long as the state the power to legally define marriage

Forcing the state to use the definition of marriage is not the same as letting it define marriage.

I have witnessed and continue to witness first-hand the state's aptitude for dispensing justice and resolving marital disputes.

Yeah, a Marxist state whose goal is to destroy Christianity and men. Courts and the State weren't always like this.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 12:04 PM  

"but rather to a traditional society (like we had before Marxism, and like we hope to have at some point in the mid future)."

Let's take it back then.

"Forcing the state to use the definition of marriage is not the same as letting it define marriage."

They do anyway. Again, let's take it back.

"Courts and the State weren't always like this."

Let's hold them accountable.

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 12:05 PM  

DissidentRight wrote: ... in a society with traditional gender norms.

How in the world are you going to cope when our technology makes our biology flexible? When gender reassignment is as easy, and prevalent, as changing clothes?

Anonymous PA March 06, 2015 12:05 PM  

Tony Soprano: alpha
Christopher Moltesanto: beta with alpha potential but self-destructed
Silvio Dante: beta
Paulie Walnuts: (don't know; nominally loyal but a loose cannon)
Bobby Baccalieri: delta
Ralph Cifaretto: gamma
Tony Blundetto: omega
Vito Spataforte: lambda pretending to be a delta

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 12:05 PM  

We can at the very least begin by cleaning up our own backyards.

Anonymous map March 06, 2015 12:09 PM  

wrf3,

"Oh, absolutely. Many of them, anyway. And that's not a bad thing. But to think that what was "self-evident" to the founders is self-evident everywhere and at all times is the product of either complete delusion or wishful thinking. It certainly doesn't correspond to the easily observable evidence."

The self-evident part is the belief that all white, Englishmen had inalienable rights. So, you are right, such self-evident truths do not apply to non-whites.

Anonymous Rabbi B March 06, 2015 12:22 PM  

"Although same-sex marriages are not recognised as legitimate under Thai law, the trio were able to consummate their love under Buddhist law in the symbolic ceremony."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2972542/They-look-like-new-boy-band-s-world-s-THREE-WAY-sex-marriage-Gay-Thai-men-tie-knot-fairytale-ceremony.html

But, will the state help resolve their divorce with justice and equality for all when it doesn't work out? Coming to a traditional society near you . . .

Anonymous PA March 06, 2015 12:23 PM  

Wrong thread. My bad

Anonymous Stilicho March 06, 2015 12:23 PM  

So everyone here is raising their daughters to consider themselves to be equal to men? I'm not talking about short range policies designed to punish feminists (which I support, but that's a side issue), I'm talking about policies that you would use for a sexually traditional society.

Nope. State policy will never be able to define morality. Misguided attempts to use it for that purpose are what has led to state-sanctioned "gay marriage".


You're right. And I also mentioned income. In a traditional society, all the income is generated by the man. He acquired them, their source is his effort. Then what?


Then the assets acquired during the period of cohabitation are split equally. That's the default rule of divorce already.

What I want is for whoever is doing the enforcing (doesn't matter if it is the State) to enforce the natural, moral definition of marriage.

This does NOT require the state to define or sanction marriages. Good Lord, man, can't you see that giving that power to the state is what caused this problem in the first place? The state started out enforcing those traditional norms you admire and devolved into the endorsement of perversity and degeneracy that is the topic of this post. Why do you think that they'll do any better if given another chance to run the same course?

Forcing the state to use the definition of marriage is not the same as letting it define marriage.

No, it isn't, but who gets to define marriage? How do you force the state to use your preferred definition? How do you prevent the same thing from happening again given that we started from your preferred situation this time? Frankly, our major point of disagreement is whether the state can be kept "honest" in this regard. Given its track record, I do not think it can. I would rather try a different approach rather than simply re-run the path we've already traveled.

Anonymous Rabbi B March 06, 2015 12:27 PM  

" . . . somebody is going to have to resolve them justly, or else society will devolve into might makes right."

Somebody will, and His might will eventually be forced to set things right. Just as Sodom and Gomorrah.

Anonymous dh March 06, 2015 12:27 PM  

So everyone here is raising their daughters to consider themselves to be equal to men?

I no I am not. I am also not raising them to think they are as tall as an NBA player or as fast as an Olympic sprinter. Because reality.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 12:28 PM  

*ask

Anonymous DissidentRight March 06, 2015 12:29 PM  

Rabbi B: Yes, yes, and yes.

How in the world are you going to cope when our technology makes our biology flexible? When gender reassignment is as easy, and prevalent, as changing clothes?

Easy != prevalent. Murder is much easier than its prevalence would suggest. So is abortion. Et cetera. Very few people are so mentally deviant that they desire a gender "reassignment". Those that are have other problems and aren't much of a fit for any society. I don't have any intention to forcibly convert the Muslims, but I also don't want them living near me. So go it does with deviants.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 12:37 PM  

Another thing to bear in mind is that G-d also defines what marriage is not.

There were anti-Sodomy laws on the books of many states, some of which have been overturned and deemed unconstitutional. Why is that?

If the state's authority extends to defining, sanctioning and dissolving marriages, then it's authority will also extend to tangential issues related to the institution of marriage. It's a slippery slope, to put it mildly.

Anonymous Crosier March 06, 2015 12:39 PM  

The question isn't whether the state courts are required to follow the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions, but whether the states are required to comply with U.S. Supreme Court decision — Which of course they are.

A state may not, for example, prohibit a person from publishing a newspaper, even if their state court affirms a state laws that allows such a prohibition.

In the case of Alabama, it's merely a case of judicial bigotry...nothing more.

Blogger Nate March 06, 2015 12:40 PM  

"How will that happen, unless the state gets out of divorce completely?"

Sorry mate I just saw this question.

I think that's a false equivalence. I may write a contract to sell a house to someone.. and if that person violates the contract the state will settle things... but that doesn't mean the state decided who I could and couldn't sell my house to.

Settling broken contract is the business of courts. There is no reason to think of a divorce any differently than any other broken contract.

Blogger Brad Andrews March 06, 2015 12:40 PM  

Proving you are really married has become a key part of getting health insurance. I wonder what the impact would be if no official proof of being married would exist.

I am still in favor of the State getting out of the role of deciding who is and is not married, but this could have more implications than are apparent now.

Anonymous DissidentRight March 06, 2015 12:44 PM  

Then the assets acquired during the period of cohabitation are split equally. That's the default rule of divorce already.

Divorce, yes, cohabitation, no. Living together with someone does not entitle them to half your assets. So there is a difference.

The state started out enforcing those traditional norms you admire and devolved into the endorsement of perversity and degeneracy that is the topic of this post.

Government (more general term than the State, imo) existed for thousands and thousands of years long before Marxism or progressivism came along, and it did an admirable job of resolving disputes according to independently-discovered moral truths. You can't look at the last 100 years of the government and declare them the norm.

How do you force the state to use your preferred definition? How do you prevent the same thing from happening again given that we started from your preferred situation this time?

Excellent questions, to which the various forms of anarchocapitalism and neoreactionaryism have good answers.

Frankly, our major point of disagreement is whether the state can be kept "honest" in this regard. Given its track record, I do not think it can. I would rather try a different approach rather than simply re-run the path we've already traveled.

I agree with you, which is why I started out by distinguishing between "the State" and some "entity" that resolves disputes. I'm simply saying, marriage is a real thing, people have disputes about it, those disputes need to be resolved rightly…by whoever is resolving them.

Somebody will, and His might will eventually be forced to set things right. Just as Sodom and Gomorrah.

Well, absent divine intervention, which I don't see a lot of these days, it's up to us.

Anyway I am going in to work for a few hours, thanks for discussion and may resume later.

Blogger bob k. mando March 06, 2015 12:48 PM  

DissidentRight March 06, 2015 9:56 AM
Even if you want to go the anarchocapitalist route with private courts,


if you are a Christian, why do you want a court of any kind involved in your marriage?

if you are not a Christian ... why are you getting married? there is no law requiring this.


DissidentRight March 06, 2015 9:56 AM
you are still going to need some kind of entity to resolve marital disputes



you fancy yourself 'dissident right'? try some paleo-conservatism on for size:
http://www.fscclub.com/history/judicial-e.shtml



wrf3 March 06, 2015 10:38 AM
I don't get how forced political union is any less evil than forced economic union.



because the Union is perpetual, you twit. you can check out, but you can never leave.

these are now the meanings of 'freedom' and 'will of the people and the States' after 200 years of judicial fiat ... er, ahem ... precedent.




Aeoli Pera March 06, 2015 10:51 AM
OT: Alpha Game ate two of my comments.



Ctrl+A and Ctrl+C before posting. it's the only way to be sure.



wrf3 March 06, 2015 11:11 AM
If one person wants to run to the state for redress, there's nothing that the church can do about it, and the state isn't going to say "no" to an expansion of its powers.


which is why it is up to the PEOPLE to say "no" to an expansion of it's powers.

which, sadly, we've not done a very good job of.



DissidentRight March 06, 2015 11:14 AM
But you've just mitigated the problem, you haven't eliminated it. The problem of serious, thoughtful disputes will remain.


because, hey, all disputes are serious and thoughtful.

*pats DR on head*

that's so cute.

it's almost as if you've never heard of bipolars, borderlines, narcissists and sociopaths.




DissidentRight March 06, 2015 11:14 AM
Not if one of the spouses is at fault, say for breaking the marriage vow.



in a legal milieu in which all 50 states have No fault divorce laws, any 'at fault' argument is specious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce#The_adoption_of_no-fault_divorce_laws_by_the_other_states



DissidentRight March 06, 2015 11:33 AM
Do we really need to give women more reasons to gratify their sexual desires outside of marriage?



in today's secular society, the only reason marriage still exists is because women demand it.



Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 12:50 PM  

Nate wrote: but that doesn't mean the state decided who I could and couldn't sell my house to.

But it did. As one example, contracts with minors are not enforceable. So if you sell your house to a 16 year old, you have no recourse in the courts if something happens.

And, along this line, the state isn't telling you who to marry. It's just saying that gays can, if they want to.

Blogger IM2L844 March 06, 2015 12:52 PM  

I think Difster and CM have it just about right. Marriage privatization is the only reasonable solution. whether or not a religious institution chooses to further sanction and/or bless any such secular contractual unions should be of no legal consequence whatsoever.

Blogger MATT March 06, 2015 12:52 PM  

I find it strange when 2 non Christian/Jew/Muslims get married, even after admitting it makes no sense. The law in many states treats you as married and goes as far as inventing out of thin air paternity in many cases, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Are you really that desperate for a couple thousand a year? Or whatever it is.

Blogger CM March 06, 2015 12:53 PM  

Proving you are really married has become a key part of getting health insurance. I wonder what the impact would be if no official proof of being married would exist.

Its one thing for a government to force you to get documentation for a voluntary action and for a private entity to require it for something you may or may not want.

It wouldn't be that hard without state involvement for an insurance company to request proof of contract with witnesses in order to provide insurance to a married couple.

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 12:54 PM  

DissidentRight wrote: Very few people are so mentally deviant that they desire a gender "reassignment".

Why do you pollute the discussion with pejoratives as "deviant"? People don't typically desire it because it's so hard and expensive to do. It's no different than flying used to be. In fact, your response is reminiscent of "if God had intended man to fly, He would have given them wings."

My grandmother didn't want to travel into space. I do, but will likely never get the chance. My grandchildren likely will. It won't be any different if gender reassignment becomes easy.

Anonymous BigGaySteve March 06, 2015 12:55 PM  

"Time for a reset. Issue no licenses, issue no benefits based on marriage, issue nothing at all looking like a positive based on marriage."

As the gay friend I have often been asked to bring up pre nuptial agreements in a later conversation. If the govt gets out of marriage people will be more careful entering it perhaps with longer courtships and real financial discussions beforehand. Get the govt out of marriage and the "dozen lesbian tribe" can marry each other and be stars of GAY DIVORCE COURT when they break up. Right now marriage is so damaged I don't see why any productive person would subject themselves to it.

"How in the world are you going to cope when our technology makes our biology flexible? When gender reassignment is as easy, and prevalent, as changing clothes?"
Certain things will never be easy. The main difference between mending a broken bone during ancient Greece and 30 years ago is pain meds and plaster casts. Even taking pills as instructed is too complicated for blacks & many Hispanics. There is a danger that since the HIV travel ban is ended low IQ Africans could create resistance to the drugs that control AIDS now by their stupidity and lack of compliance. Think of drug resistant diseases as blacks uninventing antibiotics, in 3rd world areas they get free meds from do gooder white doctors but stop taking the free meds to sell the rest leaving the strongest bugs still in their body to speed up drug resistance.

Blogger Nate March 06, 2015 12:57 PM  

"But it did. As one example, contracts with minors are not enforceable. So if you sell your house to a 16 year old, you have no recourse in the courts if something happens.

And, along this line, the state isn't telling you who to marry. It's just saying that gays can, if they want to."

Sure. But you're forgetting something. I'm not telling the state to but out. The state is butting out voluntarily.

Very different things.

The state is fully capable of abdicating control over whatever it wishes.

Blogger CM March 06, 2015 1:04 PM  

Are you really that desperate for a couple thousand a year? Or whatever it is.

I don't even think its that. Whatever "marriage" benefits my husband and I get from the state is due to my being a legal dependent in his household. Joint income doesn't really provide that many incentives (if any) and I'm essentially a child by view of tax law.

My understanding of the desire for recognition of gay marriage (by those who were genuine and not playing a destructo game) was access to loved ones in the ER, joint custody of a non-biological child who was the biological child of the partner, adoption and step parenting rights in such contexts, and aquiring family insurance/inclusion on employer insurance plans.

What irritated me was that there were other venues to make those work right without taking the route that is now being used to browbeat churches and christian businesses into recognizing, participating, and performing these "marriages"

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 1:04 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger CM March 06, 2015 1:05 PM  

*ICU*

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 1:06 PM  

"Settling broken contract is the business of courts. There is no reason to think of a divorce any differently than any other broken contract.'

Except that my real estate transaction or the business that I operate are not Divine institutions defined by G-d.

Marriage contracts should not be the business of the State and State-sanctioned courts. I certainly don't foresee any of this being dialed back in my lifetime, and perhaps people like DR, folks don't see much divine intervention these days. Regardless, let us hold steadfastly to right principles anyway. Perhaps if enough righteous men remain, G-d will have mercy.

As things stand now, and as the old saying goes, G-d may have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah. (Matthew 10:14-16)

Blogger CM March 06, 2015 1:11 PM  

Except that my real estate transaction or the business that I operate are not Divine institutions defined by G-d.

Ok... then let us view the dissolution of marriage as one thing and the "property rights" issues that arise from it as something entirely different.

Pre-nups are pretty common. It can't be that hard for individual entities to create a contract amongst eachother where legal disputes can't be resolved by civil court.

Blogger CM March 06, 2015 1:14 PM  

What irritated me was that there were other venues to make those work right without taking the route that is now being used to browbeat churches and christian businesses into recognizing, participating, and performing these "marriages"

Ironically, what created the need for gays to have access to loved ones in the first place is the same damn thing their using to get it: state involvement in a private matter.

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 1:15 PM  

Nate wrote: The state is fully capable of abdicating control over whatever it wishes.

Just like junkies are able to kick heroin, smokers nicotine, and the obese calories.

What world do you live in?

Blogger Nate March 06, 2015 1:17 PM  

"Except that my real estate transaction or the business that I operate are not Divine institutions defined by G-d'

hate ta break it to ya...but two people getting hitched by a judge is a contract. God don't have a thing to do with it.

Blogger IM2L844 March 06, 2015 1:20 PM  

It's no different than flying used to be.

Sure, and with sufficient tattooing, collagen injections and rhinoplasty I can become a black man.

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 1:20 PM  

Rabbi B wrote: Except that my real estate transaction or the business that I operate are not Divine institutions defined by G-d.

Of course they are. "What gain have the workers from their toil? I have seen the business that God has given to everyone to be busy with. ... I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for he has appointed a time for every matter, and for every work." [Ecclesiastes 3:9-10, 17]

And do I need to remind you of the rules God instituted about ownership of real estate in Israel?

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 1:22 PM  

"Ok... then let us view the dissolution of marriage as one thing and the "property rights" issues that arise from it as something entirely different."

It's a question of jurisdiction and venue where the issues that arise from the dissolution should be handled.


Anonymous Difster March 06, 2015 1:24 PM  

Marriage contracts should not be the business of the State and State-sanctioned courts.

You're conflating legal contract and religious covenant. The covenant between the married parties and God (or the married parties and the grass if they so choose) has absolutely zero legal bearing. I'm referring to the legal contract designed for the material world. What happens with custody, assets, power of attorney, etc. Those are separate issues from the covenant ceremony. In fact, those two things don't even have to happen anywhere close to each other. A non-religious couple could just sign the papers with zero ceremony. A religious couple could have the ceremony and wait a year or two to get the paperwork in order (or not at all).

Anonymous Difster March 06, 2015 1:24 PM  

...and yes, I know a covenant is a contract, I just used the two different words in order to differentiate between spiritual and legal even though it's not strictly necessary.

Blogger Mr. Bee March 06, 2015 1:29 PM  

OT: Since this thread is moving towards the end, I thought it wouldn't come amiss to include this gantlet throw down:
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/03/05/the_myth_of_the_wests_threat_to_russia_107705.html

Please fisk if you dare, as some of us would like to see the underpinnings of your "The West is attacking Russia" claims.

Anonymous Stilicho March 06, 2015 1:29 PM  


Divorce, yes, cohabitation, no. Living together with someone does not entitle them to half your assets. So there is a difference.


This is simply not true in the situation you posited which resembles traditional marriage (wife stays home, raises kids, gives up career, assets acquired in man's name, etc.). If Jack and Jill shack up for a few months, sure, no such interests are involved. The courts look at things like whether it was continuous cohabitation, the length of the relationship, the purpose of the relationship, whether the couple pooled resources and services for joint projects, whether one member of the couple refrained from a career, whether children are involved,and the intent of the parties.

The amusing part is that leftist courts did this in order to justify giving awards to women whose men wouldn't marry them (possibly in order to avoid divorce rape). However, the result is that you cannot argue that state-sanctioned marriage is required to address any of the issues that arise in divorce. At best from a legal perspective, the sanctioning of marriage merely creates a presumption regarding the nature and intent of the relationship, but the same factors must be addressed to resolve disputes.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 1:30 PM  

I offer a Jewish perspective to illustrate:

The Marriage Contract (Ketubah)

The ketubah is a unilateral agreement drawn by witnesses in accordance with Jewish civil law, in which they testify that the husband guarantees to his wife that he will meet certain minimum human and financial conditions of marriage,"

It is not a ceremonial document of scripture or prayer. That is why it is written in Aramaic, the technical legal language of Talmudic law, rather than in Hebrew, the language of the "Song of Songs." Neither is it a state document establishing the new relationship of man and woman. It makes no mention of the confirmation of Cod or of society. It is not an instrument of the privileged class, as in ancient societies, but one obligatory on every person. It is also not an affirmation of perpetual love. It is a statement of law that provides the framework of love.

The ketubah restates the fundamental conditions that are imposed by the Torah upon the husband, such as providing his wife with food, clothing, and conjugal rights, which are inseparable from marriage. It includes the husband's guarantees to pay a certain sum in the event of divorce, and inheritance rights obligatory upon his heirs in case he dies before his wife.

It is not a mutual agreement; the wife agrees only to accept the husband's proposal of marriage. It is assuredly not a bill of sale; the man does not purchase the bride. In fact, the ketubah represents the witnesses rather than husband or wife. Through this instrument they attest to the groom's actions, promises, and statements, and to the bride's willing acceptance of the marriage proposal.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/465168/jewish/The-Marriage-Contract-Ketubah.htm

Should the state be given the authority to enforce such a contract? Should the people who entered into this contract invite the State to mediate when the conditions of this contract are breached? Are there other avenues for enforcing the terms of the contract that do not involve the State?



Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 1:35 PM  

"What happens with custody, assets, power of attorney, etc. Those are separate issues from the covenant ceremony."

They are conflated and so I don't see them as separate issues and neither does the Torah, Jewish law, or our Sages' understanding thereof in relation to these issues.

Historically the synagogue has had the infrastructure in place to deal with all of these issues. Perhaps the church has also, although I not as well versed in that history? It seems to me the Catholic church at least provided along these lines without recourse to the state. But again, I am no expert there.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 1:48 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 1:51 PM  

I can't help but wonder what the divorce rate would be if the State were left out of it. They have made it so easy. So easy and attractive that even the professing believers utilize the machine when the realities of for better or for worse finally settle in.

Seventy percent of all Christian marriages will end in divorce today. Statistically this number is actually higher within the church than in secular society, where that number is sixty five percent. Why? Perhaps it's because when people share a religious basis for their actions, their expectations are higher of each other than those whose "moral compass" is flexible, and everyone knows it. Nobody accuses a secularist or an atheist of hypocrisy, only those who are not living up to a high moral standard they claim to embrace and practice.

The truth is that when a bride and groom today vow to G-d and each other, "for better or worse", they are really only thinking, "better". When they vow, "for richer or poorer", they are really only thinking, "richer". When they vow, "in sickness and in health", they are really only thinking, "health". When they vow, "as long as we both shall live", they are really only thinking of bliss-and-nothing-else for life. The reality is that they don't really anticipate that they will ever need to remain faithful to their spouses "for worse, for poorer and in sickness, as long as we both shall live".

Do we really think the State is the best entity to reinforce and uphold these values that are so vital to the survival of our civilization? Because they have done such a stellar job so far, right?

I have my shekels somewhere else.

Blogger CM March 06, 2015 1:57 PM  

Rabbi B -

Wouldn't the issues in our different views arise from the jewish tradition of a theocracy and the american view of separation of church & state?

In jewish history and law, religion is heavily intertwined with government. We have no such system here. Law and Church are supposed to be separate and getting the government involved in how we choose to do marriage has caused more problems than its worth because our government isn't beholden to our church's rules.

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 1:59 PM  

Rabbi B wrote: Seventy percent of all Christian marriages will end in divorce today.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. For a rebuttal, see here.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 2:10 PM  

"Law and Church are supposed to be separate and getting the government involved in how we choose to do marriage has caused more problems than its worth because our government isn't beholden to our church's rules."

I think this is what I am arguing for. Not separation of church and state in the way that it's been used to keep the Ten Commmandments and prayer out of the public arena, but a separation in the sense that your comment implies:

" . . .because our government isn't beholden to our church's rules." Precisely this. Or Buddhism's rules, or whatever other -ism out there.

I am also arguing that the Biblical worldview concerning marriage be held up most especially by those who publicly profess such a view, as a testimony to be lauded and imitated so that marriage will be honored by all (cf. Hebrews 13). It is my contention that State involvement has only served to dishonor marriage more than anyone could have possibly imagined.

I feel very strongly about seeing that honor restored and that the first place to begin is with those who are guilty of dishonoring it so unabashedly just so they can live as they please rather than as they ought. The least that we who know better can do, is see to it that our marriages and families are an accurate reflection of G-d's relationship with His wife.

I remember reading somewhere that G-d hates divorce. So do I.


Blogger bob k. mando March 06, 2015 2:22 PM  

CM March 06, 2015 1:11 PM
It can't be that hard for individual entities to create a contract amongst eachother where legal disputes can't be resolved by civil court.



bu-wuh?

so you prefer that a private contract between individuals be adjudicated by ... the criminal court?



Mr. Bee March 06, 2015 1:29 PM
Please fisk if you dare



easy peasy, once you admit that this statement is a bald faced lie:
" It posits that the West ... attempted to wrest Ukraine from Russia’s sphere of influence
...
The only problem is that there isn’t a shred of truth to this claim."

the freely and legally elected president of Ukraine was a slimeball, no doubt. so is Obama, what's your point?

when Yanukovych rotated away from joining the EU and started acting friendly towards Moscow the State Dept and CIA had him over-thrown, via funding and consulting with the Maidan movement.

this instigation of revolution to a Russian friendly head of state *on the very border of Russia* is the catalyst for everything since.

Nuland says, "Fuck the EU"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9nKx7U4OIA

Mr. Paet reveals ... that the snipers were employed by the leaders of Maidan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6GefuqVcxY


so, now that cocaine user Hunter Biden ( son of Joe ) has been installed on the board of the Uke energy company Burisma, the west is obviously in right, yes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden

Blogger bob k. mando March 06, 2015 2:27 PM  

wrf3 March 06, 2015 1:59 PM
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. For a rebuttal, see here.


you probably shouldn't use rebuttals that admit the point.

"Nominal conservative Protestants, on the other hand, were 20 percent more likely to divorce than the religiously unaffiliated."

Blogger CM March 06, 2015 2:28 PM  

criminal court?

Civil court isn't criminal court. Criminal court is juries, jail, and criminals.

Civil court is civil disputes... contract breaches, debt collection, and non-criminal complaints between free citizens.

Blogger CM March 06, 2015 2:31 PM  

Nominal conservative Protestants

Nominal = name only. Wrf's point is active christians have lower stats that are ruined by clumping nominals into the mix.

You feeling ok? Used to you running circles around me.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 2:35 PM  

" . . .ruined by clumping nominals into the mix."

Well then, we have to conclude that the rate must be 0 for non-nominals, I suppose. Does anybody have that statistic?

Blogger CM March 06, 2015 2:39 PM  

How do you figure? The survey said 42% of christians v 50% of non-affiliated get divorced.

When controlled for activity, nominals are 20% more likely to get divorced than non-affiliated And actives are 38% less likely.

So depending on weight (nnominal or active more common?) You could easily get "all christians 8% less likely to get divorced than non-affiliated".

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 2:41 PM  


Sweden – 54.9%

United States – 54.8%

Russia – 43.3%

United Kingdom – 42.6

Germany – 39.4%

Israel – 14.8%

Singapore – 17.2%

Japan – 1.9%

Srilanka – 1.5%

India – 1.1%

I wonder how many nominal Indians (dot not feather), are inflating this rate . . .

Maybe they are all active Christians, which is why the rate is so low. I will need to investigate further.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 2:42 PM  

http://www.indidivorce.com/divorce-rate-in-india.html

Blogger CM March 06, 2015 2:47 PM  

Hmmm... as any here would quickly point out, feminism destroys marriages. Those low rates are in low "equality" areas but that link is quite quick to point out india's rates will be going up as women feel more empowered to make a living on their own.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 2:47 PM  

"You could easily get "all christians 8% less likely to get divorced than non-affiliated".'

That's fine. No matter how you slice it, for professing Christians, it's not a statistic to be proud simply because it may be lower than the rest of the world. I just lament how easy it has become and how many who profess a Biblical world view have availed themselves of such a contemptible system which runs so contrary to the Biblical view the profess and express.

I know G-d will sort it all out someday. It's just painful to watch.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 2:50 PM  

Those low rates are in low "equality" areas but that link is quite quick to point out india's rates will be going up as women feel more empowered to make a living on their own.

No doubt. An astute observation and an excellent point that I am glad you made.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/10357829/Why-do-women-initiate-divorce-more-than-men.html

This has never been easier than here in the enlightened and egalitarian West.

Women ruin everything .... at least 70% of them do.

Blogger CM March 06, 2015 2:56 PM  

This has never been easier than here in the enlightened and egalitarian West.

Yes... the american church is still a byproduct of the culture it exists in... and that is quite sad, indeed... and not right.

But we are not as divorce happy as the culture around us is. Still bad, though. And I think feminism is mostly to blame for the rates we do see in the church. That has notoriously been a weak point in our churches here.

There is hope, though... I'm coming across a lot more women who are affirming the traditional roles of husband and wife As written in ephesians 5. So, all is not completely lost.

Anonymous FP March 06, 2015 3:02 PM  

" Divorce lawyers, family courts, and all the officials who populate them make their livings destroying families. I do not know how they sleep at night, to be honest."

Greed and power. They're vampires essentially.

I think the best example I've seen of their hypocrisy was when a group was pushing for reformed alimony laws in Massachusetts. The state legislator who was in charge of the committee overseeing the bill was also a lawyer. A divorce lawyer, who was also head of the MA state divorce lawyers association. They finally got a reform law passed but it took awhile.

Anonymous Rabbi B March 06, 2015 3:08 PM  

"So, all is not completely lost."

How many divorces would happen today if women could not initiate them? Conversely, how many marriages would be saved, and how many more men would be forced to take responsibility if divorce was only permitted to men, and only when premarital relations were discovered on their wedding night?

When considering marriage, perhaps more would learn to focus on goals and character (think Isaac and Rebecca) than around "true love", happiness, keeping the "spark" alive, etc. If the Disney criteria for marriage was reversed, "first comes marriage, then comes love", perhaps more people would discover what "true love" is.

Those who weather the storms and crises of marriage, and grit their teeth and go on; the people who grow old together and whose marriages have survived the greatest of tests… they will tell you that it was worth it, that they have discovered what was intended by G-d all along: that their marriage was intended to be a testimony to others - a testimony of the transformative power of G-d to redeem, salvage, renovate and transform. They will tell you that most of the world does not know the definition of real love, but they have learned it.

Blogger CM March 06, 2015 3:35 PM  

If the Disney criteria for marriage was reversed, "first comes marriage, then comes love", perhaps more people would discover what "true love" is.

Ha! You and I have nearly identical views about how love and marriage work.

While we are blessed to live in a world where we can choose a spouse for ourselves, the biblical proscription is not to marry who you love but to love who you marry.

Blogger Danby March 06, 2015 3:37 PM  

States already recognize pre-nuptual agreements. If you want churches to take over marriage, then the church only needs a standard pre-nup, delineating how disputes would be resolved.

Then if you want women to stop filing for divorce, you include a provision for custody to go to the non-filing party, except in cases of moral turpitude or abuse.

Then you set up your own arbitration system, perhaps including a jury for certain factual determinations (as of abuse or promiscuity).

The Catholic Church already has this is vestigial form. With some work, it presents a viable alternative to the state marriage license/divorce court system.

Anonymous George of the Jungle March 06, 2015 3:49 PM  

As per Rabbi B the state should never be allowed into either marriage or divorce. The state should be replaced by Jewish beit din and equivalent Christian dispute mechanisms.

However, this also means that Islam must be declared a political ideology similar to Communism in this country instead of a religion, and any of its adherents must register with the state accordingly. That then allows forbidding Sharia, which would otherwise attempt to rear its ugly head.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 3:50 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 3:52 PM  

"The Catholic Church already has this is vestigial form. With some work, it presents a viable alternative to the state marriage license/divorce court system.'

Your idea may also serve to filter out some of the nominal believers. This would generally be something the more committed would accede to, at least in a general sense. The challenge lies in nurturing a culture that effectively upholds and enforces what you are suggesting, whether the context be Christian, Catholic, Jewish, or otherwise.

The Indian (tea not firewater) culture with its 1.5% divorce rate may have something there.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 4:12 PM  

"The state should be replaced by Jewish beit din and equivalent Christian dispute mechanisms."

Yes, and it does not mean we impose a beit din, a Christian equivalent, or Sharia law upon the State, the issue is simply getting the State to keep their proverbial nose out of our tents when it comes to matters they are not qualified to mitigate or rectify, not matter how incompetent they may think we are to handle our own business.

Do I really want the State judging in matters that pertain to, for example, Jewish law? Even the Romans of Y'shua's day were reluctant to wade into these waters, to say the least.

Just one example to illustrate the principle:

Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to them, “If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you. But since it involves questions about words and names and your own law—settle the matter yourselves. I will not be a judge of such things.” So he drove them off. [Acts 18]

If only they would drive us off to settle our own matters. One can hope.

@wrf3

"Of course they are. "What gain have the workers from their toil? I have seen the business that God has given to everyone to be busy with. ... I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for he has appointed a time for every matter, and for every work." [Ecclesiastes 3:9-10, 17]"

It seems to me that Y'shauu was careful to distinguish between institutions that were in the purview and realm of Caesar and those which were not. So were the Romans, BTW. [Matthew 22]

Blogger Danby March 06, 2015 4:16 PM  

@Rabbi B
Under the current system, there is no way for a party that does not wish to divorce to stop the process. If he or she objects or fights the proceedings, they will be punished by the family courts, often including jail time, and in one case I know of, involuntary psychiatric commitment.
Virtually any rational system would be better than what we have now. The family courts reward the most vindictive party, and never ever punish perjury or lying by parties or by the lawyers. In my state it's routine for divorce lawyers to accuse a man of sexual abuse of any minor children, sometimes even without the knowledge of the party nominally making the accusation. Something like 75% of divorce case include accusations of sexual or physical abuse, almost always levelled against the man. Why? Because you'll get custody, likely a better financial judgement, and you will not be punished for perjury. Besides, you can make his life a living hell.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 4:25 PM  

" . . . there is no way for a party that does not wish to divorce to stop the process."

I wanted to reproduce you entire comment - couldn't be more spot on.

Someone very close to me has not affixed his name to one solitary document, nor has he made any court appearances to dispute anything. He has no desire to get in the mud with any of these people.

So, what happens? It is just as you described: Default judgments are rendered against him, he is demonized as a dead beat father, who subjected his wife to emotional abuse over the course of their entire marriage until she finally wised up and stood up for herself and for her kids. His life has indeed been made a living hell by a system unleashed at the whims of a woman who just wanted to feel happy again.

Thank you. Well said.

Anonymous DissidentRight March 06, 2015 4:25 PM  

if you are a Christian, why do you want a court of any kind involved in your marriage?

Because there are various threats to marriage which a court is very useful for resolving.

you fancy yourself 'dissident right'? try some paleo-conservatism on for size:
http://www.fscclub.com/history/judicial-e.shtml


Might makes right? Really?

it's almost as if you've never heard of bipolars, borderlines, narcissists and sociopaths.

The existence of sociopaths is only the most obvious proof society needs a just court system (private, state, whatever) to resolve disputes.

in a legal milieu in which all 50 states have No fault divorce laws, any 'at fault' argument is specious.

No-fault divorce is a moral abomination.

Why do you pollute the discussion with pejoratives as "deviant"?

"Deviant" is not a pejorative. It is a factual assessment.

People don't typically desire it because it's so hard and expensive to do.

Affirming the consequent.

It won't be any different if gender reassignment becomes easy.

This is where you would demonstrate that there is any latent desire in the ordinary person to "change" (whatever that means) their gender. Instead, pure bluff.

This is simply not true in the situation you posited which resembles traditional marriage (wife stays home, raises kids, gives up career, assets acquired in man's name, etc.). […]

Are you serious? You could be on the hook for alimony and assets if you live with your girlfriend (absent legal marriage) for a sufficient period of time??? If so, then fair enough: I concede the point. Shows what I know.

At best from a legal perspective, the sanctioning of marriage merely creates a presumption regarding the nature and intent of the relationship, but the same factors must be addressed to resolve disputes.

Fair enough.

While we are blessed to live in a world where we can choose a spouse for ourselves, the biblical proscription is not to marry who you love but to love who you marry.

Exactly.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 4:33 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 4:35 PM  

"Might makes right? Really?"

Not always. But there should be nothing that prevents us from picking up the enemy's sword and using it to finish the job once we have knocked him on his ass with our slingshots, which we initially let fly in the name of the living G-d Whom these uncircumcised Philistines dared to oppose.

Blogger CM March 06, 2015 4:35 PM  

Are you serious? You could be on the hook for alimony and assets if you live with your girlfriend (absent legal marriage) for a sufficient period of time??? If so, then fair enough: I concede the point. Shows what I know.

Its common law marriage. There's a minimum length of time they must cohabitate before it's considered a "marriage" in that context.

Anonymous Big Bill March 06, 2015 4:57 PM  

The Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin dealt with a tyrannical federal government 160 years ago by refusing to certify and send its case files to the USSC in a fugitive slave case.

The attitude in Wisconsin was "The federal government and Supreme Court be damned in hell! We are not going to render up escaped slaves and imprison members of the Underground Railroad no matter WHAT the Fugitive Slave Act says!"

I expect the New York Times challenged that bit of "dangerous defiance", too.

And it worked! Without the certified case files, the USSC was utterly powerless to hear the case, reverse the Wisconsin Supreme Court, snatch the escaped slave and imprison the Wisconsin rescuers.

Anonymous DissidentRight March 06, 2015 5:05 PM  

But there should be nothing that prevents us from picking up the enemy's sword and using it to finish the job once we have knocked him on his ass with our slingshots, which we initially let fly in the name of the living G-d Whom these uncircumcised Philistines dared to oppose.

In contests of might, the mightier party wins. In legal/moral contests, winning a contest of might does not make you right.

Its common law marriage. There's a minimum length of time they must cohabitate before it's considered a "marriage" in that context.

I was not aware of that. I would definitely do away with that sort of logic. It's unreasonable to declare non-married people "effectively married, for legal purposes" just because they live together and/or have children together.

Blogger RBooster Man March 06, 2015 5:10 PM  

"somebody is going to have to resolve them justly, or else society will devolve into might makes right."

gamma moderate entryist detected

Blogger Marissa March 06, 2015 5:44 PM  

"somebody is going to have to resolve them justly, or else society will devolve into might makes right."

gamma moderate entryist detected


The framers of the Constitution were gamma moderate entryists? I don't like left-liberals or right-liberals, but that just seems off.

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 5:45 PM  

Rabbi B wrote: the issue is simply getting the State to keep their proverbial nose out of our tents when it comes to matters they are not qualified to mitigate or rectify, not matter how incompetent they may think we are to handle our own business.

"our own business"? What makes you think that the state doesn't have an interest in marriage, or food production, or finances, or taxes, or anything else that has to do with people living together? Here you are, loudly proclaiming how other people ought to manage their affairs, while at the same time denying them the right to do the same.

Even the Romans of Y'shua's day were reluctant to wade into these waters, to say the least.

Until they weren't. Eventually, they had enough of Jewish intransigence and leveled Jerusalem.

It seems to me that Y'shauu was careful to distinguish between institutions that were in the purview and realm of Caesar and those which were not.

Remember, I know the Scriptures better than you do. What Jesus didn't do is specify where those lines were to be drawn (in fact, He would claim that everything was His). Nor did He claim that the lines were static.


Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 5:54 PM  

"In contests of might, the mightier party wins. In legal/moral contests, winning a contest of might does not make you right."

It does when G-d, His laws, and His morality are on our side. This is true in our case.

David's fight was not a question of who was mightier, but whose ideology was mightier. The same was true of Daniel, Esther, Mordechai, and anybody else who was forced to take a stand in the face of an enemy or overreaching State.

So, we just keep re-drawing the proverbial line in the sand while the enemy takes more and more territory, only to find ourselves backed up against the ocean and wondering how we ended up there with no where else left to go.

Blogger CM March 06, 2015 5:55 PM  

What makes you think that the state doesn't have an interest in marriage

I will readily admit that the state has a vested interest in the formation and preservation of the traditional, nuclear family.

Especially small governments...

But our government doesn't understand (or care) why it benefits from these types of marriagez over others and has no interest in reducing its OWN big, gigantic, smothering foot print.

So it can get out of marriage and stay out til its figured that out.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 5:58 PM  

And yes, G-d may or may not intervene and save us from the fire, but we take the stand for what is right no matter the cost. It's our responsibility to see that marriage is honored, and the State can do likewise by staying out of it all together.

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 6:00 PM  

Rabbi B wrote: It does when G-d, His laws, and His morality are on our side. This is true in our case.

So, if you had your druthers, we should be stoning gays who want to get married, since it would imply their lying with one another, thereby putting them under Leviticus 20:13?

Just what is it you're claiming God's justification for?

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 6:05 PM  

"So, if you had your druthers, we should be stoning gays who want to get married, since it would imply their lying with one another, thereby putting them under Leviticus 20:13?"

Are you actually reading my comments?

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 6:10 PM  

Rabbi B asked: Are you actually reading my comments?

Yes. That's why I'm trying to find out why you're being so inconsistent. So, how about answering the question? It isn't hard. "Yes, we would be stoning homosexual men who engage in homosexual sex" or "No, we should not be stoning homosexual men who engage in homosexual sex."

The issue being, if you're going to claim that God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman, that it is our duty to uphold that, and that the state shouldn't interfere, then I want to know if you claim, or deny, Leviticus 20:13. If you claim both, then I'm going to ask you why you focus on one and not the other. If you claim one and deny the other, then I'm going to ask you on what basis you pick and choose.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 6:19 PM  

"That's why I'm trying to find out why you're being so inconsistent."

Demonstrate my inconsistency.

And others can feel free to jump in and help me see it as well, but as far as I can tell, and although I may not know the Scriptures as well as you do, I have been consistently on topic in talking about the nature of the State's relationship to the Divine institution of marriage and what I think it ought to be.

Unless I missed something, and the thread is really about how we should or should not apply the Levitical laws about homosexuality in the USA.

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 6:27 PM  

Rabbi B said: Demonstrate my inconsistency.

Answer the question.

Really, I didn't expect you to be so evasive. Just how hard is it to say "yes" or "no"? It's a simple question. My answer is "no". What's yours?

Anonymous ENthePeasant March 06, 2015 6:28 PM  

For all practical purposes the law no longer exists at the Federal level. It's made up on the spot, applied unequally and meant to benefit the ruling class. It's easy to see that the results of the end of the rule of law at the federal level means a vacuum that will be filled, in this case by the State of Alabama.

Anonymous DissidentRight March 06, 2015 6:32 PM  

gamma moderate entryist detected

Recognizing that God's law is what makes right is the basis of Western Civilization.

Rabbi B: While I agree with you, the prophets are a good example of how having the right ideology is often likely to get you killed.

But our government doesn't understand (or care) why it benefits from these types of marriagez over others and has no interest in reducing its OWN big, gigantic, smothering foot print.

So it can get out of marriage and stay out til its figured that out.


Exactly.

The issue being, if you're going to claim that God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman, that it is our duty to uphold that, and that the state shouldn't interfere, then I want to know if you claim, or deny, Leviticus 20:13. If you claim both, then I'm going to ask you why you focus on one and not the other. If you claim one and deny the other, then I'm going to ask you on what basis you pick and choose.

Nonsense. There is an ocean of difference between the moral law, along with God's design intent for humanity--and a particular set of civil punishments specified for use by the children of Israel, or a particular set of ceremonial procedures specified for use by the children of Israel. Jesus replaced the Old Covenant with a New one. Peter explicitly slaps down your nonsense in Acts 15.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 6:35 PM  

"I didn't expect you to be so evasive . . "

Oh please. You're the one who accused me of inconsistency.

I have monopolized most of this particular blog post today. Everyone reading here should not only be able to judge the consistency or inconsistency of my position but point it out as well, whether or not I answer a question that is not really intended to determine what you ostensibly claim it does.

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 6:43 PM  

Sometimes, when it comes to certain kind of stupid, evasion is the only honorable and merciful recourse.

What to do?

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes . . . or . .Do not answer a fool, lest you be like him. It's just that it's not always so easy to know what to do . . .

Blogger CM March 06, 2015 6:45 PM  

Rabbi is not being inconsistent. And wrf provided a false dichotomy.

It is not "support both" or "support none". As dissident right points out, upholding the institution of marriage within a church's own court (as opposed to the federal government's court) is not the same as wanting to establish levitical law throughout america (or even in our own churches).

From what I understand, rabbi wants the state out of marriage even to the point where it does not resolve property disputes upon dissolution. And his proposal to deal with those potential issues was to have a church court replacement. As another commenter noted, the catholic church has something similar to that. There is nothing inconsistent about his position.

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 6:47 PM  

Rabbi B wrote: You're the one who accused me of inconsistency.

And evasiveness. It's just absolutely mind-boggling that you will write ≈150 words to keep from saying "yes" or "no."

If you're going to claim God's word for upholding marriage as being between a man and a woman, and if you're going to claim Jesus' words as a basis for telling the state to stick their collective noses elsewhere, then either:
1) You're going to uphold God's word on the punishment for male homosexual behavior and ask the state to stay out of that too, or
2) You're going to deny the applicability of Levitical punishment today. But if you're going to do that, then why uphold one and deny the other?

You seem to forget that your nose is no different from the state's nose. Where are you going to stick it?

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 6:58 PM  

"You seem to forget that your nose is no different from the state's nose. Where are you going to stick it?"

That sounds latently anti-Semitic . . .

Are you making light of my nose now?

Blogger RBooster Man March 06, 2015 7:00 PM  

Gamma Moderate Entryist said:
"Recognizing that God's law is what makes right is the basis of Western Civilization."

Christianity gave birth to its mutant offspring, Progressivism. The idea of "The meek shall inherit the earth" is one of the most poisonous ideas to infect the minds of whites and some East Asians. From this evil idea comes the idea that space colonization (even private space ventures) should be blocked in order to feed the mouths of worthless african spawn.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/20/stop-pretending-mars-mankind

Blogger Rabbi B March 06, 2015 7:00 PM  

Demonstrate my inconsistency or retract your charge.

I have already admitted to my 'evasiveness'. Guilty.

Blogger Kirk Parker March 06, 2015 7:06 PM  

Rabbi B,

"the divorce rate among professing believers runs higher than most."

There is no way to imagine a clearer signal that your comments here can be safely ignored.

Anonymous BigGaySteve March 06, 2015 7:12 PM  

" Divorce lawyers, family courts, and all the officials who populate them make their livings destroying families. I do not know how they sleep at night, to be honest."

I guess I shouldn't mention how many gay/lesbian lawyers I have meet.

"Student in Blue wrote: So you're saying that the founders of the US and authors of the Declaration of Independence were whackos and Kool-Aid drinkers?"

If they think all men are created equal they never had boyfriends.

"cocaine user Hunter Biden ( son of Joe ) has been installed on the board of the Uke energy company Burisma"

So much for liberals arguing that crack shouldn't be punished worse than cocaine if the punishment for getting busted with cocaine is being put in charge of a nations petrol reserves.

Those low rates are in low "equality" areas but that link is quite quick to point out india's rates will be going up as women feel more empowered to make a living on their own.

This is why gay marriage would be a bloodbath for productive gays. After marriage it would be a contest to see who could quit their job first to divorce with alimony.

"No, we should not be stoning homosexual men who engage in homosexual sex."

There is nothing in the new testament against gays, & most of the old testament anti gay parts can be translated as against gay prostitutes, like the bacha bazi which moslems allow http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/dancingboys/view/ . The old testament wasn't very nice to str8 prostitutes either.

"it would imply their lying with one another"

Gay guys can lie even without having sex. STR8 guys can lie about the size fish they caught.

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 7:16 PM  

Rabbi B wrote: Demonstrate my inconsistency or retract your charge. I have already admitted to my 'evasiveness'. Guilty.

Answer my prior question first and I'll be more than happy to. Until then, I will be no less evasive than you. After all, you're not the only one who knows Proverbs 26:4-5.

OpenID simplytimothy March 06, 2015 7:21 PM  

If you're going to claim God's word for upholding marriage as being between a man and a woman, and if you're going to claim Jesus' words as a basis for telling the state to stick their collective noses elsewhere, then either:
1) You're going to uphold God's word on the punishment for male homosexual behavior and ask the state to stay out of that too, or


Not at all.

Two examples will suffice.

First, God himself not upholding the punishment for adultery (equally abhorent as male homosexual behavior per leviticus if I recall correctly) "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Second, St. Paul, a pharisee of pharisees who knew a thing or two about jewish law wrote in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality
10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

11And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


We see in verse 11 that he is conversing with and admonishing those who, by your reasoning, he should be stoning.

Blogger Marissa March 06, 2015 7:41 PM  

Romans 1.

Blogger Marissa March 06, 2015 7:43 PM  

"24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 7:49 PM  

SimplyTimothy wrote: First, God himself not upholding the punishment for adultery...

On the contrary, Jesus was absolutely upholding the Law. One of the provisions was that a capital charge could not be brought unless there were at least two witnesses and the witnesses had to be the first to throw stones. When Jesus said, "let those who are without sin cast the first stone", what He was saying was "those of you who are witnesses to the adultery (i.e. those who are not bearing false witness) cast the stones. Do what the Law requires."

We see in verse 11 that he is conversing with and admonishing those who, by your reasoning, he should be stoning.

Remember, my answer was "no" (cf. the post at "March 06, 2015 6:27 PM"). The reason being that death ends the jurisdiction of law (cf. Rom 7). Those who have been crucified with Christ have died with Him and, therefore, the Law has no more dominion over them. That's why he doesn't suggest stoning them.

But then the question becomes, if we don't want Caesar intruding on our business, just how much does the Church get to impose their business of Caesar, and why? Furthermore, if we, of all people recognize the futility of law to produce righteous behavior, why are we resorting to law to make citizens of the state behave?

Anonymous BigGaySteve March 06, 2015 7:53 PM  

Soros is offering $2000 each for gay/lesbian couples to appear in his new gay marriage push video. http://www.wehoconfidential.com/2015/02/casting-call-21115.html

Anonymous DissidentRight March 06, 2015 8:38 PM  

Furthermore, if we, of all people recognize the futility of law to produce righteous behavior, why are we resorting to law to make citizens of the state behave?

In the Lutheran churches, and others, we recognize three uses of the law: mirror, curb, guide. The mirror reveals our sinfulness, the curb reduces acts of lawlessness, and the guide shows us how to behave.

Certainly the Law cannot produce the righteousness of God, but it can at least keep us from murdering each other, and maybe it can help us live in relative peace.

OpenID simplytimothy March 06, 2015 8:54 PM  

When Jesus said, "let those who are without sin cast the first stone", what He was saying was "those of you who are witnesses to the adultery (i.e. those who are not bearing false witness) cast the stones. Do what the Law requires."

Is this your formulation? If not, what is the source for "those who are without sin" becoming "those of you who are witnesses to" ? Does this formulation have a name?

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 8:54 PM  

DissidentRight wrote: Certainly the Law cannot produce the righteousness of God, but it can at least keep us from murdering each other, and maybe it can help us live in relative peace.

"... if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing." [Gal 2:21b]

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 9:02 PM  

simplytimothy wrote: Is this your formulation?

Of course not. All you have to do is read the Bible.

If not, what is the source for "those who are without sin" becoming "those of you who are witnesses to" ?

1) "You shall not bear false witness." (Ex 20:16, 23:1; De 5:20)
2) "On the evidence of two or three witnesses the death sentence shall be executed; a person must not be put to death on the evidence of only one witness." (De 17:6, 19:5)
3) "The hands of the witnesses shall be the first raised against the person to execute the death penalty, and afterward the hands of all the people. " (De 17:7)

So, one way Jesus could have responded was "those of you who are witnesses to the crime take up stones to stone her". Another way Jesus could say the same thing was "those of you who aren't bearing false witness (since they were, after all, accusing her of adultery) cast the first stone." Which is equivalent to Jesus' "those of you who are without sin cast the first stone."

It's not that difficult.

OpenID simplytimothy March 06, 2015 9:28 PM  

@wrf3

Ok, so Jesus was going strictly by the law then, am I correct?

Blogger JDC March 06, 2015 9:29 PM  

STR8 guys can lie about the size fish they caught.

Finally!

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 9:34 PM  

simplytimothy wrote: Ok, so Jesus was going strictly by the law then, am I correct?

Yes.

Anonymous CK March 06, 2015 9:41 PM  

"The truth is that when a bride and groom today vow to G-d and each other, "for better or worse", they are really only thinking, "better". When they vow, "for richer or poorer", they are really only thinking, "richer". When they vow, "in sickness and in health", they are really only thinking, "health". When they vow, "as long as we both shall live", they are really only thinking of bliss-and-nothing-else for life. The reality is that they don't really anticipate that they will ever need to remain faithful to their spouses "for worse, for poorer and in sickness, as long as we both shall live".

Usually there is one spouse thinking like that and the other one is true. And it's usually the female that's the one that doesn't take the whole vow.

OpenID simplytimothy March 06, 2015 9:43 PM  

simplytimothy wrote: Ok, so Jesus was going strictly by the law then, am I correct?

Yes.


Ok, then, by your formulation had the criteria of the points 1,2 and 3 you posted been fulfilled Jesus, would have required the stoning of the woman, yes?

Blogger wrf3 March 06, 2015 9:52 PM  

simplytimothy wrote: Ok, then, by your formulation had the criteria of the points 1,2 and 3 you posted been fulfilled Jesus, would have required the stoning of the woman, yes?

If she were guilty, certainly. That's what law does. It kills.

Anonymous DissidentRight March 06, 2015 10:02 PM  

"… if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing." [Gal 2:21b]

Christ died to put us in heaven. Civil righteousness, which is attainable, doesn't do that. Lots of non-Christians have never stolen anything or killed anyone. They lack the Righteousness of Christ, but not civil righteousness.

Which is equivalent to Jesus' "those of you who are without sin cast the first stone."

Consistent with != equivalent to. Just because your conjecture doesn't contradict what Jesus said doesn't actually make it true.

If she were guilty, certainly.

That is absolutely, unbelievably, unthinkably absurd. Were that true, Jesus would killed every person he encountered, since we are all worthy of death. Isn't it kind of funny how he said, "He who is without sin?" Hmm, maybe the implication is that everyone is guilty of sins worthy of death, and that he wasn't going to kill her any more than kill the rest of us. Jesus came to forgive, not to punish.

OpenID simplytimothy March 06, 2015 10:11 PM  

If she were guilty, certainly. That's what law does. It kills.

I figured you would have to say that based on your reasoning. I have different premises, so I do not arrive at the same conclusion. I am too tired to delve into that tonight.

However, regarding your discussion with Rabbi B.


Yes. That's why I'm trying to find out why you're being so inconsistent. So, how about answering the question? It isn't hard. "Yes, we would be stoning homosexual men who engage in homosexual sex" or "No, we should not be stoning homosexual men who engage in homosexual sex."

You volunteered your answer later as "no, you should not be stoning them". However, in your discourse with me you just stated that Jesus had to per the law. As a follower of Jesus, shouldn't your 'no' be a 'yes'?


1 – 200 of 214 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts