Things That Piss Me Off, Volume 325:
The Constitution Party, which has very little to do with the Constitution, and everything to do with trying to turn return the country to the roots of its ‘Christian founding.’
Except for the part where that is totally not what happened.
What brought this up? I just got an email from the Constitution Party of Spokane, which read in part:
Constitution Party of Spokane County
Principle Over Politics
REFERENDUM 71
For those who may not be aware, earlier this year our state legislature passed, and our governor signed into law, a bill granting “same-sex domestic partners” the same rights and responsibilities as married spouses – in other words, homosexual marriage by a different name. On May 4, the Constitution Party of Washington published a press release voicing our party’s support for a referendum to overturn this egregious legislation. Subsequently, defenders of God ordained marriage have filed Referendum 71 which will subject this matter to the will of voters, but first, R-71 NEEDS TO COLLECT 120,577 SIGNATURES by next Wednesday, July 22.
Unless you want to bear the responsibility for a future generation growing up in a society that treats sodomy as the moral equivalent of marriage, then you need to be actively helping R-71 get the signatures it needs in this last week of the signature gathering period. Has R-71 been circulated in your church yet? If not, then consider it your job to approach everyone you know, and don’t know, before and after church this next Sunday. If you can take the petition to work or around your neighborhood, then that’s a plus. One of our party members has already gotten 40 signatures by approaching people after church and she plans to get 20 more this next week, plus another 20 at her place of employment. There is no excuse for her efforts not being repeated in every church in our state, certainly in our county, and for sure in “YOUR CHURCH.”
I have been told that petitions are available at Fourth Memorial Church (located at Indiana and Standard, just west of Hamilton, 487-2786). I found petitions at the Christian Supply store on Sullivan Rd. in Spokane Valley – call a Christian book store near you, they might have it. You can also request petitions online from protectmarriagewa.com.
NOTE: Remember to sign the back of the petition before mailing it in. The address to mail the petition to is at the bottom of the front page, but there is a box on the lower left of the back page that you must sign or the secretary of state will not count the signatures on the petition.
…
While it would be desirable to see public officials attending such a course, the Institute on the Constitution is primarily intended for the average citizen who needs to rediscover the principles of Christian liberty and limited government that our nation was founded upon. Without a firm grasp of those principles, how can we judge candidates for public office or their proposed policies? The Institute on the Constitution will reset your political compass to a “Constitutional” course.
I replied. I’m sorry, I had to.
In case you were unaware, marriage licenses did not exist at the time of the signing of the Constitution. In fact, the institution of government-licensed marriage (as differentiated from common-law marriage) was used for many years to suppress the rights of racial minorities to marry or to intermarry with whites. Is this really a scheme we should embrace under the banner of Christianity? Not my brand, that’s for sure.
I’d also quote a treaty – the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli – ratified under one of my favorite founding fathers, John Adams:
“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion – as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, – and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arrising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
I’d also point out that another favorite founder, Thomas Jefferson, requested three things be listed on his tombstone, the life accomplishments he considered most important:
AUTHOR OF THE DECLARATION OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE
OF THE STATUTE OF VIRGINIA FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
AND FATHER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIAYou might want to take a look at the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom which makes it quite clear Jefferson, despite any Christian leanings, did not believe one’s religion (or lack thereof) should influence their civil rights.
I will continue to advocate for an abolishment of government-sanctioned “marriage,” period – and civil contracts for all. Protect the sanctity of marriage within “YOUR CHURCH” – where it belongs, and keep your religion out of government-enforced contracts.
It makes me sad that people with these views and misunderstandings of the founding have co-opted the name “Constitution Party” – I know many freedom-minded individuals who could have used it to do good.
I don’t know how I wound up on your email list, but please take me off.
In liberty,
Laurel [Mylastname]
And now I’m grumpy.
Hoorah!
Hmmm…
If they are claiming that the only basis for making gay marriage illegal is that it’s not allowed in a certain religion, they’ve just made the most powerful argument in favor of gay marriage, in our system.
I personally don’t think marriage licensing should be a government function at all, nor do I think the law should make blanket provisions for “married” and “unmarried”. Contract law should be sufficient to deal with any and all issues.
Be that as it may, though, if the government does define “married” then one can argue all sorts of things about what it must mean. But any specifically religious aspects of marriage would be a violation of the First Amendment.
The “Constitution Party” idiots can’t even see that they’re undermining their own position…
I agree that Government should not have anything to do with marriage, but rather should support contracts between persons as it already does.
Marriage should be in the domain of the organization doing the marrying and the folks getting married.
Now, to the founding of the US and it’s Christian Heritage. I think that there is more evidence “for” than “against”.
There are three (at least) problems:
1) The establishment clause in the First Ammendment
2) Definition of religion
3) States rights
1 and 3 are similar in my view. The establishment clause prevents FedGov and only FedGov from establishing a state religion. The states are free to establish state religions as they see fit (or WERE free…)
#2 If FedGov is prohibited from establishing a religion then I propose that the Democratic Party, particularly the Green and Radical Left part should be banned as religions acting in FedGov.
Let folks do as they wish, so long as they do not impact me and my life. Re-defining marriage for my family and my church impacts me and my life.
The GLBT community appears to want positive sanction for their behavior from all folks. My source material (the Bible) says no can do. For government to enforce the beliefs of the GLBT community is to establish religion, thus violating the establishment clause.
The federal government and most states currently only recognize marriage as between a man and a woman, which impacts such things as income taxes. So no, the government isn’t just enforcing a contract between persons – which is what I would advocate.
I fail to see how offering a generic civil contract that can be entered into by any two, or group of, people is ‘enforcing’ the beliefs of the GLBT community. The government should be in the domain of contract enforcement, if even that. I should be able to share my resources with anybody I choose – the level of love or sex involved is no business of the government.
I don’t think your view of marriage, or your church’s definition of marriage, should be redefined. No church should be forced to sanction marriages it does not agree with – be they hetero, homo, poly, or anything else. For that matter, your marriage would not be made null and void in the eyes of your God if the government expands a narrowly-issued contract to be available to all.
Excellent points, Laurel.
I fail to see how offering a generic civil contract that can be entered into by any two, or group of, people is ‘enforcing’ the beliefs of the GLBT community.
It wouldn’t be.
As I see it, neither the pro- nor the anti-gay-marriage sides are fighting for a generic civil contract. At least to me, it appears that the mainstream of both sides is pushing for the government to force other people to do things their way, i.e. “the government must condemn what I call ’sin’!”, or “the government has to declare me to be normal!” Sure, one can pick a side that he/she prefers, but that doesn’t change the dynamic that’s been played out (note that I was crashed in a friend’s spare bedroom last November in California, so I saw a lot of the Prop 8 crap, firsthand).
Personally, I see the libertarian solution to the problem as the best one, for many reasons that I don’t even have to go into, here. It also seems like the obvious solution, and the one that could possibly be acceptable to everyone if presented with some level of eloquence and compassion. Fundamentalists and evangelicals are genuinely afraid that the world will go to hell in a handbasket if gay couples can get a marriage certificate, instead of just living together and getting a civil union certificate. Fine, then. Why should ANYONE get a GOVERNMENT marriage anyway?
It’s sad that said libertarian solution isn’t getting a lot of air time. This would be a wonderful opportunity for people to see how getting the government so involved in our lives isn’t good for anyone.
You so rock!
[...] A while back, I posted a little rant I’d fired off to the Constitution Party of Spokane in response to their stance on Referendum 71 in Washington. [...]