Most people who know me "IRL" know that I am pretty conservative, but that I am also very "live and let live." I prefer not to have the government telling me what I should do and how I should do it, therefore, I don't think the gov't should tell other people what they should do and how. I do feel, however, that each "right" I claim carries with it an equal responsibility. That is, is I believe that I have a right to life, I have a responsibility to honor that right for someone else (i.e. do not kill him).

I do not want the government telling me what faith I can hold or how to practice it; consequently, I have a very difficult time stomaching telling someone else if or how he can practice his. This all brings me to some word vomit on my jumbled thoughts and feeling about the news out of West Texas:

1) I reaffirm my belief that the government should be out of the business of marrying people. Many of the "evils"of polygamy (from a social standpoint-- I am not talking religion here) stem from the fact that it must by virtue of the laws of our land be practiced in secret. Because polygamy is illegal, those who practice are removed from certain protections. I am speaking specifically here of the coercion of young girls into marriage as a third or fourth wife to someone not of their own choosing and of the shunning and exile of young men (because they are competition).

2) I hate to see babies taken from their mommas.

3) I am disappointed, though not surprised, in the tone taken by most media outlets. There is possibly more to this story than s*x. Is anyone else tired of hearing about the bed found in their temple?

4) If there is clear cut abuse, and I do mean clear cut, then each victim should be protected and the perpetrators convicted to the full extent of the law.

5) The net cast by law enforcement is a bit broad for my tastes.

Now that I have opened this can of worms, I am curious as to anyone else's thoughts. Maybe it will help me make sense of mine.

Labels: civil rights, will she ever shut up?

I try to avoid controversy here. It is perhaps spineless of me, but that's life. My primary reason for abstaining is that I grew up with the knowledge that opinions are "like a##h@les-- everybody has one." (Pardon me for being so crude) I have since been emboldened, thanks to this post over at Queen of Swords.

Anyway, I heard a blurb on the "news" this morning about a pastor in Amherst who is refusing to marry any couple until the state of Massachusetts allows gay marriage. (I use the quotation marks because this story is far from newsworthy-- pastors have been doing this for at least 5 years)

The story irked me enough to break my blogging silence on this thing we call marriage, and I know that some people will be disappointed with my thoughts. To those who are disappointed or surprised, please remember my crude second sentence.

I am married. Happily, hard-workingly, wonderfully married. I was married according to the traditions of the UMC, and the laws of the state of Maryland. Guess which means more to me? Duh. The fact is, that if the state or federal government decided to revoke my marriage license, I would be no less married. My marriage is a covenant with my husband, and not some social contract. The social contract has nothing to do with that covenant, it is merely a way for the government to keep track of things in case we cancel that contract.

Of course, it is easy for me to say this, right? After all, I "enjoy" the privileges of being "legally married." What privileges are there and why? Why does the government treat people differently anyway?

Here's the thing-- I firmly believe that our current system smacks of clericalism, and that marriage covenants should be left up to the churches. Could the government please get out of the business of marrying people and get to fixing the roads? I am usually the last person to look to European countries as an example, but I think the model is a valid one which has two systems-- one path to be recognized by the government, and the other to be recognized by the Church.

We already have this little law in place to protect the rights of churches and clergy, so I don't think that there will be any problems for those churches which desire to uphold to a Biblical standard. (Whether they choose to do so is something which remains to be seen, and that battle is for church government alone.)

I have very close family members who would love nothing more than to select "M" on forms. Me, I don't think we should be asking at all.

Labels: civil rights, marriage, politics