tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574198575168538104.post6279919781488483042..comments2024-02-27T14:15:43.978-06:00Comments on Modern Medievalism: Why Oklahoma's House Bill 1125 should make everyone happy (or equally mad)The Modern Medievalisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238571174836044412noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574198575168538104.post-30092436708276228512015-05-29T17:04:33.007-05:002015-05-29T17:04:33.007-05:00Do you know what happened to this Bill? I can'...Do you know what happened to this Bill? I can't seem to find anything on it. Did it die in the Senate?EVA MAHONEYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14829505625102641817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574198575168538104.post-48930097191062187332015-03-24T14:19:40.482-05:002015-03-24T14:19:40.482-05:00Nate, you are right, of course, about marriage pri...Nate, you are right, of course, about marriage prior to ancient Rome. Of course. I didn't mean to outline the entire history of marriage. Rome was mentioned since that civilization is considered by some folks to be a glimpse of a "better", pre-Christian age.The Modern Medievalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238571174836044412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574198575168538104.post-11417880111853559402015-03-24T14:11:38.263-05:002015-03-24T14:11:38.263-05:00In short, my position is that the state is unable ...In short, my position is that the state is unable to define marriage. This is apparent enough in the fact that if I had gotten married without the civil license, I would still be married. The bill is a first step toward the end of state involvement in defining what marriage is.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it's not possible to ban same-sex marriage (or "marriage", if you prefer) in the United States (and many European countries) because there's no longer a consensus among the general population of what marriage is. Hence, the problem of allowing the state to define marriage in the first place.The Modern Medievalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238571174836044412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574198575168538104.post-53688318405230218442015-03-24T12:45:51.741-05:002015-03-24T12:45:51.741-05:00Interesting piece. I'm not sure that the churc...Interesting piece. I'm not sure that the church was the only institution advancing consent and witness, e.g., what about Classical Liberalism?, but I'm no expert on the matter.<br /><br />In terms of society, I would think that a recognition is necessary for ALL marriages; it's a creational ordinance, and as such applies to ALL. While that is true, it is also the case that EVERY marriage is conceived as redemptive witness, i.e., Eph 5, and therefore, aware or not, every marriage bears witness to this prior reality. <br /><br />Additionally, I find it somewhat inaccurate to acknowledge, as some blip on the screen, 'The Romans did acknowledge marriage'. Heck what about the entire ANE, preceding the Romans by thousands of years!? Interestingly, the first communities, i.e., the land of Nod and Enoch, are listed, but then we have only after Seth's child (Enosh), that "people began to call upon the name of the LORD (Ge 4:26). So what of these other apparently secular places and cities? In my way of thinking, creational ordinance is written on the hearts of all, which includes gender complementarity, and if the far left was surprised by the quick acceptance of SSM, then we should not rule out a movement of God that taps the very sensus divinitatis by which our standards are partially formed. Until then, the church should stand firm and call all back to the creational prerequisite of gender, monogamous complementarity.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17790850331721464041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574198575168538104.post-73944982337249235372015-03-24T12:05:15.827-05:002015-03-24T12:05:15.827-05:00A little bit confused as where you stand on the wh...A little bit confused as where you stand on the whole thing.<br /><br />You've recently gotten married, in one of the most traditional, and magnificent weddings I've ever seen, and congratulations, btw.<br /><br />In your first paragraph, you quoted the bill, "Marriage was historically a religious covenant first and a government-recognized contract second. Under my bill, the state is not allowing or disallowing same-sex marriage. It is simply leaving it up to the clergy."<br /><br />Then, you went on to advocate this. I don't know if you see how confusing and contradicting this bill is. On one hand, the bill declares that marriage was a historical and religious covenant first. If this first sentence is to be believed, then this bill is following the Biblical definition of marriage, which is between a man and a woman. But then the second sentence states that it is not allowing or disallowing same-sex marriages.<br /><br />Do you not see the contradiction here? The bill wanted to leave marriage in the hands of the clergy, because marriage is first a religious and historical covenant. Which means that the only ever marriage it is going to allow is the traditional one: between man and woman. Other forms of unions (LGBT) should not apply here.<br /><br />I do not see how that bill could work without confusing people. The bill, if anything else, is neutral. The second sentence alone killed the first one. By "not allowing or disallowing" same sex marriages, IS allowing same-sex marriages. And if it does allow it, then what purpose is there for traditional marriages? <br /><br />Same-sex marriage is never a marriage. It is a union, but not a marriage, because there is no procreation. That part will always be proof that same-sex marriages can never be, no matter how much a lesbian loves her "partner". Love does not hold a candle to procreation. How can love be so important if you cannot bring forth or maintain the human race? Same-sex unions are built on selfishness, degeneracy and a total lack of respect for the self. <br /><br />I don't know how this bill can make supporters of traditional marriage happy---it's still the same, because they are still allowing same-sex marriage. It should be banned, for all eternity, never to see the light of day.Carmel Jamaicahttps://www.facebook.com/carmeljamaicanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574198575168538104.post-18347775736697278412015-03-21T11:01:07.514-05:002015-03-21T11:01:07.514-05:00Interesting analysis, though I find the unintended...Interesting analysis, though I find the unintended side-effects of this bil, should it pass, a cause for alarm. If the State is simply reduced to taking note of the existing marriage after the fact, than theoretically anything can be considered marriage. That, to me, is going from saying that the State can define reality to saying that anyone can define it. There are, of course, benefits as you noted, but do they really out-weigh the potential flaws?<br /><br />I am uncertain; I have no delusions that we can expect a conversion on the part of this country when it comes to this issue, the culture war has already been lost, so I suppose we can take what we can get.<br /><br />Anyway, I love reading your thoughts as well as this blog. Keep up the good work.Brian Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16382047339018420875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574198575168538104.post-1563937910489174952015-03-18T09:42:31.795-05:002015-03-18T09:42:31.795-05:00Thanks for the clarification.Thanks for the clarification.The Modern Medievalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238571174836044412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574198575168538104.post-65190713824280082222015-03-17T19:54:35.946-05:002015-03-17T19:54:35.946-05:00Though the Eastern Orthodox do recognize the marri...Though the Eastern Orthodox do recognize the marriage without a priest as a valid natural marriage, just not the Sacrament. Indeed, the couple contract a natural marriage in the porch of the church and then that natural marriage is sacramentalized by being "brought into communion." At least according to one interpretation of things it might do we'll for the West to finesse our own understanding towards. The idea that two Christians have a sacramental marriage or else "nothing at all"...is at the root of so many of our pastoral problems and canonical confusion today.Jelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01607822575954711599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574198575168538104.post-64169563069948330192015-03-17T14:35:33.487-05:002015-03-17T14:35:33.487-05:00Yes, yes, it is. It seems to me to solve many prob...Yes, yes, it is. It seems to me to solve many problems in our Republic.Anthony N. Emmelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14017952532295866111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574198575168538104.post-22101435759029008122015-03-17T13:21:04.141-05:002015-03-17T13:21:04.141-05:00Ah, yes. Is that not the Napoleonic Code system? I...Ah, yes. Is that not the Napoleonic Code system? I understand that in France, having a ceremony in the civil office first is required by the state before having a religious ceremony, which has no legal standing.The Modern Medievalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238571174836044412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574198575168538104.post-39721722565027082622015-03-17T12:50:34.568-05:002015-03-17T12:50:34.568-05:00Personally, I take the opposite position: take the...Personally, I take the opposite position: take the Church out of Civil Marriage. If a couple, same-sex or other, want to cohabitate, then civil union it is. Take away the right of the clergy to be legal "ministers of marriage." If someone wishes to have a religious rite, then they can; but, baptism, confirmation, etc, none have legal standing.<br /><br />This also protects the Church. What if a law is passed down they road that requires ministers to "marry" anyone who comes to them as they are de facto officers of the court?Anthony N. Emmelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14017952532295866111noreply@blogger.com