Email a copy of 'Wrong Way Riegels' to a friend

* Required Field

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...    Send article as PDF   

6 Responses to “Wrong Way Riegels”

  1. Maggie says:

    Surely the difference between the first order and the second order is something addressed in the separation of church and state. If marriage applies to the second order, should anything be writ in the first order that acknowledges it?

    What I am suggesting is that Marriage is an issue of faith, not government, and I believe that the ACLU suggests something similar. Marriage being an issue of faith should not be addressed by government but by faith groups, and the only matter the government should address is civil union so that basic rights can be given to couples.

  2. Danny says:

    Mike –
    I tend to agree with Maggie. Unfortunately, this train has left the station. The problem is that government has gotten involved in regulating a sacred institution. I think that the end game is for government to get out of marriage. Government ought to recognize and regulate civil unions. Faith communities ought to recognize and regulate marriages. This would lift marriage up. If someone (homosexual or heterosexual wants a civil union — fine. If however, they want a marriage, the bar is raised.

    I don’t disagree with you that California got it wrong — but there is no way they’ll turn and run the other direction. This ship has sailed.

  3. Ken says:

    I agree with both Danny and Maggie.

    Our government doesn’t regulate baptism, communion, confirmation, baht mitzvah., etc., which are considered sacred (hence “sacrament”) by many religious institutions, and which have a very defined set of requirements.

    So why should our government regulate “marriage”?

    We, as Christians, should not expect our non-Christian neighboors to follow our own faith any more than our neighboors should expect us to follow theirs.

    Now, if we, as Christians, still have difficulty with “civil unions”, then we need to adderss this from a “secular” angle.

    Quoting scription to non-believers is not an effective way to create law.

  4. Trent McEntyre says:


    I was probably too busy to read the post this morning but I got hooked by the Georgia Tech reference. See, I work at Georgia Tech which is a place that is dominated by scientific naturalism. The question I have is, “what is the current place of natural law in the marriage law debate?”

    Atlanta, GA

  5. Troy says:

    You can change the language and call it civil unions, but it’s the same thing. It’s an end around to justify something that is simply against the sacred tradition of marriage.

    This can’t possibly be what your parents, teachers, anyone of significant authority taught you was right. Most of what they learned and taught us as youngsters, including the laws we live by, was derived from the same book everyone seems to be now running from.

    You can put lipstick and a dress on that pig, but it is still a pig.

  6. Douglas says:

    Ken’s comments are noteworthy; however, the problem with lumping marriage into the same group as “baptism, communion, confirmation, bat[sic] mitzvah” is that not all faiths subscribe to these individual ‘sacraments’ (that’s what some call them – so I’ll use it here). But…

    Marriage is a universal institution that transcends religions, cultures, ethnicities – you name it. Every people group that has ever existed has (and OUGHT TO) held sacred the institution of marriage. Our Creator had a perfect design for establishing a construct by which the propagation of the human race could be conducted in a manner that is fitting for the part of creation that was made in His own image. For the record, every institutional definition of marriage (whether it was a religious or legal definition) prior to the 21st century has defined marriage as being between a MAN and a WOMAN. Please, could anyone show me an example of another culture in history (pre 21st century) where the definition of marriage ever included same-sex unions? I can assure you that since no one has ever figured out how two members of the same sex can procreate – this would have been a short-lived society if such ever existed.

    Discussions about ‘separation of church and state’ with respect to the UNIVERSAL institution of marriage are largely irrelevant as some ‘body’ has to oversee it if its definition is going to have any consequences outside of the relationship itself. As our society (and most others) afford certain privileges to married people (maybe because we are the major majority) – the government seems like the best fit… otherwise, we would as many definitions of marriage as there are denominations, states, interest groups and the value of marriage is cheapened.

    Should we expect the non-Christian world to get the definition of marriage right? ABSOLUTELY! They’ve been doing it for almost 6,000 years now (goes back almost to Adam and Eve, right?)…

Leave a Reply