I was just ruminating on when I used to be quite indignant about believers who were living together and not married.
Now that gay civil marriage is recognized in many states, I have started to reevaluate my perspective.
Note: I am not writing this to get into a debate on whether gay marriage is right or wrong.
I think it is wrong, but I respect those those feel otherwise and am not in this post trying to change your mind.
I am also not trying to get into the political issue of if states should recognize same sex couples as married. Many states already have,
so I just trying to work that into my current faith perspective.
What I am looking for is input on how others who do not view gay marriage as a real marriage have navigated this issue.
My question is.....
Since I am coming to a place where I no longer view a civil marriage license as a real marriage, how does that affect my perspective on believers living together without a civil marriage license.
The civil license appears to me now to be no more than a domestic partnership contract covering legal property rights.
I view true marriage as a contract and relationship between a man and a woman before God.
Since states are now issuing these contracts to same sex couples, to me they no longer represent a real marriage contract before God.
So I am left thinking that a true marriage is simply a commitment before God to stay together.
Since the state even recognizes couples that have lived together for a certain number of years to be civilly married even without the license -
I am left wondering if in my mind the civil license is the necessary requirement for me to consider someone married verses living together.
Is a commitment before God to stay together enough to be married and not fall into the place of "living together"
It was amazing to watch the coverage of the demonstrations and violence in Iran following the disputed elections. If it wasn’t for Twitter and the Internet, we never would have seen what was happening. The government effectively stopped the reporting of the major international news organizations. They had to rely on Twitter and Youtube feeds from actual demonstrators.
It is evident that the digital revolution is making it difficult for despotic regimes to control what their citizens say and read. It is interesting that Iran tried to limit or slow down the internet during those riots, but they soon discovered that they needed the internet as well for the government to function.
Ironically, this same medium of freedom has been used in China to crack down on people. Yahoo gave the Chinese government access to a private citizens email account. The citizen was later arrested. Yahoo and Google are faced with either giving in to Chinese censorship and spying demands or walking away from the largest and fastest growing internet market in the world.
With the digital revolution lead to more freedom or more censorship? Only time will tell.
I stumbled on what might be a constructive proposal for how to reform our broken political system and address the overbearing influence big money has in influencing our federal government. It is an op-ed that appears to be written two Harvard Law professors, one a conservative and one a liberal. You can read the article here.
They want to see a constitutional convention called by the states.
Some of the reasons given
Enact true campaign finance reform... because Congress does not have the will to do it, since they are too controlled by special interests.
Give the president a line item veto.
It makes for an interesting read.
I am tempted to support the idea...
I'd love to hear some insights and thoughts from others....
I am reading a very interesting website. Monetary.Org
It advocates reforming our monetary system.
The reasons being the high unemployment and the squeeze of the middle class.
They are proposing having congress take back from the Federal Reserve the power to control the monetary system.They also propose to change the monetary system so it is not based on debt.
I'd really be interested in hearing other's perspectives on these proposals.
PBS has been showing the Ken Burns documentary on prohibition.
The evangelist Billy Sunday envisioned the following as the results
"No one marked the day (start of Prohibition) as fervently as evangelist Billy Sunday, who conducted a revival meeting in Norfolk, Virginia. Ten thousand grateful people jammed Sunday’s enormous tabernacle to hear him announce the death of liquor and reveal the advent of an earthly paradise. “The reign of tears is over,” Sunday proclaimed. “The slums will soon be only a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile, and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent.”
He was so... wrong.
Righteousness cannot be legislated.
Instead of righteousness,
outlawing liquor dramatically increased lawlessness and murder.
It makes one wonder if we are following the same failed approach
in the war on drugs.
:: Next Page >>
Welcome to the thoughts and musings of Barry Steinman
| Next >
|<< <||> >>|