Are we really all equal under the law?

[Scarecrow]

Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a Gay marriage bill legalizing gay marriage in New York and had this to say:

"With the world watching, the Legislature, by a bipartisan vote, has said that all New Yorkers are equal under the law."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43507672/ns ... _politics/

Perhaps a more accurate statement would have been that now homosexuals have the same marital rights in New York as heterosexuals. If all the New Yorkers were equal under the law wouldn't a man be able to take more than one wife legally and thereby grant all of his wives equal legal standing?

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Of course your logic is right on that Scarecrow. However, this is another reason, yet again, why I'm of the persuasion we are approaching a time where it is better if we use different terms to convey the thoughts and intent God had as what we mean is no longer even close to what they, the homosexuals, mean. Marriage as a term is now so diluted and polluted in so many places that we are better of as Judeo-Christians to use other terms that do properly convey what we mean.

 

[itainteasy]

I take issue with the title of this thread. I TOTALLY understand your point about "If the Sodomites can do it, why can't we?" There is a saying that I heard somewhere "Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others." However, again many of us don't even want this state sanctioned "marriage" anyway!

The title implies that we need to be considered "equal under the law". That in itself makes for bad social policy because we are not all equal. Men are not equal to women, nations and races are not equal to each other (that would be HORRIBLY boring), people of different ages/abilities are not equal. People who glorify and indulge their sexual sins are not equal to those who don't! If we treat everybody the same way then we get some sorry outcomes. Do you treat all your wives the same way? Sweetlissa had an awesome thread going a while back about how things don't always seem "fair" and "equal" but that is because each woman in a marriage brings different gifts and needs into it.

So if you follow the "equality" myth you end up saying: Hey, kids and teens should have the same "rights" as homos to engage in relationships despite their parents "age discrimination"! A man should be able to marry and collect social security for his favorite sheep! I know that poly is used as the next rung in the slipery slope debate against the oxymoron "gay marriage" but we all know that is a straw man. These sodomites dont respect "marriage" any more than their heterosexual reprobate counterparts do. This is all about the liberal agenda for people, especially the next generation, to accept anti biblical perversion and move away from a healthy society. It's happened before and it will happen again. What sodomite was not ostracized in the fifties in the USA??? Now even the catholic church says "we respect our gay brothers but dont want them to marry" or some such silly concessions. who says "we respect our lying, cheating, murderer friends- we just don't want them to be around us?" It's happened before and it will happen again. Dr. Keith is right- let them have their "marriage".

 

[Anonymous]

There is not anything left to say. You said it all sister Amen and amen/////// :!: dd

 

[Tali]

Itso, my dear one,

Me thinks you just gave the pm version of The Gettysburg Address. Well said, girl!

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

It is indeed often the liberal agenda we are running up against.

We do want and need equality under the law if we define "equality" properly.That is the issue we face it seems in such areas as this. It was said: "all men [mankind] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . .." Thus, we don't want the government applying some laws to males but not others to females when it is natural innate rights we are speaking of. Nor do we want government officials saying one has natural born rights whereas the other gender does not. So it is not per se a liberal agenda to acknowledge and maintain equality of laws to mankind on the whole and in general.

But as noted, on the other hand, we have to be careful with how the liberals define equality. Equality does not mean we discard functional roles, which is so often the agenda of liberals who really disguise their hatred for authority under the cloak of equality rights. If that occurs, as it does so often, the laws can be used even against the idea of bosses over employees, heads of a family over the family, parents over children, etc. So in those areas we have to balance all things with the idea that though all are equal not all have the same functions.

Theologically we root this in the idea that God is Father, Son, and Spirit and though each member is equal to the other as each is fully God each member also has functional roles that differ from one another. A man and woman in a union are of equal value before God and each other but they have different functional roles.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

itainteasy said:

I TOTALLY understand your point about "If the Sodomites can do it, why can't we?"

Where, in this thread, was that said? Or did you infer it from the whole "equal rights" discussion?

Other than that, itainteasy and Dr. Allen, between them, pretty much summed it up.

I, for one, very strongly resent "equating" the abomination of homosexuality and the Biblically-approved and sometimes mandated state of marriage, polygyny. There is absolutely no comparison. It is like comparing apples and what a pooper-scooper is designed to pick up, not apples and oranges. (Pardon my "french.")

We who believe the Bible have allowed the terms of the discussion to be (re-)defined by the antichrist enemy, and so we get garbage like the oxymorons "gay marriage" and "gay rights," and are thus arguing on their ground instead of ours. (I also resent the loss of the word "gay" to the antichrist enemy.) It is not marriage unless there can be procreation. Plain and simple. (As one Christian singer-songwriter couple, Lewis and Lewis, put it, "There'll be no reproduction if the plumbin' is all wrong." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzu-bhexgKY and their main website, http://www.lewisandlewis.org/) Homosexuals already have the same rights as any other citizen. What the perverts want is special privileges over and above what everyone else has.

Instead of saying, "What's next after 'gay marriage' - polygamy?" it should be, "What's next after 'gay marriage' - bestiality?" Because both homosexuality and bestiality are forbidden as abominations worthy of the death penalty under God's Law, while polygyny is regulated and sometimes commanded. (Keep in mind that when most people say "polygamy," they actually mean "polygyny.")

But, as is often pointed out by Dr. Allen, the terminology we formerly used - words like "marriage" - need to be replaced with terminology that accurately expresses what the hijacked terminology once meant, or more accurately, what the Bible teaches that it should be.

Sadly, language changes, and not always for the better.

 

[Scarecrow]

"Sadly, language changes, and not always for the better."

One of the arguments the gay/lesbian movement uses is that without a legal marriage (union) they do not have the rights afforded to married couples such as visitation in the hospital, death benefits, filing taxes, etc... One incident often cited is of an American lesbian couple in Mexico and one of them died in Mexico. The surviving "partner" did not have the ability to legally do anything for her "partner" and if memory serves the family of the deceased had to make all the arrangements...usually those are the "rights" that they are talking about that they want and don't have. They want to be seen legally equal to a spouse of a heterosexual marriage.

With a change of terminology we can linguistically segregate ourselves from others but what we cannot achieve is the legal rights afforded to those that are legally married and seen as such by our government. If one of my wives were to perish at this time I would be at the mercy of the government and/or her family. The government sees me as little more than a boy friend to her. So herein lies the problem...regardless what terminology we choose to use it would be best to have a legally recognized union and the authority to act based on what the State will see as a legitimate claim for that authority. The best solution I have seen proposed so far is to have the government get out of the marriage business all together and simply register the unions consenting adults (no critters) join in - similar to the way they license an LLC or partnership in which case the agreement between all parties is spelled out in the documents signed to form the union. The government would simply get involved if there was a dispute when one of the parties wanted to leave the union.

Therefore we are not all equal under the law as we should be. How the law applies under different circumstances is for the judges and courts to work through...that is what they are supposed to be doing.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

I agree with you fully Scarecrow.

The government should handle it like they do with businesses or non-profits.

Basically all it would require is for them to have a form where people could file as a "public assembly" (business) or as a "private assembly" (personal unions). Many liberty loving people today are writing about taking it to this system, what they call the privatization of this sphere.

On another note, there are legal documents you can get to help offset what you noted about your family. There are medical release forms, power of attorney forms, wills, medical permission forms, and other related forms that you could use to have rights reciprocate between you and your ladies. Many people who never go through with marriage today do this so they can care for one another if they are sick and they want someone making medical decisions for them when they cannot. That might be worth looking into for your family.

 

[CecilW]

Itso, my dear one, Me thinks you just gave the pm version of The Gettysburg Address. Well said, girl!

Agreed. And enjoyed Dr Keith's followup.

comparing apples and what a pooper-scooper is designed to pick up, not apples and oranges. (Pardon my "french.")

That's ok, PolyDoc. You have my personal approval for saying "comparing apples to road-apples". :twisted: :lol:

 

[Doc]

No, we are not really all equal under the (civil) law, but I would affirm that we are all CREATED equal.

The true purpose of the civil law is not to put men under bondage, but to release them to be FREE. However, the civil law is managed by men, who, even though they have the best of intentions, find evil in their hearts.

That is why accountability is such a critical issue in all levels of leadership. The less accountable leaders are, the more susceptible they are to the temptations of corruption.

Even Thomas Jefferson recognized this trend ~ “If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.”

Therefore, any inequalities that exist continue only because those that are governed refuse to demand equality.

Doc

 

[Jim]

I agree that the gov shouldn't be involved in marriage, period. But I think it was the early Christians that probably wanted it that way, and now we have Christians wanting to amend the constitutions to include one man one woman. I guess it's like everything else, some people always look to the gov for solutions rather then to themselves. I could careless if the gov grants rights to homosexuals, it's biologicaly impossible for them to become one in marriage anyway. I think they're just trying to force there beliefs onto everyone using the law as others do. Maybe the best way to seperate ourselves from homosexuals or the term "marriage", would be to seperate ourselves from the state. I know two preachers who believe that married couples should divorce the state by getting rid of there marriage licenses (Although you would have to legally divorce), and anyone getting married should do so without one. This would be a way to seperate ourselves from them, although it does come with financial sacrifice. I just don't think you can eliminate the word marriage without too much confusion and that benefits nobody.

 

[Jim]

No, we are not really all equal under the (civil) law, but I would affirm that we are all CREATED equal.

Yes, equally all created by God, but with differences. That's a blessing, like somebody said, it sure would be boring if we were all exact copies. :ugeek:

 

[Scarecrow]

"I think it was the early Christians that probably wanted it that way"

The Catholic Church was the government for most of the world for quite some time. Seems that the "religious" folks (modern day Pharisees) have some control issues that they have not dealt with yet. I keep reminding them of this:

1 Corinthians 5:12-13 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."

The early Christian church did not form within a Christian nation or under a Christian government. As the church became a political entity it became more and more corrupt until finally the (incomplete) reformation took place.

If the church had kept separate from the government as was intended we would not be in this situation we are now. Most churches now will not marry you if you don't have a license from the government to become married...the church (Catholic and Christian) really is in a horrible state of apostasy.