KUFM / KGPR
T. M. Power
Using the Bible to Guide Law-Making
After careful study, right-wing zealots have determined that the “Defense of Marriage Act” passed many years ago is not sufficient protection. We also need to modify the Constitution to make sure that homosexual couples cannot marry.
Most
of these zealots cite the Bible as the inspiration for a ban on such unions.
That is curious because the Bible clearly contradicts the very language being
proposed, namely that marriage is a union between one man and only one
woman. Of course the Bible not only
supports polygamous marriages but demands it in certain circumstances. Various religions continue to support this
practice, even right here in the
The Bible, speaking of marriage, also says “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” For millennia Christians read this literally to mean that divorce could never be sanctioned. The Catholic Church still reads it that way. We would expect, then, that the same Bible-thumpers who want to protect marriage by banning gay marriages would also be sponsoring a constitutional amendment banning all divorces. How better to defend marriage?! All who quit a marriage would have to remain celibate or be jailed for the rest of their lives.
But that is just the beginning of the laws and constitutional amendments that the Bible demands. Premarital sex, fornication in the language of the Bible, needs to be clearly banned and punished. That way, people would be given a strong incentive to marry so that they could enjoy sexual relationships. Those who violated a constitutional ban on premarital sex could be locked up in a federal penitentiary until they agreed to marry.
Of course extra-marital sex is also clearly banned by the Bible. The Sixth Commandment explicitly reads (in its modern version anyway): “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” No ifs, buts, or other qualifications. Again, how better to defend the sanctity of marriage than by amending the Constitution to ban adultery and require draconian penalties. The Bible suggests that an adulterous woman be stoned to death. Being modern, we would want to insist that the man also be stoned to death. A constitutional amendment to this effect would keep activists judges from softening this clear biblical prescription. Think of the instructional value and permanent lesson our children would learn if they were required to take part in one of these constitutionally-mandated ritual killings. It might make them think twice about fooling around as they grew up.
Speaking of our young people, the Bible also clearly forbids masturbation. From Genesis comes the biblical term for it, Onanism. With a constitutional amendment in place banning “wanking,” we could use the FBI to monitor teenage bedrooms and bathrooms and have show trials to discourage these disgusting practices. Doing so, of course, would again encourage young people to marry quickly, say, as in the Bible, at 12 or 14. Of course, we would need a constitutional amendment forbidding the state or federal governments from blocking such child marriages.
But we have just begun with the overhaul needed in our state and federal constitutions. Many of the common sexual practices enjoyed by married couples are clearly labeled as “unclean” in the Bible and banned as sodomy (a biblical term) or Onanism. While the federal police are monitoring our children’s bedrooms, they could also monitor those of the parents to make sure nothing but the missionary position is ever used.
Of course, we also need a constitutional amendment banning the most common forms of birth control. Some clearly involve “spilling” or wasting the seed. Others prevent a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterine wall. As a result, that fertilized egg is flushed from the body and dies. The Catholic Church is one of the few Christian religions that follows the Bible in objecting to all forms of artificial birth control. With the Pope’s help, we should be able to craft a clear, bomb-proof constitutional amendment banning all birth control that would withstand the assaults of activist judges who might think that an individual’s right to privacy was more important the religious zealotry.
Of course, there is another course of action we might take that is far closer to American political tradition. That would be to refuse to use the law and the police powers of the state to enforce any particular group of religious zealots’ views on the rest of us, even if those zealots are in the majority.
The
greatest threat to marriage these days has nothing to do with homosexuals. It
has to do with heterosexuals abandoning their marriages at record rates or not
choosing to enter into marriage at all.
If we think that marriage is good for couples, children, and the larger
society, why are we putting so much effort into preventing people who want
to get married from doing so? It is not homosexuals who are attacking marriage,
it is rabid heterosexual Bible thumpers who may be afraid or doubtful of their
own sexuality. Let them rant and rave.
It is good entertainment. But keep them away from the Constitution. Meanwhile,
within our own religious communities, we can set whatever rules we feel are
appropriate for marriage. That is no one else’s business.