Aimee Patton

A pleasantly eccentric take on politics

Unless you have been living under a rock in the United States this week, you know that the Supreme Court will start hearing arguments about gay marriage.  I think we all know the objection:  it redefines the biblical definition of marriage – one man and one woman.  In an age of divorce, the one man and one woman definition can happen multiple times – see Elizabeth Taylor, Newt Gingrich, etc. etc.

In our Judeo-Christian nation, I find it interesting that opening arguments for gay marriage happen to be the week of Passover and Holy Week for Christians. Really Supreme Court, were there no other times available on the calendar?  

Anyway, it seems that every day there is another politician who “comes out of the closet” so to speak in support of gay marriage.  Since I’m from Kansas City, I’m giving a shout out to Claire McCaskill, D-MO who recently came out!

However, I have to give a face-palm of disapproval to Congressman Huelskamp R-KS on the other side of the state line who came out against gay marriage.

Here is an excerpt of his speech.  It’s short and not so sweet so I thought I would include it.

“In the midst of all the discussion and protest surrounding these arguments, I would encourage the Court to not be distracted from the fundamental issue before them—will the U.S. Supreme Court choose to radically redefine marriage thus overturning the will of the American people as reflected in numerous votes by states, and by a vote of this body and signed into law by President Bill Clinton?

I urge the Supreme Court to uphold the will of the American people, support traditional marriage, and protect the democratic process by allowing the American people to express their will on this issue.”

I didn’t leave much out.  That’s pretty much the whole thing.  I would say two thumbs down on powerful and persuasive.  “The will of the American people” – sorry Congressman.  As of the latest poll 53% of American people support gay marriage.

Now something that is striking is that so few politicians are coming out publicly against gay marriage at a time when so many Americans are discussing it.  Maybe that is a sign of the times as well.  I don’t doubt many disagree, but they don’t want to do political damage by being too vocal.  Maybe they know times they are a changing.

I can hear the opposition to gay marriage even without the politicians saying anything “but the Bible says homosexuality is wrong.”

My response – you are correct.  The Bible says homosexuality is wrong.

A gasp from people who know me that can’t believe I just conceded a point.

The book I’m currently reading is The History of the Wife by Marilyn Yalom.  Now that I’m divorced and not one, I have tons of time to read about the history of one.  It takes the definition of a wife back to Biblical times.  One of the things it points out is that per Biblical requirements and for hundreds of years after if a woman’s husband died it was the obligation of the husband’s brother to marry the wife.  (A shiver just went down the spines of modern-day women.)

Now if we wanted to carry out something like this in modern-day society, people would say we were crazy with a capital Z.  Why?  Because as a society we have evolved, even though this is in the Bible.

To say that something is just, because it is in the Bible is not reason it should be American law.

Equal right to marry who you love may not be your Christian way, but justice is the American way.

I guess we will leave it in the hands of our Supreme Court to decide.  During this holy week, all we can all do is pray-50% of us will be praying for the right outcome.


7 thoughts on “Gay Marriage during Holy Week-seriously Supreme Court

  1. Maybe this is a sign that instead of asking what the church wants or what the Bible could be interpreted to want, maybe people will be asking…what would Jesus–who stood up for the outcasts and believed in love–do?

  2. Cthulhu says:

    Y’know, if the Bible thumpers REALLY want to live by their bronze age nonsense, fine. But they should be forced to live by ALL the rules in it, not just the ones that fit their personal biases and hatreds (For a religion supposedly based on love, there sure is a lot of hate in it). And then they’d be so busy stoning each other for wearing mixed fibers, uppity wives, and rebellious children, they’d leave the rest of us alone.

  3. Will says:

    As I Christ-follower, Christian, Bible-thumper, whatever you want to call me…I see your point loud and clear. I am personally not in favor of same-sex marriage; however (as follows with the Bible) it’s not my place to judge. I’m not gay and so it doesn’t personally affect me, so the hurt and discrimination felt by so many of “our” citizens I can’t relate. I agree with the first commenter as well. Who can really say what would Jesus do. Jesus was love, first and foremost, and as one of the points he said during his short human life, “…the greatest of these is love.” Christians have caused this issue to be as big as it is. If the church would choose love instead of pointing out faults/sins/whatever tag you want on it, they would be doing more of the will of God through this than what they are currently. I also agree with the republican quotes above and with you, the writer: this should go to a vote. Not what CNN or any other media states that American’s approve of, but an actual real life vote. We are to be a UNITED nation so the state by state thing is crazy…it should be a National vote, and again an actual vote that all registered voters get to vote on, not a news poll of 15 people standing outside the Supreme Court. And also, as all Christ-followers should say, my government is not my God; even if this becomes a law (or technically a removal or rewording of one) it does not alter my beleifs and how I will live my life.

  4. Irv says:

    (The following paper was inspired by Bill O’Reilly whose TV show favors God Dumpers and not “Bible Thumpers.” Quotes are from “Vital Quotations” by Emerson West.)


    ROBERT E. LEE: “In all my perplexities and distresses, the Bible has never failed to give me light and strength.” (p. 21)
    DANIEL WEBSTER: “If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper.” (p. 21)
    JOHN QUINCY ADAMS: “I have made it a practice for several years to read the Bible through in the course of every year.” (p. 22)
    ABRAHAM LINCOLN: “I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man. All the good from the Saviour of the world is communicated to us through this book.” (p. 22)
    GEORGE WASHINGTON: “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” (p. 22)
    HORACE GREELEY: “It is impossible to mentally or socially enslave a Bible-reading people.” (p. 23)
    THOMAS JEFFERSON: “I hold the precepts of Jesus as delivered by himself to be the most pure, benevolent, and sublime which have ever been preached to man. I adhere to the principles of the first age; and consider all subsequent innovations as corruptions of this religion, having no foundation in what came from him.” (p. 45)
    THOMAS JEFFERSON: “Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would by now have become Christian.” (p. 47)
    BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: “As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see.” (p.49)
    WOODROW WILSON: “The sum of the whole matter is this—-that our civilization cannot survive materially unless it be redeemed spiritually. It can only be saved by becoming permeated with the spirit of Christ and being made free and happy by practices which spring out of that spirit.” (p. 143)
    PATRICK HENRY: “There is a just God who presides over the destiny of nations.” (p. 145)
    THOMAS JEFFERSON: “Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction.” (p. 225)
    THOMAS JEFFERSON: “Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus.” (p. 237)
    GEORGE WASHINGTON: “The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so mean and low, that every person of sense and character detests and despises it.” (p. 283)
    BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: “Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshiped.” (p. 301)
    CALVIN COOLIDGE: “The strength of a country is the strength of its religious convictions.” (p. 305)
    GEORGE WASHINGTON: “The perpetuity of this nation depends upon the religious education of the young.” (p. 306)

    Prior to our increasingly “Hell-Bound and Happy” era, America’s greatest leaders were part of the (gulp) Religious Right! Today we’ve forgotten God’s threat (to abort America) in Psa. 50:22—-“Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.” Memo to God Dumpers: In light of Rev. 16:19, can you be sure you won’t be in a city that God has already reserved for destruction?

    [Saw the above article on the worldwide net. Interesting, huh?]

    1. And yet when our Founding Fathers had the chance to declare this a “Christian Nation” or to put something about Jesus in the Bill of Rights and/or the Constitution they chose not to.

  5. Irv says:

    Hi Pleasantly….The Founding Fathers chose not to because they wanted everyone to have freedom to believe or not believe – a freedom that hadn’t been in play for a long time in the Old World. True Christianity, unlike many other beliefs that kill “infidels” or the “heathen,” is a true “pro choice” system – and the freedom in such a system allows those Fathers and anyone else to publicly share, in conversation and in their writings, their own personal beliefs. Right now you and I are publicly sharing what we feel and believe – and others can easily believe that we’ve been influenced by, and benefited by, something (that many have labeled “Christian”) that much of the rest of the world envies. For strange reasons, many now think it’s not important for American students to be able to “vet” early American leaders as much as they “vet” their entertainment idols! Irv

    1. Thanks for sharing Irv. I respect your viewpoint although I’m not so sure I really know what the Founding Fathers intentions were. If only we could have asked them!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: