fayfreethinkers.com

Should the Fayetteville Freethinkers consider proposing a Constitutional Ban on Divorce for Christians to Save the Sanctity of Marriage?

In today's NWA Times, Lowell Grisham writes about this very thing, proposing that if you really want to legislate a way to "save" marriage, you should support a ban on divorce AND a ban on marriage after divorce, especially since both of those concepts are supported by something Jesus said in Mark. Of course, "Christians" get divorced and remarried all the time, so they won't want to do THAT!

Silly Christians.

No. If we start using the State to impose our views, we're just as bad as them.

No, but I think it could lead to interesting discussion, namely: If Christians were forbidden to divorce, what changes would we see in the number of marriage licenses approved in the South? Obviously, as they are swearing before the LORD that they will love their spouses forever, there should be absolutely no effect.

(And pigs fly, too.)

If we start penalizing people for being bigoted hypocrites, we'll have no time to do anything else.

DAR
Technically, this poll/thread should have went in the humor section. A couple points:

a) The Fayfreethinkers are too diverse to really propose political positions in any organized way, never mind constitutional amendments.

b) Divorce is a widely enjoyed American tradition that won't be going anywhere soon (nor should it).

c) Divorce is highest in fundie states like Oklahoma and lowest in gay marriage states like Mass., making a mockery of the idea that extending the right of marriage to gays in some way is an attack on marriage.

D.

I would have to say yes, but not with the intent of actually getting such a ban implemented, but more of a "hey look, your arguments about gay marriage are insanely stupid" type demonstration.

Christian

what Christian just said is why I voted "yes"; of course Hogeye is right, but there's still a point to be made.

DOUG
Too bad for conservatives that the Bible not only does NOT define marriage as the union between one man and one woman, it specifically goes out of its way to make sure that this ISN'T the only kind of marriage allowed.

Since christians had a ban on divorce and remarriage for close to 2000 years and the only result was slavery for women (and a certain number of murders), I doubt seriously a constitutional amendment would help. (Remember "no-fault" divorce has only been around since the last quarter of the 20th century.) It would be nice if folks would realize homo sapiens is not monogamous by nature. No wait, that would mean admitting homo sapiens is a part of nature. Never mind. But marriage is still a legally specialized form of partnership. Maybe closer examination of its purpose prior to commencing it would help.