Why Is Polygamy Illegal? What's Our Deal?

Yesterday's look at marriage, civil unions, the church, and the state have quite naturally lead me to another side of the argument. It is a side of the argument that most people dismiss as the right wing nut jobs just coming up with a right field reason for marriage to remain between one man and one woman, but I honestly want to give the argument its due.

Like I said yesterday, how about we have marriages be the union from God and the church, and civil unions be the unions granted by the state? We let the churches decide what they consider to be a marriage, and we let the people and the government decide what they consider to be a civil union.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that a marriage is between one man and one woman, which for the most part, is how most religions define marriage. Now, let’s also say, for the sake of argument, that a civil union could be between one man and one woman, and one man and one man, and one woman and one woman. Marriage would be defined by the moral doctrine of the church, and civil unions would be defined by the legal doctrine of the state. I argue, however, if the state can allow a civil union between two consensual parties, why then, can it not allow a civil union between three or more consensual parties? A business entity can exist with more than just two people, so why not a civil union?

We could only allow someone to be a member of one civil union at a time, regardless of how many people are in that civil union. We wouldn't allow bigamy, (I mean, we're not animals) but that being said, if our civil unions are only governed by the state, why not allow them for three or four, or more people? Consenting adults, all taxpayers, not living off the state in any way, law-abiding, good people, living together in the same home - truly a collective. The gender make-up, totally up to the people involved.

Did I just ruffle your feathers there? Did all of you forward thinking, open-minded, environmentally-conscious, ahead-of-the-curve when it comes to living right people just stop agreeing with me? What's the problem? You want conservatives to be more open-minded, so what is more open-minded than polygamy? In America, it would simply be one of our civil unions that exists beyond just two people.

We have tax tables for single people, tax tables for joined couples, tax tables for joined couples with children, so why not have a tax table for the trio, quarter, quintet, sextet, and so on? Granted, it might get a little crowded at the court house, or in a hospital room that is just for the patient and their spouses, but hey, we can deal with that on a case by case basis.

All right, America, I await your schooling on all the reasons why a civil union can be between ANY TWO PEOPLE, but cannot be between ANY THREE OR MORE PEOPLE?...

Marriage, Civil Unions, The Church & The State

With all that seems to be going on right now in the great state of Taxifornia with the budget and taxes, it would seem that the ol' "gay marriage" debate has taken a bit of a back seat for now. I'm honestly quite comfortable with that as it seems that when the issue flares up, people really tend to stop looking at it rationally and let emotions get the best of them.

I'd like to take this pause to put together something that I had been planning on posting for quite some time, yet have not had a chance to get around to doing. How about we stoke the fire a bit?

I believe that most conservatives have a very good, black and white understanding of something. Let me explain. I have a marriage to my wife that is in place because we, based on our religious beliefs, held a ceremony in which we, in the eyes of God, joined together in a marriage. I also have a civil union to my wife that is in place because the person who performed our ceremony is also a state-appointed officiator of civil unions sponsored by the County of Orange, and by proxy, the state of Taxifornia. It is a very simple concept, and quite honestly, goes very well with the idea of the separation of church and state. Our marriage applies to all of the religious beliefs that we have - the afterlife, together forever, adultery, sins, etc., and our civil union applies to all of the stately legality - our legal obligations to each other and to the state that will exist throughout our union, as well as the legal obligations we have to each other if we split up and the legal obligations we have to each other pertaining to any children we might have together. Do you see how there are two separate things going on at the same time here? Our marriage is governed by our moral obligations and our civil union is governed by our legal obligations. I say that as a nation, we really should start looking at these as two separate things that occur concurrently.

Now, I am going to divert from the conservative pack here, but in the interest of finding a solution to our problem, let me say that when it comes to civil unions granted by the state, I am all for them. I am even all for them if we are talking about two men or two women wanting to enter into a civil union. I truly believe that this is a matter of state and should be governed by the state, and as such, any two people, regardless of gender, even transgendered, should have the same exact rights as everyone else in their civil unions. Two men and/or two women who have the same civil union certificate that my wife and I have should have the same exact rights granted by the state that we do.

One problem, however, that we need to fix before moving forward with our separation of church and state is that I do not have a "civil union" certificate issued by the state, but a "marriage" certificate. The state should not be allowed to issue such a thing as a "marriage" certificate. It should be called a "civil union" certificate, issued just like a business license, or any other state document. This should be issued regardless of gender and religion, again, just like any other state document. A "marriage" certificate, to run concurrently with a "civil union" certificate, should be issued by the church that performed the ceremony.

Do you see where I am going with this? When it comes to morality, let's deal with and seek an audience with religion. When it comes to legality, let's deal with and seek an audience with the state. Let's have a separation there. The religions do not get to dictate to the state who can have a civil union, and the state cannot dictate to the religions what they consider to be a marriage.

If the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state in the literal sense, then why is it that the act of joining two people together in a court house in the eyes of the state carries the same name as the act of joining two people together in a church in the eyes of God? I argue that they should not be called the same thing, as they are truly two completely separate things. Should we not all be getting civil unions at the court house and marriages in a church? I can go through a ceremony at a church, but if it is not performed by someone licensed by the state, then my civil union is not valid to the state. The marriage is valid to the church and to God, but the civil union does not occur unless the ceremony has the approval of the state by means of the ceremony being performed by a state-approved agent. Does it not make sense, then that a civil union could be an agreement by two members of the same sex? It's a legal agreement witnessed by a state-appointed agent. Makes sense to me.

But, then, what also makes sense to me, is that if I am getting married in a church, or being married by an agent of the church, should not that marriage adhere to the traditional definition of one man and one women that the religion adheres to? That also seems to make sense to me. So, man and woman joined together by a person ordained by the church, marriage - Man and woman joined together by a person ordained by the state, civil union - Man and woman who have done both, either in a ceremony performed by one person with both church and state ordainment, or two people, one with church credentials and one with state credentials, or at two separate ceremonies - in the eyes of the church and God, marriage - in the eyes of the state, civil union.

It all boils down to a game of semantics, then, doesn't it? Now, mind you, I am saying that a man and woman with a civil union should have the same exact rights and privileges that a man and man or woman and woman have through their civil unions. Now, if the semantics are important and we need to start talking about what the churches themselves call the joining of two people who are the same sex, then isn't that a matter for the church, and not a matter for the state? Isn't that what you wanted in the first place? Separation of church and state. If two men or two women can convince the Catholic church to marry them, then hey, more power to you, but that should have nothing to do with my ballot, my courts, and my government. If a man and a woman, and a man and a man, and a woman and a woman, all have the same rights under the civil unions that are issued by the state, then at the state level, and honestly, even at the federal level, the argument should be over. You can call it whatever you want to, but legally, they should all be civil unions that are issued by the state. Anything beyond a civil union should be between people and the churches, not people and the state. Like I said, separation of church and state.

56-Year-Old Cross Ruled Unconstitutional

I honestly do get the argument about the separation of church and state, but for people to sit here today and say that the Christian-based beliefs of the Founding Fathers did not play a role in thier lives and the founding of the United States of America is blatant history revision. I, for one, refuse to support that revision to this nation's history, despite the fact that you're only going to catch me in church a handful of times per decade.

The continuing movement to remove all reference to religion in this country may seem like a good idea to the intellectual elite who look down upon the believers, but trust me, folks, if we just flat out did away with religion as suggested by the Bill Mahers of the world, the ensuing hell on earth with no religious consequences would make you start praying for a return of religion.

As I have said many times before, as long as your beliefs do not harm others, then go right ahead and believe what you want. If Jewish and Muslim symbols offend you because you are a Christian, then you weren't really paying attention in church, were you? Flip that statement for all the competing religions, and for the non-believer. If you don't believe, then believers should not have a beef with you. It should be your choice. But, that should also mean that the non-believers should not have a beef with believers.

With all of that being said, then you may see why I find it very bothersome to read that a war memorial cross in a San Diego public park was declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court because the court says it conveys a message of government endorsement of religion.

It would seem some whiny non-believer who wants to rid the nation of all religious symbolism outside of an actual religious building is getting their way, and I think that it is sad to see the whining of the few being held in higher regard than the will of the many.

This case struck me as nothing more than modern-day, revisionist history, non-believer whining. It involved the nut-job "Judges" at the anything-goes 9th U.S. Distrcit Court of Appeals and a cross that has been in a park, honoring Korean War Veterans for 56 years. 56 years, in the same spot, doing the same thing, just being a cross in a park, a symbol of honor to the men and women who died in service to their country. Then, comes along the non-believer whiner who can't just keep their non-beliefs to themselves, but ironically, as they complain the believers do, must force their non-beliefs on the believers.

Is there really so little good in your life, so little to be happy about that you have to take up a fight against a cross sitting in a park? Really? Why do we listen to these whack-jobs, America? Why are we giving them a voice that is louder than the voice of reason?

Why I Oppose The Mosque Near Ground Zero

I must admit that I agree more with the people who do not want the Muslim Community Center and Mosque built near Ground Zero than those who do. I do see Mayor Michael Bloomberg's point about being able to build what you want on the land that you own, and I do see the Master and Commander's view on religious freedom in America and the message it might send, though as I said yesterday, I highly disagree with his invocation of the Founding Fathers to make his point, and more importantly, disagree with his position on the issue.

But, do you know what else I see? I see why if your loved one was killed on 9/11/01, you might not want to have to walk by a Muslim Community Center and Mosque with a questionable background on the way to the "hallowed ground" of the World Trade Center to visit the 9/11 memorial, or just to spend some time in the general area that you know your loved one spent the last few minutes of their life.

Do some research, and you will find that there were, in fact, a number of Muslims that died as victims of the attacks, but even the highest most trustworthy estimates put that number at well under 100 of the almost 3,000 victims that perished that day. A much larger number of the victims were believers in Christ-based faiths and Judaism. While the conspiracy theorists, far-leaning thinkers, and honestly, U.S.-haters, do not want us classifying them as such, the 19 men that caused 9/11 considered themselves to be Muslim. Regardless of the merits and beliefs of Islam and how the religious beliefs of most Muslims (especially those here in the U.S.) greatly differ in belief from what was carried out on 9/11, all the evidence seems to point to the fact that these 19 guys considered themselves to be Muslim and considered themselves to be waging a holy war against America and its Christians and Jews. All that being said, you really can see how the families of the victims and a large number of Americans might not want that Muslim Community Center and Mosque built right there, just a couple blocks from Ground Zero. I tend to find myself agreeing with this point.

What I would like to know more about, however, in light of this debate that I am hearing, is the background and financing trail of this group that wants to build this Muslim Community Center and Mosque right there next to Ground Zero. So, show me that this is a 100% completely upstanding group of Muslims who do not believe in violence, and do not believe that the September 11th attacks were something that we had coming, and maybe you will sway me. It just seems right now, that the jury is still out on that.

Do they have ties to terrorist groups and does their money have ties to terrorist groups? It seems no one is able to give us a straight answer on that, including the people that want to build the mosque. The people who want this mosque most definietly do not seem to be able to prove without a reasonable doubt that absolutely none of their money and support comes from extremist groups with an agenda. I do see that as a huge problem and a major part of this story, and my decision, which as I said, leans more towards the fact that this mosque should not be built there.

Yes, Mr. Bloomberg, they own the land and should be able to build what they want to on it by the letter of the law, and yes, Mr. Master and Commander, in that perfect little world that seems to only exist in your mind, we should live by the letter of the law in regards to religious freedom and what that means in America today, however, there are times when you need to look at things subjectively, regardless of what the laws say on paper. Isn't that what you believe about illegal immigration, Senor Obamos?

So, for now, I oppose the building of this mosque that close to Ground Zero. I understand the New York City Mayor's position, but disagree with it. I understand the President of The United States of America's position, but disagree with it, and will go as far as to say that I think he is speaking prematurely and has made a mistake that will cost him and his party some support from the American middle.

I understand what the separation is between the average everyday Muslim and these fanatical extremists, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that there are not extremist Muslims with agendas still living and working in this country. And let's not forget what a small group of dedicated, like-minded people out to kill as many Americans as they can are capable of doing.

The Leap Days

Today, we worry about millisecond and nanosecond inaccuracies in times, but in the past, there have been discrepancies the length of days.

When Julius Caesar invented the Julian calendar, it was off by 11.5 minutes each year. Over the centuries, that small error added up so that by 1582, the Julian calendar being used by the Western Roman World was 10 days behind.

To fix the discrepancy in the Julian calendar, Pope Gregory XIII gave us leap days. However, before the Gregorian calendar could be put into place, the extra 10 days given to mankind by the Julian calendar had to be done away with.

Pope Gregory XIII then declared that the day after October 4, 1582 would be October 15, 1582. In Rome, all the days in-between never existed. There was wide-spread rioting in Rome because many Christians alive at the time felt that if their date of birth and date of death had been pre-ordained, the Pope had just shortened their lives by 10 days.

In defiance of Rome, England did not adopt the Gregorian calendar, so for nearly two hundred years it was always ten days later in Rome that it was in London.

Finally, in 1752 when England adopted the Gregorian calendar to sync itself up with the rest of the Western World, the day after September 2, 1752 was September 14, 1752, 11 days having never existed in London.

The problem this time, however, was not that people felt their lives were being shortened, but people actually were incensed to riot because they paid rent by the month and only got 19 days for their monthly rent that September. Naturally, landlords refused to make exceptions and expected October’s rent right on the first of the month.