Selective History

In 1862, redefining marriage apparently wasn’t so big a concern for conservatives.

Sometimes I set out to write a quick meme and the damned thing gets away from me. This is one of those times. Once I realized that it was going to be just too long to publish as a meme, I abandoned brevity and wrote a blog post. Enjoy. Or don't.

I’m hearing an awful lot about Conservatives being upset (and downright rebellious) over the recent Supreme Court ruling that makes same-sex marriage legal in the entire United States. It seems that American conservatives don’t think that the Supreme Court, or the U.S. Constitution, should take precedence over the Bible.

This opens the whole issue of the Bible not being a part of U.S. law or American government, but let’s leave that alone for now. There’s another point I want to make.

One of the arguments often made against same-sex marriage is that will lead to such evils as polygamy. So just for grins and giggles, I looked up “polygamy” on Wikipedia. This led me (not surprisingly) to an article on Mormonism and polygamy. One of the things I learned there:

“For over 60 years, the LDS Church and the United States were at odds over the issue (of polygamy): the church defended the practice as a matter of religious freedom, while the federal government aggressively sought to eradicate it, consistent with prevailing public opinion. ... In 1862, the United States Congress passed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, which prohibited plural marriage in the territories. ... In 1879, in Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Morrill Act, stating: ‘Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices.’”

(Wikipedia, Mormonism and Polygamy)

The meaning of this decision is clear, and was clearly stated: No law can govern your morality, but laws can, and should, govern your actions.

That law was passed more than 160 years ago. The Supreme Court decided on the matter in the late 1870s. That’s as far back as the legal fiction of marriage = one man + one woman can be traced. That’s where it was codified into law. Obviously, in 1862 marriage was legally redefined to disallow polygamy, and this was done despite numerous references to polygamy being practiced in the Bible. This concept was upheld by the Supreme Court, and was fully in keeping with the desires of both liberal and conservative elements in American society. American society was just fine with allowing religious belief to be contained by secular law.

So what the hell are conservatives so damned upset about now? What is so different about how marriage was redefined in the 19th Century by a decision of the Supreme Court, a decision that conservatives were just fine with, and how marriage was redefined by the Supreme Court last week, a decision that has conservatives throwing a collective tantrum that would be unworthy of anyone over four years old? What is it that has conservatives all over America going batshit insane?

Oh...right. Gays.

Perhaps the apparent inconsistency of changing conservative attitudes on redefining marriage can all be put down to the fact that conservatives simply don’t want to treat gays like regular human beings, and are willing to go so far as to alter their basic beliefs to keep that from happening. Is their dislike of homosexuality really that strong?

Why am I bothering to ask? Of course it is. After all, most of them feel that they have a firm religious basis for their prejudice against homosexual practices because such things are flat-out prohibited in the book of Leviticus (just like eating pork or lobster, or perverting justice by showing favoritism to either the rich or the poor, or giving your children to be sacrificed to Moloch).

But this brings us back to the point that that Supreme Court made in the 1879; that law cannot endorse or oppose morality.

The Bible shouldn’t be used as the basis for secular law. We shouldn’t expect our laws to try to regulate what any of us consider good or evil, or expect anyone’s religious belief to regulate anyone else’s behavior. The Supreme court shouldn’t regulate morality, and was never intended to. It is wrong to oppose the rulings of the Supreme Court just because you think that such rulings might offend your religious sensibilities.

Perhaps this explains why the Supreme Court has always been strangely silent on the subject of sacrificing your children to Moloch.

The Blues Viking
The opinions expressed here are mine an if you don't like them you can get your own damn blog.


Wikipedia on Polygamy (and Mormonism) 

Wikipedia on Reynolds v. United States

76 things banned in Leviticus