Sunday, October 09, 2005

Church Chat - Romans 7:1-3

Today's "Church Chat" focuses on another one of those tough Bible quotes for our modern world - one with speaks to divorce. Depending on the time of the month, I am generally very anti-divorce. And interestingly as much discussion (during elections) as there has been regarding the "defense of marriage" (from da homo's marrin'), there hasn't been a lot of discussion in (1) limiting the number of divorces someone can have, (2) putting age restrictions on it, (3) creating a tax or financial penalty, or (4) even making it outright banned.

Paul clarified some grey areas in marriage rulings where women were thinking they were equals:
By law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if the husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while he husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress.
Yes, the same adultery as referenced in the Ten Commandments that we are trying to put in all of our courthouses does here in the South.

A comment I hear every 2 weeks from the rednecks I work with: "Why are divorces so expensive?" "Because they are worth it." Yes, I work with rubes - except those who read this blog, of course.


Otto Man said...

The greatest irony behind the Defense of Marriage Act was that its sponsor, Cobb County's own Representative Bob Barr, was at the time on his third marriage. I guess once you have a couple of divorces under your belt, you really get an appreciation of how much defending the institution needs.

DOMA of course was supported by the House leadership under Newt Gingrich -- who served his first wife with divorce papers as she lay in a hospital bed recovering from a masectomy, and then divorced the second wife because of an affair -- and then signed into law by Bill Clinton (D-Chastity).

I can't imagine what it must be like to be in a 30-year committed gay relationship and getting lectures about the sanctity of marriage from these assclowns.

Yossarian said...

Don't forget another great irony. Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) who was chairman of the judiciary subcommittee responsible for the amendment, was not only a divorce attorney, but HE WROTE A BOOK ABOUT IT.

The book is cutely entitled "What Every Married Person Needs to Know About Divorce (Just in Case!)".

InanimateCarbonRod said...

Shouldn't they all be required to enter one of those crazy covenant marriages?

Mr Furious said...

Sometimes "assclowns" is just the perfect word, isn't it?

You're on to something there, 'Rod. Any jerkoff who wants to push another one of these Amendments (or whatever) needs to enter a covenant marriage. If not, they need to be asked why every time they step in front of a camera.

BoyChild said...

Very interesting comment on divorce. Of course, it has to be said that the guy who divorces his wife, other than by reason of fornication, also commits adultery (and is the cause of his wife committing adultery), as does the guy who marries this divorced women (Matt 5:31) Oh, yes, it wasn't Paul who said it.

This same Person, when challenged about His performing miracles on the sabbath, replied that the Sabbath was made for man, and not the man for sabbath, meaning, for example, if a husband should beat the daylights out of his wife, then expects his wife to stay because divorce is against the law, would be applying both the letter and the Spirit of the law incorrectly: The law prohibits adultery, not divorce, and the adultery law was instituted to serve the marriage, not to subject the wife to abuse...

As far as 'thinking they were equals' is concerned. No, a husband and a wife is not equal, as an apple and an orange is not equal. But an apple is not inherently more valuable than an orange. The question of equality is actually absurd: God says a man will leave his parents, and be joined to his wife, and they shall be one (Gen 2:24)(Again, not Paul speaking...) - how can one not be equal to itself?