Heterosexual Marriage Under Threat (Map)

Heterosexual Marriage Under Threat (Map) June 27, 2015

MarriageMap44-1024x665

Fred Clark shared this helpful map, showing all the states where the Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision poses no threat to traditional heterosexual marriages.

Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee has released this campaign image:

Supreme Court not the Supreme Being

If it doesn’t disturb you, it should. Because on the one hand, what it says is quite obvious. Did anyone not know that “the Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being”? Did anyone suggest that it was? So, on the other hand, what Huckabee is indicating is that he thinks that the Supreme Court in the United States ought to be enforcing what he, Mike Huckabee, and others like him, believe to be the will of the Supreme Being.

It doesn’t matter what your religious viewpoint. If the Supreme Court were to do what Huckabee wants, it would be unconstitutional. It would be theocracy. It would be undermining religious freedom, not protecting it in the way that Huckabee falsely claims. And, the sad irony is that it is also at odds with the historic advocacy for separation of church and state by Huckabee’s own Baptist denomination.

The state of the situation today is reflected well by the map: all the states in which your heterosexual marriage is under threat, are all the states in which your religious freedom is under threat. But Huckabee does not like the fact that the Constitution of the United States does deny him the freedom to have his religious views imposed on others in law.

I trust that enough Americans understand that clearly enough that he will have no chance of being elected. But even if he were, that would not change things. Because the president isn’t the Supreme Being either, regardless whether we have Barack Obama, Mike Huckabee, or anyone else in the Oval Office.

 

"When the show first came on I thought there may be a joke in there ..."

Emergency Clerical Hologram
"“Would a holographic chaplain be better than nothing when no human clergy are available?”Best idea ..."

Emergency Clerical Hologram
"Clearly you aren't familiar with John Muir. In a sense in Avatar the main character ..."

Emergency Clerical Hologram

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Buzzd1

    If you don’t approve of gay marriage then don’t marry someone who is gay…it’s as simple as that.

  • otrotierra

    Mike Huckabee and his followers are in for a shock when they learn that Jesus didn’t address gay marriage. Who will dare tell them about Jesus?

    • Jim Jones

      Actually, Jesus did address it. Google (centurion pais).

      • It’s a bit of a stretch to argue that the centurion’s slave boy was a sexual slave, thus making Jesus approving of gay relationships by extension. (The word pais doesn’t always – or even usually – have this connotation)

        And those who make this argument seem to miss a far more obvious interpretation: if that story implies that Jesus approves a gay relationship, then it also implies that Jesus approves a master/slave relationship.

        • John Pieret

          It’s a bit of a stretch to argue that the centurion’s slave boy was a sexual slave, thus making Jesus approving of gay relationships by extension

          Hey! This is a book that has been stretched to support the idea that the Earth and the universe is only 6,000 years old and that humans were riding around on dinosaurs. Who can blame anyone for a bit of stretching?

          And, given the overall book, what evidence is there that Jesus didn’t approve a master/slave relationship?

          • … and not just any master/slave relationship – a master/sex-slave relationship. I don’t see why gay rights advocates (and I count myself as one) would want to touch this interpretation with a ten foot pole.

            Sorry, James, this was way off-topic …

            YAY Marriage Equality!

        • Jim Jones

          There’s no evidence ‘Jesus’ ever condemned slavery, any more than Yahweh did.

          In the bible, Yahweh could have banned slavery or he could have banned bacon. He chose bacon. Wrong on both counts.

          • No argument from me on that. Personally, I wish Yahweh or Jesus had given us a little tip on boiling water to kill microbes; but I guess we can’t have such high expectations of millennia-old texts written by humans.

        • Andrew Dowling

          I think calling it a stretch is being rather generous.