As certain politicians work diligently to prevent marriage between two people of the same sex, others of us have been busy drafting a Constitutional Amendment codifying all marriages entirely on Biblical principles. After all, God wouldn’t want us to “pick and choose” which of the Scriptures we elevate to civil law and which we choose to ignore:
Draft of a Constitutional Amendment to Defend Biblical Marriage:
* Marriage in the United States of America shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
* Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
* A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
* Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30, 2Cor 6:14)
* If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow, or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen.38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
* In lieu of marriage (if there are no acceptable men to be found), a woman shall get her father drunk and have sex with him. (Gen 19:31-36)
I hope this helps to clarify the finer details of the Government’s righteous struggle against the infidels and heathens among us.
Paul R. Ehrlich
Bing Professor of Population Studies
President, Center for Conservation Biology
Department of Biological Sciences
Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
Unfortunatley, 300 B.C. Old Testament-style women-are-property marriage is still kinda the norm in some Arab countries. Apparently (except for the crusades) they missed out on the social evolution of the last few millenia.
There are plenty of people who’d like to make it the norm in modern America, too. Social evolution, unlike biological evolution, can and sometimes does move backwards. Witness, for example, the Southern Baptist Convention, and their charming 17th-century ideas about women and family.
Our president, from all appearances, counts himself firmly in the camp of those who would see social evolution reversed if they can.
Unfortunatley, 300 B.C. Old Testament-style women-are-property marriage is still kinda the norm in some Arab countries. Apparently (except for the crusades) they missed out on the social evolution of the last few millenia.
There are plenty of people who’d like to make it the norm in modern America, too. Social evolution, unlike biological evolution, can and sometimes does move backwards. Witness, for example, the Southern Baptist Convention, and their charming 17th-century ideas about women and family.
Our president, from all appearances, counts himself firmly in the camp of those who would see social evolution reversed if they can.