The Constitution and the Bible

I find it sad to hear that in this day and age that such obviousness about the nature of things is overlooked in favor of what idealism one brings about from an object. Namely, the Bible. The original bible was written as small little books, disparate and at completely different times. The Old Testament, the Book of Mark, the Book of Luke, and so on. The Bible as we know it today wasn't brought about in one cohesive manifestation. It also wasn't written in the language we speak and understand today. We can even surmise that it wasn't even free of bias, though I'm sure some would say "the hand of God guided those transcribing the Bible and kept it's word true." However, "God's Word" has been misused and twisted in so many ways in the past, from the Spanish Inquisition to the Salem witch trials to name a couple. These two examples were religiously motivated acts that I would wager most would consider abhorations to current religious teachings. It pains me to try and comprehend people who look at this 'God inspired' work of man as the literal truth on life and purpose in the Universe.

When I heard about one of the Republican candidates, Mike Huckabee, state in a speech to voters that "...what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards." To be specific, he is (so much as any politician's word can be trusted) stating specifically on the issues of abortion and marriage. This thought of his is followed up in an interview done on in which be brings up this incredible statement:

[Beliefnet]: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.

[Huckabee]: Well, I don't think that's a radical view to say we're going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we're going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what's been historic. (emphasis mine)

Direct Reference -- Story page 1

It is too bad for Huckabee that historically marriage has been a little different than it is today. In fact, Marriage has had many different forms over the years. Marriage used to be arranged 'contracts', it was used to ally territories together. Polygamy has even been defined as acceptable within the bible and, though the site states in its conclusion to the 'original intent' of God was not that polygamy was ok but simply necessary, some of the conditions (women outnumber men in society) still exist today. And, in an odd collection of words, Huckabee places any other marriage arrangement than one man and one woman in the same class as pedophilia and bestiality, two acts that very much cause harm to at least one of the involved parties.

How did people view marriage in Abraham's time, I wonder? Was it looked at as necessary, but otherwise unacceptable? Was it acceptable that women were made inferior by society at that time? Certainly, if man was capable of taking care of himself, then woman was as well, if given the chance. I doubt much as changed in all the time since Humanity first walked the earth in either aptitude of either sex or ability. I would speculate that it was simply men that made woman into some docile creature that needed caring for and protection, making polygamy "necessary."

This all brings me back to what history had to say about marriage. Marriage has meant so many things in history, even within the Bible. How is it even possible to state that 'historically, marriage has been between one man and one woman'? And how can we validate that it is so anyways? Through the words in a hand-me-down, incomplete book of moral code? Even today, Mormons see polygamy as acceptable and permissible under the definition of marriage. To do as Huckabee suggests and amend the constitution, a document that has to this date never mentioned marriage, not only subjugates other beliefs and violate the First Amendment freedom of religion, it also seeks to do something that has historically been a classical failure. It would prohibit behavior within a set of amendments that serve to grant rights to the people or to the states.


The Foxden

The Foxden

A quaint little hole in the ground.