Representatives Pischke and Brunner and Senator Nelson Embrace Marriage Equality

Ok, the post's title might be overselling the point a bit, but Pischke, Brunner, and Nelson are becoming more inclusive. They want South Dakota's legal definition of adultery to apply to every married person.

If their legislation passes, a married person who has voluntary sex with a person not his or her legal spouse will be guilty of adultery. It won't matter if the person is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or straight.

Pischke, Brunner, and Nelson are co-sponsoring HB 1107 which changes South Dakota's legal definition of adultery. If HB 1107  passes, state law will read, "Adultery is the voluntary sexual intercourse of a married person with any other person to whom he or she is not married."

Currently, the law reads, "Adultery is the voluntary sexual intercourse of a married person with one of the opposite sex to whom he or she is not married."

The definition of adultery is found in section 25-4 of South Dakota's Codified Laws. That section covers divorce. Pischke, Brunner, and Nelson are acting like social liberals and allowing aggrieved same-sex spouses to use adultery as grounds for divorce.

It is a little odd that folks who have strenuously argued for the sanctity of marriage would make it easier for anyone to divorce

In fact, some cynical folk might argue that the legislation is being being proposed as a form of sour grapes in reaction to Obergefell decision which legalized same-sex marriage. Those folks might contend that these legislators are making divorce easier for marriages that the legislators never considered valid.

I will be curious to see if anyone argues against this legislation because it removes from state law the premise that marriage is between one man and one woman. 

My Wife And I Have Differing Views Of Guardian Angels

Who'd have thought that we would discover this fact after nearly eleven years of marriage? We were doing some late spring cleaning and she discovered these two cards lying next to each other under a pile of stuff on our dresser. (Yes, most of the stuff was mine.)

Here's her traditional Catholic view of guardian angels.

My ideal guardian angel is slightly less orthodox.

It is good to know that couples can still learn new things about each other after a decade. If might be beneficial, however, if all believers were to join Mrs. Plainsman in praying that her husband grow up soon.

Holy Manchurian Lesbians, Batman!

Reasons may exist to oppose civil same-sex marriages. Ross Douthat has argued forcefully, intelligently, and coherently against it but concedes the battle is lost. Douthat also contends that Christians and social conservatives need to distinguish between being disadvantaged and being discriminated against. Discussing an exchange between Andrew Sullivan, the man Douthat deems "gay marriage’s intellectual progenitor" and American Conservative blogger Rod Dreher, Douthat writes,

Since Sullivan wrote the post quoted above, he and Rod Dreher have been having an increasingly hostile exchange about how justified religious conservatives are in worrying/complaining about legal disfavor and cultural pressure, with Sullivan complaining about “the hysteria and self-pity among those who, for centuries, enjoyed widespread endorsement for the horrible mistreatment of gay people.”

It’s a good line, with real bite. I can’t promise Sullivan that religious conservatives will conduct themselves with salt-of-the-earth optimism rather than self-pity, and I certainly can’t wish away institutional Christianity’s past and present sins.

I don't know how all religious conservatives will react, but I can say for certain that Bob Ellis will not "conduct himself with salt-of-the-earth optimism."

Responding to a Rapid City Journal report that "Nancy Robrahn and Jennie Rosenkranz, who have been together for more than 30 years" will endeavor to overturn South Dakota's ban on same-sex marriage, Ellis asserts that Robrahn and Rosenkranz have been "waiting in the wings to assault marriage and family in South Dakota." This assault is part of "radical homosexual agenda" filled with "clear malevolent intent" and enabled by an "apostate 'church." The apostates are assisted by  RINOs in the state legislature who  allow this "strategic plan" to "attack marriage, family, freedom and normality" to proceed with "only a tweak in strategy."

Ellis apparently gets his talking points from the back-cover blurbs of Dan Brown novels. Let's be clear,the idea that these two women decided to live together for the past thirty years for the express purpose of instituting same-sex marriage in South Dakota is laughable unless one has spent the past few months sitting next to the ghost of Joesph McCarthy and watching The Manchurian Candidate on a continuous loop.

 If these women were engaging in a similar strategy to overturn the Affordable Care Act, Ellis would likely view these women as "maiden aunts" who deserve the love and respect of all. More importantly, the "traditional" view of marriage was being challenged before the Pharisees asked Jesus if it is proper for a man to"put away his wife."

Finally, I have always had trouble with the Moral Majority's, the Religious Right's, or self-proclaimed Conservative Christians' rhetoric. They seem to ignore an important Biblical injunction:

3 Do not put your trust in princes,
    in human beings, who cannot save.
4 When their spirit departs, they return to the ground;
    on that very day their plans come to nothing.

No amount of hysteria from Ellis or anyone else will change that fact. Instead, Ellis should follow Douthat's advice:

Christians had plenty of opportunities — thousands of years’ worth — to treat gay people with real charity, and far too often chose intolerance. (And still do, in many instances and places.) So being marginalized, being sued, losing tax-exempt status — this will be uncomfortable, but we should keep perspective and remember our sins, and nobody should call it persecution.

It might also be good for all of us to frequently read the rest of Psalm 146:

7 He upholds the cause of the oppressed
    and gives food to the hungry.
The Lord sets prisoners free,
8     the Lord gives sight to the blind,
the Lord lifts up those who are bowed down,
    the Lord loves the righteous.
9 The Lord watches over the foreigner
    and sustains the fatherless and the widow,
    but he frustrates the ways of the wicked.

Taking up those causes as our own should keep all of us from hyperventilating.

When Principles Conflict, Ignoring The First Amendment Should Not Be The Default

Indiana not only makes same-sex marriage illegal; it also penalizes those who perform same-sex marriages:

The law also penalizes a clergyman, judge, mayor, city clerk or town clerk-treasurer who solemnizes a marriage between two people of the same gender. Those who conduct a gay marriage ceremony can be charged with a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

If the Roman Catholic church does not want to perform a same-sex marriage until the end of time, the church should be allowed to go with God and be happy. If the Episcopalians want to create a special same sex marriage ceremony, they too should be allowed to go with God and be happy. The state can regulate the contractual nature of the union to regulate how property is passed on or who can share insurance benefits. State legislatures, like Congress, should make no law regarding the practice of religion nor regulating the free exercise thereof.

Writing at The American Conservative, Rod Dreher sums up the shortsighted nature of this law:

This is a religious liberty issue — and Indiana conservatives are on the wrong side of it. If we conservatives don’t want the state telling our churches we have to marry same-sex couples, then we should stand up for the right of liberal churches to follow their own consciences within the confines of their communions. We may believe these churches are in serious error about same-sex marriage, but our own religious liberty depends on defending their right to be wrong. If we aren’t willing to stand up for them now, they won’t take seriously our future attempts to defend our own autonomy on religious liberty grounds.

I have a strange feeling in the pit of my stomach that the South Dakota legislature will see a similar law in the hopper in January, especially since over half of the state's residents oppose same-sex marriage.

DOMA Decision: Best Tweets Of The Day

James K. A. Smith, a professor of philosophy at Calvin College, sent out a historical reminder:

Church in the U.S.: I'm not interested in your jeremiads about the #SCOTUS #DOMA decision since you did nothing to counter no-fault divorce.
— James K.A. Smith (@james_ka_smith) June 26, 2013

John Fugelsang calls out a bit of hypocrisy:

Rush Limbaugh, who paid a married gay man millions to sing @ his 4th wedding, is screaming of the danger of gay marriage.
— John Fugelsang (@JohnFugelsang) June 26, 2013

A Question About The State Sanction Of Marriage

Disclaimer: Nothing in this post should be construed to indicate support of or opposition to marriage between a man and a woman, marriage between and man and another man, marriage between a man and a transgendered individual, a woman and another woman, a woman and a transgendered individual, or two transgendered individuals. IT'S MERELY A QUESTION I SERIOUSLY WANT ANSWERED.

I know I'm not the first to think of this question, but I've never seen an answer. I hope that someone provides one in the comments.

Some Christian denominations consider marriage a sacrament; others consider only baptism and communion sacraments. I have idea how the various strains of Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam consider marriage. I don't know if thoses faiths have anything that they or others would consider sacraments.

I have no doubt that the state has a vested interest in protecting family units. I do wonder, however, if codifying the term "marriage" doesn't in some tangential way constitute the establishment of religion by codifying something that some consider a sacrament while others do not consider that same act sacramental. Shouldn't the state rename all of its "marriage" laws "civil union" laws?

HT: I've considered this question several times while traveling the grand prairie north and west of Pierre on trips to visit my mother, but the following PNR sentence in this post caused me to ask it on the blog.

Other sexual arrangements may be permitted in law - multiple partners, homosexual partners, even cross-species partners.