Two by Two, times Two.

Many of my friends and acquaintances on social media will note my reticence, up until this point, with regard to same sex union. I have always supported same sex union, according to the same theory that I use to support union of any two people for any deeply committed reasons. Unification, on principle, is a good thing, to me – at least, within the context of my capacity for human reasoning.

However, because of a childhood saturated and steeped in Christian Fundamentalism I have struggled for years with the cognitive dissonance that comes with that package; how do I maintain my relationship with devout, faithful, God-fearing family and friends, and publicly support something which I know to be in direct defiance of everything said sub-group of people would have me represent? Naturally, because there has never been an easy solution to that dilemma I have, typically, totally deferred by staying completely o.u.t. of the public conversation.

Today, the conversation has changed.

And, today, I am taken back to the time of Christ, and the subsequent period of years during which the Apostle Paul, subjecting himself to the Holy Spirit, solidified the Christian church.

The church vs. state debate, even among Christian groups, rages; marriage, believed to be ordained by God, is also a law of the state. As such, Christians are directed to give unto “Caesar” that which is his due, and to God, conversely? that which is the domain of Providence.

So, what say ye, when the law it be  a – changin’ ?

Are Christians to assimilate, or accommodate?

It has always seemed both fair and reasonable to me for any two or more people who want to commit to cohabitation to be allowed all the privileges of shared living: domain; insurance coverage; medical power of attorney, for themselves and each other; the works.

Now, the government declares marriage, as a binding law between agreeing parties, no longer discriminatory per gender. Divorce is still an option, under the same jurisdiction, yes? So, it seems that our government has decided to permit the survival of civil liberties, at least in the interests of preserving not love – which can never be controlled, thank you God – but, choice and, perhaps in the interests of social preservation, the survival of the household.

Why can’t everybody start by rallying around that, instead of the impasse of endless debate over belief systems, with their creeds, dogma, and other delineating confinements?

(I was going to touch on plural marriage in this piece, as well, but we all know that topic deserves its own template.)

At the very least this new law, while liberating an ever expanding percentage of the population, will provide a larger field of options – for both future children, and those currently in need – to enjoy stable, loving homes. I would hope that the most anal of alleged Christian apologists would see the good in that, and just shut up about the rest of it. Because the rest of it is really only the domain of the Almighty, anyway; you know, God being the only judge of human behavior, and all that.

Loving one another is all we are charged to do. My mother was fond of telling us all to “get busy”. Maybe we should.

I’d ask for an Amen, but I’ll be expecting an army of well-oiled resisters, instead. So be it. I’m backing off, now. God is more than ready.


p.s. and, for those fearless among us (although exclusively O.T. in its “thrust”), I suggest:








© Ruth Ann Scanzillo

6/26/15  All rights to every written word in this piece those of the author, whose name appears above this line. The video is from YouTube, author Matt Baume.

9 thoughts on “Two by Two, times Two.

  1. I think in these situations, it’s best to leave the marriage unions to the married people and let them make the best of it. Relationships need more than legal permissions to work out right and I think that is one defect of current education systems. The curricula don’t focus on the human interest themes that should help us to forge positive bonds with others. Instead, as long as we pass the right tests, and later, pay the right taxes on time, we are left to do what we have always done: Muck up a good thing.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. You never fail to present a thought-produced argument that is, at once, clear and easy to understand. What amazes me, every time, is how distinct your points are from everybody else’s. You really think for yourself, in every sense of the word. P.S. I have always thought that good societies should mandate courses in, for example, child rearing….so that every person who either sires or births a child has some template to follow, for the sake of that child.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Instead of searching the entire database of one’s life for meaning, the bulk of it should be spent creating a new world for future generations. Isn’t that what all the counselling and medication is for? The messed up things our parents did to us before and after we were born. x

        Liked by 1 person

  2. R.A. This entire issue boils down to “political correctness” which I refer to as the “highway to hell”! As practicing Christians, we are supposed to live life as Jesus Christ did. He was the most “politically un-correct” person ever to walk this planet. His words and deeds were based on unassailable logic and a moral code that provided for harmony and survival of the human race. Consider the woman caught in adultery which the law of Moses required that she be stoned to death. Jesus certainly snubbed P.C. in the way he dealt with the situation. The law of Moses also forbade healing on the Sabbath, which Jesus ignored completely!
    The Bible predicted that man would eventually take many things that were unnatural and make them seem natural….homosexuality, desecration of the human body, etc. The evil one uses this concept of “political correctness” to influence the naive among us to accept these abominations of natural law. Many among us want to be liked by everyone and to be thought of as enlightened in our thinking. Satan uses this just as he uses “peer pressure” on younger adults to excuse unhealthy behavior. A world of “Adams and Steves” spell the end of the human race (God’s creation). People desecrating their bodies by unnecessary surgeries, ink, metal, chemicals,addictions etc.merely mock their creation by the Almighty. As Jesus once said: “If the world hates you because of Me, remember that it hated Me first”!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Lenny, I do acknowledge that the video clip’s author cites only the Old Testament in his rejection of Biblical instructions re: marriage. And, I agree that desecrating the body is not only revolting but unhealthy. You have known me never to be P.C. in the defense of truth, so I hope you see me as aligned with you on that note. I still, however, have extreme difficulty with the argument of sexual identity. Why? Because a percentage of humans are born with sexual organs of both male and female. That being the extreme piece of data, all variations under that theme abound, from the mild to the grotesque. I can’t ignore such data. I must process this. In so doing, I am forced to acknowledge individual differences and, with that, propensities which many argue are present from birth.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. And, continuing, having been raised in the unavoidable company of a precocious, budding scientist (Nathan, PhD/Chem/Tox), I tend – in spite of my artistic propensities – to approach all confounding questions – first – from as best a scientific position as I, minus any academic training in Physics, Organic or Inorganic Chem, Quantum Mechanics, and/or any other course (except Honors Biology/ thank you, Mrs. Flynn) on the various subjects covered by legitimate scientists.

      Therefore, my initial point: Unavoidable data exists which challenges the notion that all human bodies are created for male to female procreation.

      (Side note: The animal kingdom, where many go to observe mammalian behavior, gives further evidence of the argument. Males mounting other males; in fact, one terrier, a female, mounting various doggie toys in precisely the manner of a male at full tilt, in exactly the rhythm of the coital act – which I witnessed on video. A female terrier.)

      But, I want also to address the format of your argument. You open with the notion that Jesus was defying the “PC” of the day (the Pharisees). But, theoretically (because, I can’t actually prove it) the Judaic law was being followed, at that time, by all devout Jews. Jesus arrived, challenging all this. Because He would become the Saviour of the Gentiles, an entire population of believers easily took a position which opposed Judaic law. Easy, because they had a proponent: their Saviour. And, of course, this continues up to the moment.

      Jesus logic may be unassailable, but yours is not. You jump from Jesus defiance of the O.T. laws directly to defense of O.T. condemnations regarding the various “abominations”. Jesus did quote the O.T., but He extrapolated and interpreted and ultimately transformed it. One could argue that He represented an evolution of thought, but many would recoil in horror at such jargon.

      What I find unavoidable is your argument concerning the woman at the well. He did not condemn her, or outrightly stone her; He simply told her to go, and sin no more. An Episcopal priest had a lovely “interpretation” of Jesus here; Fr Mike said, in so many words, that Jesus’ tone was almost dismissive, certainly gentle, hardly condemning.

      So, what the O.T. would condemn, Jesus would forgive.

      And, this brings me to the question: To what extent is Jesus’ defiance of political correctness a dismissal of Old Testament laws? And, which of said OT laws are to be retained, while others abolished? Therein lies the rub. What follows is a Rubic’s Cube of contra-indicating arguments that even the best pharmacist could not resolve.

      And, this is where you will find me. Standing at the counter, waiting for the pharmacist to figure it all out for me. Not because I want the drug, but because my head hurts so much that I will take any comfort, and as soon as I can get it.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. “What god has joined together, let no man put asunder.” It seems Christians have almost universally and most conveniently gotten past that dictate in accepting divorce. Eventually they will find a convenient way to get past same sex marriage. Churches may still decline to perform same sex marriages. But marriage is no longer an exclusively religious institution anyway nor has it been for a long time. Ultimately, it is in the state’s interest to foster stable relationships, families, and homes. You’d think the religious would find this a good thing.

    For me the cognitive dissonance is more linguistic than actual. The use of the words “husband” and “wife” in the new context, as is the word “marriage” for many, are still a little jarring. Perhaps a new vocabulary is in order. I half think that everything that has recently been achieved might have come a lot sooner and been less objectionable to religious sentiment if the LGBT community would have been able to accept the term “civil union”.

    My parents were married for 60 years. And I thank them for that. My own experience with marriage has been less successful. I sometimes wonder if gays realize what they’re getting into.

    You bring up an interesting point about plural marriage. Much of the discussion surrounding same sex marriage had to do with nuts and bolts issues like inheritance and children, etc. But at base, the real justification has been that one should be able to marry whomever they please. If this then is the basis for same sex marriage, then it would seem to hold true as well for those who wish to engage in plural marriages.

    Have we indeed opened a Pandora’s box here?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes. We have. I am GLUED to binge watching “Sister Wives”, the reality show about a polygamous family of four wives and one husband. Oh; and, seventeen children. There was another one, too – “My Five Wives”, but I guess it’s off air now? As is SO common, lack of historical data is rife in church argument, in this case re the law of marriage. What came first, the chicken or the egg – the church, or the state? Christians would abhor me for asking that question but, as an historical Christian, I ask it anyway.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.