"Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn. Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die," - Orson Scott Card, Mormon Times.I have several questions, and would appreciate any help answering them.
1) Does he think that marriage isn't a sociological construction? I just don't know enough about Christian theology. Was the institution given to Adam and Eve by god at the beginning of time?
2) What biological imperative is he talking about? Clearly same-sex unions cannot produce children, though with the advent of various kinds of fertility options neither heterosexual marriage or intercourse are the only way to perpetuate the species.
3) What does he think about the unarguable relative stability of governments that allow same-sex unions. What is his explanation for how the vast majority of these nations not only "endure" but prosper?
4) Is what he's saying illegal? When he says "I will act to destroy that government and bring it down" isn't he dangerously flirting with advocating rebellion? Any law students or lawyers reading today?
What would be the theological and practical underpinnings of his answers to these questions? Surely, he would have a response. It's worth noting that a very meaningful minority of Americans enthusiastically agree with this guy's statement, and I think it's worth exploring why that might be the case.
Posts
