Skip to content

Rusty Reno’s bad penny

November 18, 2014

I’ve never met Rusty Reno but I admire his writing and respect his thinking. Nevertheless, on this one, Rusty is passing bad pennies. Let’s back up.

Norbert Nice in a three piece suit and Susan Sweet in a long white dress come before Rev. Honest and exchange wedding promises, whereupon he pronounces them husband and wife and everybody in the congregation applauds. Would someone please tell me what on earth is so wrong with Rev. Honest signing a document from the state certifying that Nice and Sweet got married on such and such day at such and such a place? What words in that form—and remember, forms are made of words—require a violation of natural law, sound reason, or revealed doctrine?

Did, or did not, Norbert Nice and Susan Sweet marry? Of course they married, and upon the official minister’s word, the state currently accepts that fact. How on earth, I ask again, is affirming the marriage of a man and a woman suddenly such an evil act that Christian ministers cannot in good conscience perform it?

Yes, I understand that state after state now allows such forms to be filed on behalf of two males or two females. That’s terrible. But, as far as Honest’s assertion about what Nice and Sweet did on their wedding day, so what? Nice and Sweet got married, and Honest officiated it. Period. End of declaration. I wish people would stop asserting that any minister making such a simple, upright, and accurate assertion is somehow suddenly engaged in an unconscionable act of cooperation with “same-sex marriage”.

I am as fed up as anyone can be with the gay-lesbian assault on marriage and, within my area of expertise (scroll to my essay), I do what I can to oppose the lie of “same-sex marriage” and defend the truth of marriage given by God and human nature. But the idea that one good way—nay, a morally obligatory way—to oppose the lie and serve the truth is to refrain from performing a good and useful act (and affirming that this man and woman got married is a good and useful act!) makes no sense to me whatsoever. Yet, this bad penny of an idea keeps showing up, and up, and up.

Bottom line: If the wording on the state’s wedding form says anything false (and I mean, false*) then one must refuse to sign it. Even if that refusal leads to persecution. As it very well might. But if what the state’s wedding form says is true, then one can sign it. And for a host of reasons should sign it.

* I’m not terribly upset with wedding forms that now read “Spouse A” or “Spouse B”. It’s stupid language, I grant, but it’s not evil. At the very least, it’s no more evil than, say an IRS 1040 form that calls for the signature of “Spouse” on joint returns. Or should we suddenly scratch that word “Spouse” out and write “Wife” or “Husband”, lest we cooperate with the advance of “same-sex marriage”? Balderdash.

PS: Time-permitting, I will do a brief reply to the Radner-Seitz pledge itself. UPDATE: Okay, it’s done, here.+ + +

Update: More problems with Radner-Seitz.

From → Uncategorized

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: