Theocracy? What Theocracy?

Perhaps it is the wafting of the late summer breeze, cooling into autumn, that has brought the religious fundamentalists out in force this week. By now, everyone knows about Pat Robertson wanting Hugo Chavez bumped off; the entire mainstream media and approximately 99.99% of all blogs have now covered it to some degree or another. I'll pass on that one and pick on a slightly less visible member of the "moral minority": Indiana Republican Representative John Hostettler.

From the Evansville Courier and Press, via The Stakeholder:

"...divorce on demand is as dangerous as gay marriage..."

[snip]

"The picture of marriage is the picture of Christian salvation," said Hostettler, who describes his elected office as a ministry. "Any diminishing of that notion - whether homosexual marriage or any other degradation of marriage - is something we must fight in public policy."

Hostettler is so backward on marriage issues, it's almost hard to know where to begin critiquing him.

First and foremost, the need for divorce on demand was born out of the economic and social inequality between men and women in the civic contract of marriage. At one time, a majority of women spent their lives in the home, raising children and rarely, if ever, working in careers outside the home. This made divorce an incredibly risky proposition for most women; an equality which many unscrupulous men were only too happy to exploit. "Divorce on demand" was an improvement in the structure of marriage and a great step forward for women in general. The concept helped to level the playing field between the sexes in the civic (not the religious) contract that constitutes marriage in the individual states.

Further, the spiritual side of marriage has nothing to do with the right of folks to file for divorce in the United States. Marriage, in the spiritual sense, is as personal and private as any other spiritual belief. Marriage, in the civic sense, is a legally-binding agreement between two individuals and has nothing whatsoever to do with "Christian salvation". Hostettler is blurring the lines between the religious sacrament and the civic institution in yet another blatant attempt by a Christian Fundamentalist to side-step the Establishment Clause.

Hostettler also, in true conservative wingnut fashion, takes yet another poke at the gay marriage issue. I have yet to meet a single conservative Christian that can, in any way, explain how two homosexuals marrying has any impact on any other marriage or the institution of marriage in general. It's just a meaningless talking point that Republican politicians and Evangelical Christian leaders use to keep their supporters distracted from any substantive issues. Look here, conservative Christians: you cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that homosexuality is wrong because it is a "promiscuous" or "hedonistic" lifestyle and in the next breath condemn two homosexuals who want to live in a monogamous relationship with each other. That's intellectually dishonest.

The last thing of note from the Hostettler article is his purported belief that his elected office is a Christian ministry. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Representative Hostettler is not a religious leader, he's a democratically-elected official of the U.S. government. He was given the privilege of serving the needs of the people within his district, not given a taxpayer-financed platform to advocate for his personal religious views. Whether John Hostettler likes it or not, we are a pluralistic nation made up of many beliefs, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, secular humanist, etc., and while Hostettler may feel free to govern his own behavior according to Christian principals he has no right to use his office to legislate his beliefs onto others.

It's un-Constitutional and un-American. Just ask Mr. Jefferson (below).