Mitch Daniels' remarriage and the gay marriage debate

[The Mikado]

Posted about this in the thread about him on the 2008 board and realized that it would be better here. 

Mitch Daniels married his wife in 1978, had four kids, she left him and divorced him.  She then married another man, divorced him, and remarried Mitch in 1997.

Now, most normal Christians maintain that the Laws of Moses aren't binding after God's new covenant through Jesus' sacrifice, but let's see what the Laws of Moses would say about Mitch:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In other words, the Mosaic Laws, the same laws that laid down the famed Leviticus 18:20 "You shall not lie with a man as you lie with a woman, it is an abomination." comes down on the side that this marriage is wrong.  I bring this up because many gay marriage opponents (the ones that aren't clever enough to pick a more modern disguise for their opposition) cite Leviticus as a reason why gay marriage is "against the traditional definition of marriage."  If the Laws of Moses set up the traditional definition of marriage, isn't Mitch Daniels' marriage just as untraditional as a marriage of two men (and considerably less traditional than a marriage of one man and two women, which the Mosaic Laws are completely fine with)?  And if that's the case, shouldn't Mitch Daniels support other untraditional marriages?  Discuss.

[Gustaf]

I will just give you Jmfcst's response so he doesn't have to himself: that the ban on gay marriage is reaffirmed in the NT whereas all that other weird stuff in Leviticus isn't reaffirmed and thus not included in the new covenant.

[J. J.]

I will just give you Jmfcst's response so he doesn't have to himself: that the ban on gay marriage is reaffirmed in the NT whereas all that other weird stuff in Leviticus isn't reaffirmed and thus not included in the new covenant.

Pretty much, since, if I'd follow Leviticus, I'd have keep kosher, not wear blend fiber clothing, and not trim my side locks.

[memphis]

You're doing it wrong. As the old saying goes, you're supposed to use the Bible as a drunk man uses a light post, for support rather than for illumination.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If the Laws of Moses set up the traditional definition of marriage.

in addition to Gustaf's remark, the above statement is a straw man, for it was not the Law of Moses which defined traditional marriage, rather it was the original marriage between Adam and Eve.  It is the Adam-Eve pattern of marriage which the NT follows, not the Law of Moses.

but, if one wants to get stupid, one can take the Adam-Eve pattern too far (Eve was created out of Adam and neither of them had an earthly mother or father, so obviously these specific attributes can not be duplicated)

it is also the Adam-Eve model which defines divorce, even within the seemingly lack of divorce requirements within the Law of Moses (see Matthew ch 19).

(BTW, for those who believe masturbation is ok simply because it is not explicitly mentioned in scripture, you should read Matthew ch 19, because you have the same flaw in your argument as in ch 19)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

the fact that once she was divorced from Husband1 and Husband2 did not restrict her from marrying a potential Husband3, but only restricted her from marrying Husband1, tells me this (though literally binding within the Law) is meant to warn against taking your relationship with God (Husband1) for granted by running off after other gods (Husband2), because although you may believe there is always an easy way back to God(Husband1), the path may already be blocked....i.e. a foreshadowing the unforgivable sin mentioned in the NT

As for Mitch and his wife, the NT doesn’t allow the divorced to remarry other people (see 1Cor ch 7), but it does NOT say the subsequent marriages are not to be recognized. 

Actually, even in the case of the Law of Moses, it didn’t say a third marriage to Husband1 (H1, then H2, then H1) is not to be recognized, rather it simply said it is a sin to do so, just like it said not to take a wife from foreign religions...but if they did marry women of foreign religions, their marriage was still binding.

Is there a single case in the entire bible that a marriage between a man and a woman was not recognized, regardless if they sinned by entering into the marriage?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

though I could see an argument for incest nullifying a marriage - that argues against the recognition of an incestuous marriage

[The Mikado]

Is there a single case in the entire bible that a marriage between a man and a woman was not recognized, regardless if they sinned by entering into the marriage?

Ezra forcing the mixed-marriage couples of the post-diaspora era to break up?

[memphis]

You're arguing agaist masturbation now? Good luck with that.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Is there a single case in the entire bible that a marriage between a man and a woman was not recognized, regardless if they sinned by entering into the marriage?

Ezra forcing the mixed-marriage couples of the post-diaspora era to break up?

wow, thanks, forgot about that.  guess i need to reread...I stand corrected.

 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You're arguing agaist masturbation now? Good luck with that.

it's actually a pretty cut and dry argument based on three simple facts:
1) the argument of "the bible doesn't explicitly speak against xyz" is a flawed argument, as shown in Mat ch 19.  rather you have to go to the definition/concept of a matter in order to derive wether or not xyz would undermine that definition/concept
2) "it is not good for man to be alone" is a comment regarding sex
3)  obviously, if masturbation is allowed, then husband/wives would be allowed to masturbate...but it is easily proven that neither have that right

these three things are easily proven to be scriptural, i can expound upon them if you wish

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Is there a single case in the entire bible that a marriage between a man and a woman was not recognized, regardless if they sinned by entering into the marriage?

Ezra forcing the mixed-marriage couples of the post-diaspora era to break up?

wow, thanks, forgot about that.  guess i need to reread...I stand corrected.

 

helps give added meaning to the following verses:

Hosea 5:7
They are unfaithful to the LORD; they give birth to illegitimate children. Now their New Moon festivals will devour them and their fields.

John 14:3 Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, 4 for John had been saying to him: “It is not lawful for you to have her.” 5 Herod wanted to kill John, but he was afraid of the people, because they considered him a prophet.

John 8:41
You are doing the things your own father does.” “We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

Hebrews 12:8
If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons.

1Cor 7:12 "If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy."

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Is there a single case in the entire bible that a marriage between a man and a woman was not recognized, regardless if they sinned by entering into the marriage?

Ezra forcing the mixed-marriage couples of the post-diaspora era to break up?

wow, thanks, forgot about that.  guess i need to reread...I stand corrected.

It's unclear whether or not it could be considered to be forced, or just that they nearly all followed the recommendation by Shekaniah that Ezra endorsed.  The text doesn't say what happened to the four dissenters other than that they did not offer up a ram as a token of atonement later.  It's also unclear if sending the women away went beyond a normal Jewish divorce or not.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Is there a single case in the entire bible that a marriage between a man and a woman was not recognized, regardless if they sinned by entering into the marriage?

Ezra forcing the mixed-marriage couples of the post-diaspora era to break up?

wow, thanks, forgot about that.  guess i need to reread...I stand corrected.

It's unclear whether or not it could be considered to be forced, or just that they nearly all followed the recommendation by Shekaniah that Ezra endorsed.  The text doesn't say what happened to the four dissenters other than that they did not offer up a ram as a token of atonement later.  It's also unclear if sending the women away went beyond a normal Jewish divorce or not.

we have two OT scritpural witnesses in Ezra and Nehemiah.  Then we also have John the Baptist's statement :

John 14:3 Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, 4 for John had been saying to him: “It is not lawful for you to have her.”

Ezra, Nehemiah, and John the Baptist in agreement that certain marriages are not binding under the Law of Moses since the marriages themselves were in violation of the Law of Moses.  Now, that doesnt speak to NT marriages, but it settles the issue under the Law of Moses.

[anvi]

I see Mikado's prompt as asking two different, and it would seem to me, unrelated questions.  The first is whether voters who oppose gay marriage on Biblical grounds should not also oppose Daniels because of the suggested Biblical proscriptions against his marriage.  The second question is whether Mitch Daniels, having entered into a "non-traditional" marriage himself, should also support other forms of untraditional marriage. 

The first question is, as demonstrated above, debatable.  The second question seems to me irrelevant, since I doubt Daniels himself would either encourage or discourage various forms of marriage on the basis of Biblical precedent.  He may base his opinions about marriage on other factors, and he is as entitled as any of the rest of us are to do that.

I will say that one advantage of being a secular voter is that I can cut Daniels or anyone else out there a break, because I don't care how many times they've been married, or whether they've never been married; I care about what they want to do about public policy if they win office.  But, on the other hand, if I was still the conservative Catholic my dad raised me to be, speaking for myself, I'd probably still cut candidates a break on their personal lives; if I tried to find a candidate who is not a sinner to support, I'd never be able to vote.  We're all sinners.  I'd still either vote or not vote for them based on their policy agendas, and every voter, religious or not, is entitled to do that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

we have two OT scritpural witnesses in Ezra and Nehemiah.  Then we also have John the Baptist's statement :

John Matthew 14:3 Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, 4 for John had been saying to him: “It is not lawful for you to have her.”

Ezra, Nehemiah, and John the Baptist in agreement that certain marriages are not binding under the Law of Moses since the marriages themselves were in violation of the Law of Moses.  Now, that doesn't speak to NT marriages, but it settles the issue under the Law of Moses.

Nehemiah 13:23-31 indicates an enforcement of the ban on future foreign marriages, and the shunning of those already in them, but there is nothing in the text of Nehemiah to support the suggestion that existing foreign marriages were considered null and void without any need for the husband to divorce the foreign wife.

As for the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias, the gospels aren't absolutely clear on the reason why John considered the marriage wrong.  While marrying a brother's ex-wife is frowned upon, (Leviticus 20:21 suggests that while marrying a brother's wife was considered sinful, it was still considered a marriage.) save in the case where a brother's widow is left childless, which does not apply here, it is not certain she was his brother's ex-wife.

Assuming that Josephus was correct in his history, there was the additional complication that it wasn't her first husband who divorced Herodias, but Herodias who divorced him. If Herodias didn't have a valid divorce from her first husband, then her marriage to Herod Antipas could not be a marriage (assuming her first husband was still alive, which is uncertain).

There is also the complication of Phasaelis, Herod Antipas' first wife who he divorced to marry Herodias, being a Nabatean instead of a Jew.  (She was daughter of Aretas IV Philopatris, King of Nabatea.)

In short, there are a whole bunch of reasons for John to have castigated Herod Antipas' marital arrangements.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Nehemiah 13:23-31 indicates an enforcement of the ban on future foreign marriages, and the shunning of those already in them, but there is nothing in the text of Nehemiah to support the suggestion that existing foreign marriages were considered null and void without any need for the husband to divorce the foreign wife.

but that's completely consistent with Ezra and doesn’t contradict that they put away their foreign wives.

--

As for the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias, the gospels aren't absolutely clear on the reason why John considered the marriage wrong.  While marrying a brother's ex-wife is frowned upon, (Leviticus 20:21 suggests that while marrying a brother's wife was considered sinful, it was still considered a marriage)…In short, there are a whole bunch of reasons for John to have castigated Herod Antipas' marital arrangements.

The NT explicitly states why John considered the marriage wrong:

Mark 6:17 For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison. He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, whom he had married. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.”

My main point being that it doesnt seem like John considered the marriage valid

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My first point was that there is no basis in either Ezra or Nehemiah to conclude that individuals were forced to dissolve their marriages to pagan wives (tho any who did not most likely had to leave) or that such dissolution was conducted in a fashion different than a standard Jewish divorce.

My second point was there are multiple reasons for John to have considered it to not be lawful for Herod Antipas to have married Herodias, one of which, adultery, would have been a violation of the Noahide laws, not just the Mosaic laws.

[The Mikado]

There was a lot of weird stuff going on with Herod Antipas, not least of which being the obvious sexual tension between him and his niece/daughter Salome.  It was not a healthy marriage, to say the least.