South Dakota County Commissioner Predicts Marriage Is About To Become An Exclusively Religious Institution July 2, 2015

South Dakota County Commissioner Predicts Marriage Is About To Become An Exclusively Religious Institution

We might need a whole new section dedicated only to stupid things religious right-wingers say on Facebook.

This next gem is from Meade County (South Dakota) Commissioner Alan Aker, who is among many religious conservatives who have taken to Facebook to express their outrage over the Supreme Court’s decision in favor of marriage equality.

Here’s his long-winded rant:

I was just notified by the county’s insurer that in light of the final federal court (Sorry to say, they’ve lost their “Supreme” title as far as I’m concerned. Of course, they’re no longer a court either, but I’m at a loss on what to call them.) decision on gay marriage, the county may be liable for its own costs if our register of deeds does not allow filing of same-sex marriages. Our register of deeds is an independent official and she will decide whether to obey our robed “legislators”. I expect she will. A word to any readers who are celebrating this news: I wouldn’t spike the ball just yet. You haven’t gained marriage “equality”, I predict you have ended marriage as a civil institution. One by one, states will remove it from statutes. It will be an exclusively religious institution. For awhile, some of our churches will refuse to perform same-sex marriages, and get away with it. Since liberals never stop, they’ll use courts to strip these churches of their tax-exempt statuses. These churches will be blessed and will thrive anyway. On the bright side, the federal income tax marriage penalty will disappear as it becomes impossible to determine who is married, since it will vary according to which churches we belong to. On the downside, among the non-religious, spouses will devolve to easily-discarded roommate-sex partners. Children will suffer abuse and abandonment in the ever-changing domestic arrangements. May the Holy Spirit do a new work among us and help us heal these new victims, and help us in a reconstruction of this wreckage.

You know, maybe it would make sense for marriage to be a religious institution void of legal benefits, and for civil unions to serve as the only form of relationship recognition (for different-sex OR same-sex couples) that gives benefits to committed couples. Maybe if we’d never made marriage a governmental institution, Aker would be on to something.

But we did, and we’re too far in to turn back now. Sure, marriage has religious components for some people, but your marriage certificate is not a symbol of a god approving your relationship; it’s a legal document that denotes your commitment to one another and affords you rights and privileges as a result. Just because religion is a part of it for some people, doesn’t make it a component for everyone.

Also, his idea of what will happen to the “non-religious” couples seems to contradict his entire point. He’s against marriage equality, probably because he thinks it’s not legitimate or not good for kids or some other inaccurate reason. But then he admits that keeping same-sex couples and other “non-religious” couples out of marriage will harm children? Am I missing something?

Aker also decided to answer some of the hundreds of comments on the post — so fervently, in fact, that he eventually decided to call it quits after he just couldn’t answer them anymore. There are lots and lots of responses from him, but here are some highlights:

I am not worried about same-sex marriage hurting me or my marriage. I am heartsick for the non-religious. I know we already have a lot of abuse among unmarried heterosexuals. The end of civil marriage will leave more inconvenient children, more inconvenient women, and more inconvenient men abandoned. Now that marriage is merely a statement of who you love, their relationships will be insecure, contingent, and ever-changing. Again: you didn’t win anything.

Yeah, that’s right: marriage is “merely a statement of who you love.” As opposed to… a statement of who you own and/or who owns you? Is that how “traditional” we want to get?

And also, this:

The logic and momentum of this decision will compel this scab to be repeatedly picked. Churches which don’t recognize gay marriage will have to be persecuted. Polygamous marriage will have to be mandated by a future court. Gays will have to receive affirmative action status in employment. Bibles will have to be either re-written or banned in places of public accommodation. I don’t know how long civil marriage will last, but ask yourself how long it can possibly last as this scab is picked.

Could we get some sources on this, please? Or at least somebody give him the heads-up that churches are not going to be forced to perform same-sex marriages if they don’t want to?

He’s also totally buying into the “oppressed Christian” mentality that is spreading like wildfire:

Detractors: please remember that you’re supposed to be on the love side and I’m supposed to be the hater. Are you sure you’re presenting well? Jus sayin….

“I’m supposed to be the hater” — at least he’s got that right! Thankfully, the vast majority of comments on this article are people telling him not to let the door hit him on the way out (or to let it) when he gets voted out of office. Aker’s beliefs do not represent the majority by any means. Every homophobic Republican politician who blows off some steam on Facebook takes another step to prove how quickly their opinions are becoming obsolete.

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
error: Content is protected !!