Who was Vashti?

Vashti was the queen of Persia, who was a beauty queen, for her name means beautiful.  The king felt she was his companion, and was indeed proud of her. He gave her great freedom, and anything she desired.

The King, named Ahasuerus was successful, vain and rich.  He ruled over Persia at it’s height.  Although he had not conquered all of the lands leading to his empire’s greatness, he still liked to brag about his military victories.  In the third year of his reign he threw a six month long party. Nothing was off limits to his guests during the party.  The king provided food, drinks and anything else desired to all of his invited guests. Through the endurance of the party Ahasuerus became more and more extravagant.

At the end of the first week of the party, on the seventh day, Ahasuerus decided to show off the beauty of his wife.  He sent his seven eunuchs to bring Vashti to the great hall.  At this time the queen, who was hosting her own party and knew the king was in a drunken state refused to come.

Ahasuerus had been stood up.  He was embarrassed.  He did not know what to do.  (I am sure the king never considered how poor his request was in the first place, and certainly he, the most powerful monarch in the world, would not admit to a mistake, even if he had realized the error of the request or his judgment).  He called his advisers (illustrious, star, testimony, jasper, lofty, worthy and dignified) to given him advice on what to do and how to overcome the great embarrassment which came from Vashti's refusal to show off her beauty in the midst of  his party.

The king’s advisers discussed the matter.  To say the king made a mistake was off the table.  To ignore the situation was a bad idea.  To help the king see the situation from Vashti’s point of view would be unacceptable.  The advisers realized the danger which would come if Vashti were ever allowed to share her side of the story.  They must put Vashti away quickly, before here guests get wind of what just happened, and the queen’s reasoning for not appearing as a token at the king’s party.  The advisers must delicately handle the situation and so the king’s political blunder would not be found out.

The advisers talked through their options and decided to advise the king how the issue.  They informed Ahasuerus that the problem went far beyond his personal embarrassment.  They said, “If the women of the kingdom hear about the queen’s behavior, they will think they can do the same.”  They told the king that wives throughout the kingdom will refuse to obey their husband’s orders and treat everything they with contempt.  A resistance movement could start which would result in instability of home, and eventually the destabilize the entire kingdom.  The only hope for Persia is to put Vashti away.  The king must send her to the far reaches of his harem and never see her again.

The king thought (but not very long, for he had a party to attend), and decided the advisors were correct.  He must never see Vashti again.  He must distance her further than the harem, and indeed throw her out of his household, and punish her, so all of the men, and the women of the kingdom would see this example of what would happen when a wife treated her husband with contempt.

There has been much discussion on why Vashti would refuse the King’s orders, after all he was the most powerful monarch in the world at the time.  Her very existence, and all of her prosperity depended on him.  Some say she was vain and wicked.  She decided to make her stand and put the king in the place.  Others note how drunk the king was.  They say that it would be to Vashti’s embarrassment if she did show up.  She did not want to be a token, or a trophy (as the other things the king was showing off).  Some say she is a role model for women everywhere, for women should not be placed in demeaning situations.

Was she wise, naive, or just plain stupid? The question comes, what would you do.  There was not good solution. It was lose-lose for everyone, except for Esther (more on that tomorrow) and the Jews.  And of course, the party went on.  Five months and three weeks later, no one remembered the incident, or Vashti.  They only felt sorry for the King, for he needed a wife.

Constitutional Marriage

The Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples can marry nationwide,, but should they?  Our courts rendered a religious ruling on marriage, breaching the wall called Separation of Church and State. The definition for the word "marriage" was set over 4,000 years ago...  

“Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:22-24), This verse defined marriage as between a man a woman thousands of years before the constitution was written.

To declare otherwise is hypocrisy for those who believe in a wall of separation between Church and State. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States>, for marriage is a well defined religious term.  Since the beginning the state has chosen to recognize and affirm marriage (Jewish, Christian, Islamic, etc.) as good for the nation.  Our founders and lawmakers confirmed marriage as an act of faith by the sanctioning of ministers to perform marriages.  The state recognized some would wish to affirm this religious principle outside the church, allowing magistrates, ship captains, and others to perform this rite.

Marriage promotes stability for the family and protection of children who are born to a man and a woman.  Marriage is not about liberty or a selfish pursuit of happiness (14th amendment), it is about surrendering our rights for the benefit of others.

Egocentric self interest has allowed the ideal concept of marriage to be watered down.  Divorce has been allowed for those who lose interest in their spouse; has allowed couples to split in order to avoid hardship; and is used to circumvent the need of each individual in the home to change for the betterment of others.  In recent times we have become more interested in tax privileges, insurance benefits and property inheritance than in shaping of character.

The state should use the term “Civil Union” when the government desires to give (or take) rights to those who cohabit together.  For the state to have its own term could be tremendously freeing.  As rights and privileges are given to same-sex couples (or to those of other orientations), religious discussion becomes secondary.  Those who have objection to religion (atheists, agnostics, etc) will find it easier to fit into state regulations.

The decision of the court on June 26 was written in total disregard to the first amendment, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. - "Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists - The Final Letter, as Sent on January 1, 1802". Library of Congress. Retrieved13 February 2014.