Homosexual Marriage, Traditional Marriage, or Marital Contracts

In 1996 Obama stated he was for gay marriage. Following that he began running for various political offices. Then he said he was for the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, and supported the Defense of Marriage Act. Then he instructed the Justice Department not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, adding his views of gay marriage were “evolving”. No they weren’t, he has always been pro gay marriage. At best this was a cynical political ploy, and his announcement a few days ago that he endorses gay marriage happened just before a major fund raiser with Leftist millionaire actor George Clooney and his Secularist groupthink multimillionaire Hollywood elitists. In the following days entertainment types were falling all over themselves proclaiming how historic this was, and how brave he was.

Not so much. He was already a proponent of homosexual marriage, and his statement doesn’t change a thing. Thirty states, voted on by citizens, have amended their state constitutions stating marriage is between a man and a woman. Leftist judges are trying their hardest to overturn these, ignoring the wisdom of the people and the Constitution. They must, since the Left must break down the structure of the society they are trying to dominate, to create a vacuum into which they can insert themselves.

This is in part the continuing attack on Christianity that is a Leftist hallmark, and definitely one of this Administration. Think of how the language has changed. We now talk of “traditional” marriage. When did that start? Marriage has become only a contract.

Jennifer Morse:

"First, contracts are limited, but parenthood is a status. Contracts are of limited duration, but parenthood is forever. Second, and more importantly, the child has been objectified. Instead of being a gift, the child is treated as a product or an object. ... Good intentions do not suffice to overcome the structural tendency for "contract parenthood" to objectify children far more often and deeply than natural parenthood.
... Biological parents, married to each other, have a great advantage: they both have a connection with the child. They've both got skin in the game, literally. When they are married to each other, they have made a commitment to work together to build a common life. The children are their common project.  This is not so for the child of an anonymous gamete donor.
Finally, the deepest reason why society has obligations to children is that this is the only position that is truly consistent with the idea that people deserve freedom, rights, and dignity in the first place.  Nature and Nature's God endowed us with certain inalienable rights."

The sanctity of communion between marriage partners, of becoming “one flesh” has been removed. God’s law, natural law, recognizes the union of man and woman is for procreation, then for the raising of children. We’ve reached a point where anyone can enter into a contract, then contract to acquire or purchase children, and if it doesn’t work out, well, just dissolve it, and rewrite the contract for the children. This is self serving and selfish.

Now marriage is separated from the idea of children. I’m reminded of a statement I heard some years back; ‘this generation likes the idea of children, they just don’t like children’. The result being there’s no stable environment for child rearing. Sure plenty of studies have come out saying children brought into same sex marriages or civil unions are just as well off as those in “traditional” cross sex marriages. These are “scientific” studies, and are supposed to be untouched by bias. How many times over how many years have scientific facts been proven wrong, refuted? Human nature is constant, and what’s in the hearts, souls and minds can’t be measured.  Here are some results of other scientific studies. The divorce rate has doubled since the institution of no fault divorce. 85% of abortions are outside of wedlock, and is being re-termed “selective reduction”. The break up rate for homosexual couples is one and a half to two and a half times higher than heterosexuals. Infidelity rates are higher for homosexual relationships. There are higher STD rates and higher suicide rates with homosexual relationships. Those are measurable, but are emotional stability and mental mindset as measurable by science?

Back in the 1960’s and ‘70’s the homosexual community had a legitimate gripe, and that was social shunning and civil/legal discrimination. Much work and time was taken to overcome that, and civil unions were finally legalized, and with few exceptions by intolerant people, accepted. Now, pushing to redefine marriage to include whatever anyone wants it to be, is a step too far. Don't care who you choose as a lover, this is an attack on the foundation of civilization, putting selfish desires ahead of what is good for society. Cross sex marriage and the raising of children is what has worked since the dawn of civilization, and the selfish notion of each individual can decide what it is, is short sighted and destructive.

Now we’re at a crossroads. Do we define marriage based on what Joe Biden has said?

“Look, I just think that the good news is that as more and more Americans come to understand what this is all about, it's a simple proposition: Who do you love? Who do you love? And will you be loyal to the person you love? And that's what people are finding out, is what all marriages at their root are about, whether they're marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals.”

Is it only about two people loving each other, and for that they get recognition and benefits from the State? What about three or more people saying they love each other? Or is it the communion of two people, who from that love produce loved children? Mutual love, mutually producing loved children, or are children an abstract acquisition? Is it about children and their well being, or about meeting the desires of adults?

James Schall:

We are not a culture that never understood what a human being was in his nature and in his destiny.  Rather we are a culture that, having once known these things, has decided against living them or understanding them.  Indeed, we have decided to reject most of them, almost as an act of defiance -- as an act of pure humanism -- as if what we are is not first given to us.

Given to us by God, not by the State. 

Alan Keys on Marriage

http://youtu.be/BMYBl2uzXEw

Some "moderator". Asks a question then argues. Often people don't hear what another is saying, only take a piece of the conversation, process their argument and attack. Sad. Worth getting past that, and listen to what Keys says.

On Submission

Apostle Paul Writing Epistles

Byron York: “In 2006, when you were running for Congress, you described a moment in your life when your husband said you should study for a degree in tax law. You said you hated the idea. And then you explained, “But the Lord said, ‘Be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.’ ”

“As president, would you be submissive to your husband?”

Bachman: “Marcus and I will be married for 33 years this September 10th. I’m in love with him. I’m so proud of him. And both he and I — what submission means to us, if that’s what your question is, it means respect.

“I respect my husband. He’s a wonderful, godly man, and a great father. And he respects me as his wife.”

“Submission” is seriously misunderstood and misapplied word; one of those words that has transformed away from its original meaning. It’s important to know the source of ideas and words, especially in the case of Bryon York’s question.

Most think of submission as being exploited or dominated or manipulated, that it’s not voluntary. The word derives from the Greek hupotasso “to submit”, and regards military structure. The idea in scripture, which York and most others seem not to understand, has an entirely different meaning from their modern belief system.

Matthew 8:5-10 Now when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, pleading with Him, saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, dreadfully tormented.”  And Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.”  The centurion answered and said, “Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof. But only speak a word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, “Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!

We live in a hierarchical universe, like it or not. The centurion speaks of being under authority, and he willingly submits to that authority. He gives orders based on that authority. His subordinates willingly obey that authority. When this happens everyone benefits. The mission gets accomplished. The goal is reached. There’s purpose to the group.

Would York have a job writing for the various organizations he does if he didn’t submit to the rules, the authority, of those organizations? I don’t know if York has children, but if he, or anyone does, I would hope he expects submission of them to him. If he’s married I would hope his wife listens to his suggestions and ideas and vice versa. Oversimplified, but to the point, everyone has a boss. You don’t have to submit, you can’t be forced. If one is forced, that not submission, that’s oppression or slavery.

The question York asked comes from the misunderstood and misapplied passage in Corinthians 11:2-16  

“Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her[a] for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”

The word “head” in various forms is used nine times in Scripture, mostly having to do with the physical head. There’s a lot more to this, but the veil for women Paul wanted used in church was egalitarian in nature. “To get married” and “to veil” were the same word. If a woman was veiled she could also be a widow. Women in the upper classes had their hair styled, which the lower classes and slaves couldn’t afford. Paul saying that all women should be veiled in church was for the purpose of eliminating class distinction.

Paul talking here of a man not being independent of a woman or a woman independent of a man is really radical, because in those times there was no equality between the sexes. The veil is a “symbol of authority on her head”. Equality in a public place, never before even contemplated. Paul wants this egalitarianism in marriage too, going back to Genesis that married couples become one flesh. Some have even suggested that having sex makes the couple one flesh; which is why ‘friend with benefits’ can’t work.

Paul also creates another radical idea; about divorce. The word at the time meant “to throw out”. It was a one way ticket; the man could just toss his wife out on the street with no means of support and have no rights to any of his property; there was no concept of shared property.  Paul says even this, divorce, should be made equal; again a radical idea since there was no such thing in the relationships between men and women, even in marriage. Paul said divorce can be not only equally applied, but can be based on spirituality:

“Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.
But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?” Corinthians 7:10-16

Paul in his letters, advocated more equality between men and women, both in public and in marriage, not less. In polytheistic pagan times women were for sex and breeding, to be tossed out, discarded, at the whim of the man.

Before people like York and others venture into the realm of using religion, and especially Christianity, to insult and demean, perhaps they should know a little bit about what they’re talking about.  

Leslie Bennetts, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair magazine and author of the book The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?

"A woman who pursues an entire career she hates the idea of, just because her husband told her to, is not a woman who should be occupying the Oval Office--or anything remotely near it."

"Given the insistence of Christian theology on male supremacy, female candidates who put that religion front and center in their campaigns should be required to explain what that means in terms of how they would govern, if elected."

Bennetts obviously knows nothing of Christian Theology or History. If she did, she wouldn’t make such an ignorant statement. Anti Christian bigotry is to be expected of people like York and Bennetts, though I’m always amazed at the misogyny of Leftist women.  

When Sarah Palin said she read C S Lewis, that he was one of her favorite writers, some commentators went off on how she read children’s books, implying that was the limit of her intellectual growth. York, Chris Wallace, and others that say the submission question was valid, wallow in similar ignorance.  

Love and Courage

Due to traveling and illness, I haven’t been able to post for over a week, causing me to be unable comment at all during Holy Week, though I had a lot of thoughts and emotions relating to Holy Week. I haven’t been able to read much either, or follow events other than those in my personal life.

What was important this past week was the marriage of my brother and his long time girlfriend, which caused the traveling. During my brother’s speech after the ceremony, he commented he and his bride had just thought of going to the justice of the peace and city hall, only doing the things necessary to legalize the marriage. He said he told one of his close friends of the upcoming marriage, and the friend asked when the ceremony was, he wanted to come. Then another friend asked the same thing, and my brother realized that marriage isn’t just about the two being married, but it’s also about everyone that knows the couple.

Kevin Cronin, lead singer of REO Speedwagon, went up during the toast to the couple, and said he was moved during the ceremony, the vows, because these were two people that had years of life experience (both are in their 50’s), and were fully aware of the importance of this event and marriage; unlike young people full of idealism and dreams that may have an unrealistic view of what marriage entails, which is okay but shortsighted. That got me to thinking these past days of what mature love is.

We have the romantic of course, which set these thoughts in motion, of Altruistic, Eros and Agape love, of all the levels of intensity of these with all the layers of love. Doing some catching up reading this morning, I came across this idea of love as being courageous.

Fr. Scott Hurd, writing about the Resurrection, about Mary Magdalene’s love for Jesus, said she so missed her beloved, Jesus, she was the first to visit His tomb, and the first to see Him resurrected. The disciples had closed up in fear, discouragement and doubt; Mary searched out her beloved, and was rewarded. Her reaching out took courage. Love takes courage.

Fr Hurd writes:

“• We need courage to trust God, when we can’t see the road ahead of us;
 • We need courage to confess our sins when our shame would hold us back;
 • We need courage to witness to our faith in the face of injustice and ridicule;
 • We need courage to love others when we risk being rejected by them;
 • We need courage to forgive, when we’re afraid of appearing weak;
 • And we need courage to grow in holiness, when we fear the change that growth requires.   

 Mary Magdalene serves to remind us that perfect love casts out fear, because we love a Lord whose love for us conquered not only fear, but even death itself."

 I think this applies to our personal relationships too; our romantic relationships, family and friends. Love takes courage. We need to trust each other that we love, we need to be open to those we love, we need to be a witness to the power of love, we need to offer love even when there’s the possibility of rejection, we need to be forgiving in love, and we need to grow in love.

What my brother, Kevin, and Fr. Hurd had to say is so important, that love for one another isn’t limited to the lovers or people that love each other, love should be mature and meaningful, and that it takes courage.