 What IS Marriage, Anyway?
|
May. 16th, 2008 @ 08:53 am 
|
|---|
Well, I see where the California Supreme Court on a 4-3 vote just overturned six thousand or more years of common definition of the institution of marriage, which is stylish of them.
Now I happen to believe in the federal system and if another state wants to define the terms of intercourse (I'm using this in its broadest meaning) between its citizens, who am I to comment? Of course, in this case 61% of the voters of the state already defined marriage as quite the opposite of what the court just determined.
What I do have a huge objection to is judges who believe they, and they alone, have the right to turn the commonly held meaning of constitutions topsy-turvy and find that in 2008 it means something completely different from when it was adopted. When constitutional rights can be redefined at whim, then they mean nothing at all, and the risk of tyranny by robe becomes very great indeed. This is the second state court to reach the same conclusion (many others did not), and both by 4-3 votes.
*******
I do prefer, however, that both judges and politicians be straight (I'm using this in its broadest meaning) about what they are saying and doing, and to that extent at least the California court puts all the marbles on the table instead of that wishy-washy "civil union" "compromise" imposed in Vermont and discussed elsewhere. What kind of gobbledy-gook is that?
After all, what is a civil marriage if not a "civil union", that is, a relationship between two people solely defined by the state with provisions for a beginning, a middle and an end. In most states civil matrimony involves a whole lot less than the traditional notions of permanent families. So if you're going to toy with the notion of civil unions, then call it what it really is, civil matrimony with such meaning as the state defines, the lowest common denominator of the understanding of human relationships.
**********
I often hear conservatives and others freak out when things like this happen, blaming the "gay lobby" and the "gay agenda".
I don't see it that way.
If the definition of marriage is getting fuzzy, it isn't because of some interest group or other. WE have made the meaning of marriage obscure by our own actions as a society over the last . . . well, my lifetime.
When I was in elementary school, I only remember two of my friends having divorced parents, and those were whispered about in shocked disbelief. It didn't affect our relationship with the kids, they were still our friends. We just felt terrible for them. One of them, raised by his father, pretended his mother was dead. He kept that up for years, even though here in small town America we all knew the truth. We were deep into high school when one day, out of the blue, he said to me, "My mother's not dead, you know."
"Yeah, I know." And that was that.
The old social norm of saving yourself for marriage, even if honored as much in the breech as in the observance, went out the window completely with the dawn of The Pill and the coming of the drug era. We once used pejorative terms like "shacking up" and "playing house", activities which later became recognized by the federal government as "POSSLQ", Persons of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters, which prompted Charles Osgood to write his famous poem, - There's nothing that I wouldn't do
- If you would be my POSSLQ
- You live with me and I with you,
- And you will be my POSSLQ.
- I'll be your friend and so much more;
- That's what a POSSLQ is for.
Matrimony, which used to be the sacrosanct institution for the unifying spiritual power of sexual relations and the procreation and raising of children in a harmonious unit has become totally cheapened by the customs of the day. Sex is for the moment, children a commodity that can be accepted, rejected or tossed in a bin behind the abortuary.
If people of the gay persuasion look at the way we have dumbed down marriage to a simple piece of paper defining the property interests of the parties, who can blame them when they say, "Well, why can't we have that, too?"
Perhaps if we had a better idea of what matrimony is, or should be, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Buy my novel The Evil Has Landed
|
When I was a parish secretary (chief cook, bottle washer and hand holder), I dealt w/the annulling of and creation of marriages. I learned a lot about both processes especially annulments - when a Petrine or Pauline Privilege applies. The most interesting fact I learned is that the Church does not recognize civil unions between a man and woman at all. The Church will not recognize the union until the Church has sanctified it. Most people don't realize that the Church's position is that no civil union is a marriage. The Church really needs to make the statement that civil matrimony does not, nor ever will, equal holy matrimony, no matter the sexes of the parties involved. Maybe, just maybe, that might clear the air a bit.
![[User Picture Icon]](http://p-userpic.livejournal.com/27459829/6191726) |
| From: | ![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) rgoing |
|---|
| Date: |
May 16th, 2008 09:11 pm (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
Well, as someone who actually paid attention in parochial school, that's one I was aware of. Notwithstanding the standard (mostly episcopalian) civil ceremony, it's not the same thing. One of the six precepts of the Church is "Obey the laws of the church concerning matrimony."".
| From: | (Anonymous) |
|---|
| Date: |
May 16th, 2008 09:32 pm (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
agreed
|
(Link) |
|
This is essentially the argument I have over and over again with all of my family: why does the state marry people anyway? It is a religious (and before that, a natural) sacrament. I think that if the government wishes to allow two people, otherwise unrelated, into a civil union conferring certain benefits, then fine and dandy - but those are not marriages. You get marriages in churches.
Of course, this all relies on a Blinding Flash of the Obvious - the First Amendment applied to the state, so it does not meddle in church business. Congress has its collective head sufficiently muffled to prevent such a realization, but gosh, it's fun to dream. Imagine rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's!
Unfortunatly, I fear this is the first step in compelling various denominations to violate their principles by force of law, as has been attempted with Catholic hospitals and abortion and same-sex health benefits. Nobody cares about the second, ninth, and tenth amendments, so hell, why not toss the first as well?
-nightfly
|
| From: | rgoing |
|---|
| Date: |
May 16th, 2008 11:24 pm (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
Re: agreed
|
(Link) |
|
There's not a whole lot of respect for the first, sixth and ninth commandments either (numbering as a Catholic).
I think the gummint ought to get out of the marriage business, period. And I wonder why we even bother to vote since courts, not voters, make the laws.
| From: | (Anonymous) |
|---|
| Date: |
May 18th, 2008 05:03 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
Comment...
|
(Link) |
|
Good article, but IMO misses the point. Evangelicals and Catholics - all Christians really- understand that this IS the classic 'slippery slope'
argument, and it's clear the supportive legislative impetus behind Supreme Court decisions are tied quite clearly to gay activist groups. Societal trends be damned, most people still consider marriage between a man and a women normal, and to normalize homosexual "unions" is a threat to the institution of marriage and ultimately any children who come in contact with them.
The consequences of not only redefining marriage but permitting judicial prerogative to describe- redefine - traditional creed as "hate speech" is a trend to muzzle religious freedom everywhere. The secular will now tell the non-secular world to not have faith at all- if so, you and your children must be "re-educated." (Richard Dawkins, et. al.)
Wake up, the battle's already underway.
|
| From: | rgoing |
|---|
| Date: |
May 18th, 2008 11:57 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
Re: Comment...
|
(Link) |
|
I'm not missing the point. Simply making a different one.
|
|
|