[img]1640|right|Arthur Christopher Schaper||no_popup[/img]With gay wedding bells ringing across the land about the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Prop. 8, the battle, the digression over homosexuality, marriage and the proper scope of the state has not changed for the better. The two rulings handed down by the Supreme Court invalidated a popular initiative to amend the California state constitution. The Court said nothing about other states that have barred gay marriage. Thirty-seven still have laws on their books recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman. How long they remain cannot be known.
For whom the bell tolls on gay marriage, the sound echoes hollowly, not holy, certainly not with any wholesomeness, over the land. The flawed arguments justifying gay marriage have focused on progress, fairness, access.
Redefining marriage is not a progressive sentiment. The venal concept of “anyone sleeping with anything” draws from an ancient strain of values in which men and women slept with whatever they wanted to. In tribal societies, and even the supposedly more civilized ancient Greeks, sexual behavior among adults and children was considered acceptable. With the rise of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the beauty and wisdom of marriage between one man and one woman became normative. Yet even the pagan emperor Trajan shut down bathhouses in Rome because sexual promiscuity among men caused a rampant spread of disease, dysfunction and death.
Undisciplined Conduct
Fast forward to the 1980s AIDS epidemic when epidemiologists wanted to call the contagion GRID, “Gay related immuno-deficiency syndrome” because of its virulent prevalence among homosexuals. Even today, the rising tide of evidence exposes the proliferation of disease, dysfunction, and death associated with homosexual conduct. Gay marriage is not progressive at all.
Marriage is not about fairness. “Marriage equality” is a nonsensical construct, like “legitimate rape” or “we must suspend the rules of the free market to save it.” Yet this doctrine of fairness has invaded marriage, rendering it practically meaningless. Marriage is an institution, a sacrament beyond a marriage license, the holding of hands, the saying of “I do.”
It is not a battleground for individuals to express themselves and remake the proper order of society. Marriage creates connections that transcend (not transgress) time and eternity itself. Fairness, which speaks to a parity of two concepts, cannot integrate the timeless and timely. Two men cannot form such a union. Two women cannot embrace and exchange the mastery of marriage. From the beginning, marriage was intended for one man and one woman. An adult cannot mimic, let alone establish, this connection with a child.
Nevertheless, pundits left and right are coming out for gay marriage. Liberal-tarians (liberals who pretend to be libertarian), like the commentator Andrew Sullivan, have advocated for gay marriage for nearly two decades. Along with liberals, now Sen. Rob Portland (R-OH) and conservative commentator Michael Barone support gay marriage. Regarding faux-conservative Mr. Sullivan, he has acquiesced to having had multiple partners. Where is the holy matrimony in that? Speaking of holy, the term at its core means set apart, differMarriage allows two people to be set apart to each other, and each other only.
Agony of Welfare
Marriage is not about access, but rather contracting unfettered desires that, left unchecked, create more harm than good. Consider the consequences of welfarism in inner cities. This government program rewards women for having children out of wedlock. It rewards men for fathering children with multiple women without staying around to bear responsibility. The harm is incalculable to society, to our communities, and to these unwanted children. As a matter of biology and human nature, sexuality without direction is sexuality unhinged. Outside of the wonderful identification between man and woman, people will succumb to any combination. During oral arguments on the same-sex marriage issue, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, whom President Obama memorably referred to as a “wise Latina,” shared grave reservations about redefining of marriage. Where does one draw the line, polygamy, or pedophilia? Justice Sotomayor’s concerns resurrect long-standing arguments about polygamy and the redefinition of marriage in the United States. In 1854, the Republican party was founded on two platforms, the abolition of slavery and the abolition of polygamy. Perhaps Justice Sotomayor should consider becoming a Republican following her frank admission.
Only a man and a woman entered the blessed state of marriage, not two men, two women, animals, objects, or minors. When a couple marries, they engage each other. They become one flesh. The intimacy of marriage and sex cannot be redefined, like throwing away a scrap of old paper or getting a new edition of a book. Marriage is a mature transition. So is choosing not to be married. The notion that a court of law, legal mandates or even popular sentiment radically can redefine marriage betrays the immaturity of our modern polity where the concepts of progress, fairness and access have become all-hallowed buzzwords to justify or condemn government actions.
Arthur Christopher Schaper is a writer on issues eternal and unchanging, timeless and timely. A lifelong Southern California resident, Mr. Schaper lives in Torrance.
Twitter – @ArthurCSchaper
arthurschaper@hotmail.com
asheisministries.blogspot.com
Waxmanwatch.blogspot.com
