I'm going to attempt as best as I know how to explain first of all what marriage is to me and then secondly why I am opposed to the entire notion that marriage is any business of the state at all. For my own part, marriage is a sacrament of Faith that happens to have been usurped by the government thanks to all the popes and kings who wanted power over the virtue and property of those who wed (look up Danelaw for property rules and droit du seigneur for the king's role in virtue of his subjects). Historically, marriage has been chiefly for purposes of monetary advancement; countries and fortunes align more easily than people. However, just because that is how marriage has been used does not make it true. If that were the case, I would log on to wikipedia every rassafrassin day and change articles so they were always false; by your definition that "historical precedence is truth" eventually I could after that fashion change history by setting up false precedence, but I digress.
Personally, I don't think the government has any business in marriage at all, and therefore that makes President Obama's opinion on it as equally irrelevant politically as my own in the long run. However, since marriage has become coopted by the state, which must authorize those who perform the ceremonies and license likewise those who are married, marriage has come to appear to be a 'right' granted by the state. If marriage is a right granted by the state, which seems to be the argument of people who favor gay marriage, then it can be taken away by the state. If they are correct, then the state hasn't done anything wrong; it has taken a right away that it has the power to grant or deny. Historical analysis of the Constitution of the United States finds a complete absence of pronouncement of laws regarding marriage. As James Wilson might point out were he alive, one of his major oppositions to the Bill of Rights is that in failure to enumerate rights that belonged elsewhere than to the State, we might leave out rights that belonged to the people. Furthermore, the Constitution proudly declares that "Congress shall make no law pertaining to the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That applies to Muslims, who get special accommodations for prayers, Q'urans, ad infinitum, but it never did apply to Mormons who also, like the Muslims, betimes believed in polygamy. The idea of marriage and its particulars have always involved Faith.
Whether you affirm your love before an ordained minister or a Justice of the Peace, there are some common themes. Always the ceremony involves some sort of oath or covenant. Thomas More would remind us, were he still alive, of the nature of an oath as he asks, "What is an oath but words we say to God?" We do not make oaths to men; men die. If we swore to a man, that would free us upon his death since we would no longer be bound. We do not swear to an office, for offices are made by men. If we swore to an office, as soon as the men who made the office died, we would no longer be bound either. We swear to something eternal, which we call God.
The people who argue for 'marriage equality' never bother to thoroughly define what they mean. Do they mean they want to finally be able to copulate with a partner who is viewed salacious by society? Let's not pretend they have all been living celibate lives waiting for government to license their liaisons, for adultery, sodomy, fornication, and the like all predate this nation. Let's also keep in mind that in America they enjoy greater freedom than in any other time or under any other government in recorded history. Do they want financial gain? Do they want security? That seems to presume that they assume all heterosexuals actually mean to keep their oaths when they marry, and I know of at least one lesbian couple in California becoming the first lesbian couple to divorce. They are not immune to deception either. Do they mean children and family? Not even a transgender person can actually biologically reproduce without a heterosexual compatriot. These alternative sexual fascinations do not extend the species. What rights are actually being denied them? They are not specific.
Allow me, then, to be specific about what I mean by marriage and why I believe this is a canard. So that you understand that my views on marriage are not restricted to my particular Faith, I will tell you that my beliefs of marriage were laid down as a combination of things I was taught at a very young age, so much so that it pains me TO THIS DAY greatly to have been divorced despite the fact that everyone who knows the circumstances who knows me except my ex-wife understands how it came to be and sees that I am innocent. The idea of Christian marriage comes from the story of Adam and Eve, not because of their names, but because we recognize that man and woman, male and female, are eternal characteristics essential to our identity and that man and woman are different parts of a whole entity that makes for perfection (1 Cor 11:11). The world, and sadly many who call themselves Christians, separate one aspect of perfect unity (sex) not only as a definitive sign for the highest love but also as the justification for marriage. They regard sex similarly to the way that bulimic persons regard food- they want the pleasure of unity with the other flesh without anything other aspects similarly to the way bulimic persons ingest food only to spew it out again.
Our belief in unity and the nature of a unified connection between man and woman accounts for our views on divorce. When a man and woman who REALLY MEAN IT combine via marriage into that 'one flesh', they cease to be separate and become one, making divorce akin to a physical exorcism in which we basically cut up a living organism, in a way that is often so violent that it destroys the parts once rendered separate as well as any unfortunate children who result from the nuptials(Matthew 19:6). Many people who have been divorced tell me that they are 'damaged'. Too many of us equate divorce to the dissolution of a business relationship, the abolition of a military regiment, or a readjustment of college professors to different departmental supervision. In reality, it is much more like a lobotomy in which we cut out a part that is essential to the eternal life of what was once made whole.
Thomas More, as previously mentioned, equated the promises made as part of a marriage ceremony to their actual solemnity. As a lawyer, he was keenly aware of the concept of Justice, which means that both parties KEEP THEIR WORD. In many cases of divorce or familial struggle that has not yet culminated therein, what we find is one party who has been in open rebellion to the marriage covenant. This is why, in part, I do not believe in marriage for purposes of monetary gain, because the covenant in every religion with whom I am familiar believes in a covenant association "for rich or poorer, for sickness or health, UNTIL DEATH DO US PART" if not for longer duration. Money is fake. Facebook's IPO this morning made Zuckerberg a billionaire on paper, but in my opinion Facebook's value is largely imaginary just like money. We use gold or silver as medium of exchange because of their rarity, ease of storage, and universal exchange (See Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations) but not because they in and of themselves are valuable for much. Justice does not say that it is permissible to abandon a contract if it's simply no longer to your advantage, but justice does allow for divorce in the case when one person abandons the contract to free the other from obligation to someone who is no longer complicit with the terms. Monetary gain is frequently selfish. I will deal with this briefly in tomorrow's post. A selfish member of a contractual obligation is not inclined to keep his word. Justice, thus threatened, requires an adjustment to the person wronged. Lest you misapprehend me, marriage is not like a regular contract enforceable by the court; it is a contract between three parties: you, your spouse, and God, and God is the enforcer. You cannot get Him on 'your side' as it were; He is on His own. More on this later.
Many people who argue fallaciously that gay marriage and the like is justified make this claim because so many heterosexual marriages have failed on faulty logic. This ad hoc, ergo proctor hoc argues that "If heterosexual marriage are not perfect, then homosexual marriages should be allowed", but anyone who studies logic knows that a falsehood cannot lead to a truth. Truth must lead to truth; falsehoods must lead to falsehood. What they are really angry at is that they have caught Christians who are CHEATING. A significant number of people who made that oath to God during their marriage ceremony never intended to keep it, whether out of ignorance of the price required or what marriage requires or because they despise God himself. Mostly, they are not deceiving God as much as they hope to deceive the public, to cheat and get the gifts without paying for them or the prestige of being married or a parent without intending to pay the price. If you do not intend to keep an oath to God, perhaps it is better that you do not marry at all; while you might be guilty of fornication, it does not fix sin to add a second one.
Honesty in marriage and dating is absolutely necessary for success of the marriage relationship. Not only do we need to mean the oaths, but we need to be honest about what we mean by love and marriage and what we expect from those we love and marry. Although we use the same words, we do not mean the same things. Years ago, I attempted to date a young woman with whom I went through this exercise. I explained what I meant by CS Lewis' "Four Loves", and she decided she was not willing to pay the price to love me in a way that meant what I defined as real love. Conversely, several years ago, I worked with a lovely young lady who told me one day that she intended to marry her boyfriend so they could sleep together. While I felt at the time that this was a poor foundation on which to build a family, to my great and everlasting joy, I learned just a few weeks ago that she and her husband are still happily married, and that she is stationed at Nellis AFB just a few miles away from me. Her marriage started with honesty, and consequently it was capable of growth and an upgrade.
Love is not the reason for marriage. If love really was "all you need" then to what end have a ceremony, a contract, and a covenant? We have that because love changes. I love chocolate cake, beagles, and the US Constitution. I once loved taekwondo, laffy taffy, and policemen. Jenkins Lloyd Jones wrote an article in the Deseret News in 1973 in which he said, "“There seems to be a superstition among many thousands of our young who hold hands and smooch in the drive-ins that marriage is a cottage surrounded by perpetual hollyhocks to which a perpetually young and handsome husband comes home to a perpetually young and ravishing wife. When the hollyhocks wither and boredom and bills appear the divorce courts are jammed." The oath binds them together based on love they feel for each other today at least "for as long as you both shall live". Earlier, I mentioned that God is a party to the marriage contract. He is on His own side. His side is to form families for the purpose of creating new life. His interest is also with the children that result from the motions of procreation. As they are innocent parties and incapable of fighting for their own benefit, He looks out for them. For this reason, I believe that marriage should not be dissolved as long as children are in the home, because it forces children to suffer for the sins of their parents (Interestingly, people who support gay marriage frequently use this same argument to defend illegal aliens, that it's not fair to hurt the children for the parents, but they think nothing of divorce. It's probably because they are not emotionally involved with the aliens if they even know any. Their benevolence towards people they have not met is largely imaginary, but their hatred towards their own offspring/dependents is wholly real [Screwtape Letters]).
Often, the defendants of gay marriage deal in absolutes. In addition to their earlier logical fallacies, they deal in terms of good and bad while they talk about 'shades of grey' in other aspects of life. They say that love is good, which is true. They never consider that justice is better than love. They say that they can raise kids well; they never consider who can raise children the best. I do not have any because I know that my home, in the absence of a mother, isn't the ideal place to raise children, and so if they can find a home with mother and father committed to each other even if no longer romantically in love they will be better off. Like Miracle Max tells Inigo Montoya in the Princess Bride, "True love is the greatest thing in the world except for a nice MLT- Mutton Lettuce and Tomato..." Love is a great thing; there are things worse, and there are things greater. For a longer discourse on that, read Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics. Love is, after all, just a feeling. What we call love is frequently colored by what we see in movies and books and plays, and let us not call the codependent love of "Jane Eyre" or the stalkerish love of "Twilight" or the fiduciary love of "Pride and Prejudice" the same as that we see in the first opening minutes of the movie "Up". They are very different, and I have to give Pixar credit for the first few minutes of that animated masterpiece, because it was more like what I define as love than anything in the previous three.
Marriage does not belong in the political sphere because it is a matter of morality. Unlike those who clamour for gay rights, I actually believe in the separation of church and state. Do not let it deceive you that these people do not attend a church in a form that you recognize, for their worship around the alter of 'the environment' or 'going with the flow' or 'the natural man' or Stonehenge. The Church is responsible for the conduct of its members, for their spiritual status, meant to help them live lives of righteousness and reach out to their needy neighbors according to their physical or spiritual needs. The State is responsible for the civil control of the citizenry, for their political franchise, and for the establishment and maintenance of policies contracted merely between members of the body politic. Hence, the State, since it neither recognizes nor involves deity, is not responsible for, party to, or involved in marriage, which is an oath between men and their Maker. What these people intend to do, no matter what side of the spectrum on which they find themselves, is to FORCE their views of marriage on everyone else. In fact, if marriage ceased to be a concern of the state, then the "full faith and credit" clause wouldn't matter, and DoMA wouldn't either because the state wouldn't care whether you are married or not. The fact of the matter is that most people do not live Christian lives, whether they appear on the attendance or membership roles of a congregation or not, and so it is expressly repugnant to the Constitution without an amendment to force people to live the tenants of any Faith.
I find the notion strange that the same people who insist on protection and preservation of the vegetative environment often actively engage in efforts to destroy my moral environment. As they demand I respect how they choose to live, in doing so they show their abject disregard for what I prefer. While it is unacceptable for me to pass laws that restrict their ability to live as they choose, in arguing for greater permissibility they turn up their noses at my desire to live as I choose. That is the great thing about Federalism- if you don't like it, you can move to another township, county, or state that allows it. Federalism allows for diversity of public opinion at the state and local level because it doesn't allow the federal government to pass statutes about things that exceed its sovereignty. Marriage is not for man or men alone. It involves the Lord and children who were not able to object to a union during the ceremony or alter the contract to protect themselves. Our societal conventions on marriage reflect a respect for our Maker and a concern for innocent children who might be harmed by naivete or deception on the part of the couple.
Finally, the so-called inalienable rights for whom these people clamour do not come from government. While supporters of greater permissibility frequently cite the part of the Declaration of Independence that serves their purpose, they ignore the rest. It reads "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." After crafting the Constitution, James Madison said, "The Constitution was written for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." These agitators are not asking whether what they are doing is moral; making it legal will not make it moral. I have been saying for some time the following: the evil man looks at the law and alters it to match his behavior while the righteous man alters his behavior to match the law. The law of which I speak is not the law on record via federal statute; it is the Natural Law that governs the universe and defines all useful work. The debate for gay marriage is not useful work; it will not necessarily make us a better people. It will give license to licentiousness. It will lend the appearance of legitimacy to something that has never been socially beneficial to any society in the long run. It is the tail wagging the dog. If we wish to be happy and prosperous, we must become righteous. If we wish our marriages to be fruitful, we must keep our covenants. If we wish to marry well, we must become better people and seek better mates and live better lives. The Natural Law tells us that without useful work entropy always increases. If we wish to be better, we must be working at it, every minute of every hour of every day. That is the only way to get better families and satisfy the demands of the marriage contract to all of its participants and to all of those affected by it.
No comments:
Post a Comment