Marriage Mayhem

“at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” – Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

When it comes to viewing reality, there are two kinds of people in the world: those who try to understand the nature of reality and those who believe they can create their own reality. I fall into the former category. The advocates of “marriage equality” – and some members of the Supreme Court - fall into the latter. After all, defining one’s own concept of the universe regardless of the scientific evidence is hardly rational. We live in an age in which access to knowledge and information of all kinds has never been easier – it is just a mouse click or finger tap away – and yet the breadth and depth of the U.S and western world’s ignorance or deliberate denial of the most basic human characteristics - including the ability to engage in critical thinking - is astounding. Recently here in Alaska the muddled thinking of yet another of our nation’s federal judges has resulted in overruling the will of the people and declaring that our law defining marriage as being between one man and one woman as unconstitutional. This was decided after hardly any deliberation, and in true tyrannical form, the judge declared that the state must immediately start recognizing gay marriages. So once again, in one more state, the American people were declared by a federal judge to be too stupid or bigoted (in fact if not in word) to be trusted with critical decisions that directly impact their lives. And make no mistake, even though the LGBT community makes up less than 3% of the general population, federal judges’ decisions are resulting in a profound unraveling of the entire institution of marriage and therefore of our nation’s fabric.

If my purpose were to denounce gay relations – particularly as it relates to their association with children - I could talk about the very unstable relationships homosexual men and women have, their high degree of promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases, their shorter than average lifespans, the fact that people who identify as homosexual are many times more likely to commit sexual crimes against children than their heterosexual counterparts, and the physical harm done to men when a certain canal that is designed for the one-way transportation of waste material out of the body is also (mis)used when a foreign object from someone else’s body is inserted into the canal contrary to its natural…movement. I could also spill ink over the multiple decisions from the last several decades that ultimately resulted in the Supreme Court putting the act of sodomy on the same moral plane as coitus (heterosexual sex), or perhaps even reflect on the widely misunderstood nature of ancient Greece’s acceptance of homosexuality. But all of these things, important as they are, are really not the thrust I want to get at with this essay. My interest is not in defending marriage from an attack from homosexuals, per se, but to defend it from an attack from everyone trying to re-define it. This first phase of “marriage equality” that we are now experiencing is only the preliminary assault, albeit a devastating one.

Many people (especially lawyers representing their clients in court) claim that the “right to marry” is fundamental and due to all individuals. “Discrimination must be justified by more than a desire to discriminate” is what attorneys in an article in the October 6, 2014 Fairbanks Daily News-Miner said. And where did these attorneys get such an idea? From Judge Vaughn Walker who was the first federal judge to strike down a voter approved initiative in California defining marriage between one man and one woman. Of course it turned out after the fact that Judge Walker himself was in a long-term same-sex relationship, but when he was challenged for not recusing himself from a ruling that directly impacted him, another court saw no conflict of interest. 

So, in a nutshell, what it all boils down to is that those of us who oppose re-defining marriage are solely doing it because we like discriminating against homosexuals. Wrong. We discriminate against same-sex couples because there is only one way to talk to our kids about the birds and the bees. It is true that it is a simple matter of biology, but it is also much more than that. However, adult homosexual couples are not the only targets of our discrimination when it comes to the (formerly) exclusive institution of marriage: we also like discriminating against people who are into polygamy, pederasty, pedophilia, polyamory, incest, bestiality, and any other variant from the one man-one woman union. What is our justification for this discrimination? The wellbeing of our children. Discrimination is very good and important when exercised in the right way, at the right

time, and when it is employed to try to protect the next generation from harm resulting from negative influences, behaviors, and lifestyles. When we do our absolute best to equip our children to succeed in life then discrimination is not only necessary but critical. So how do we know what influences and behaviors are negative for children? By taking a good hard look at the evidence and in being in accord with our nature (but more on that later).

But getting back to the lawyers’ comment, is marriage really fundamental to all individuals? Of course not. Children can’t marry. The insane can’t marry. People with Down syndrome can’t marry. They are excluded and for good reason because they are not mature or competent enough to be parents or run a household on their own. This is not to disparage them, particularly our handicapped brothers and sisters, but to point out a reality. Another reality is that marriage never used to be considered valid unless it was consummated. And how was it

consummated? Through the marital act (coition). Using this criterion, not a single homosexual “marriage” could be valid because not a single one of them can ever be consummated. Ever. When a marriage was consummated, the complete giving of the spouses to each other opened up the possibility of providing life to a third person. The sterile sex of homosexuality can never do that. The union – as such it is – between people of the same sex always and forever excludes the possibility of the giving of new life. And this sterility has much to do with the rampant promiscuity among the gay population. Even those in “committed” relationships tend to not be exclusive.

Then there is the question of whether or not homosexuality has a genetic component to it. That is, if there is a “gay gene”. That seems to be important to the movement in order to validate themselves, but so far they haven’t found one. But the fact is, whether or not one is born gay still does not vindicate their behavior and give them a right to marry. After all, there actually is a genetic predisposition to alcoholism, but does that make alcoholism okay? Do we tell alcoholics to embrace 

their alcoholism and march in Alcoholic Pride parades? Do we outlaw ‘alcohol therapy’ classes for minors struggling with alcohol dependence because getting them to stop drinking might cause psychological harm? How about if we tell alcoholics to embrace their alcoholism while sending over a shot of whisky and drinking to their health? Would we be helping alcoholics by validating their right to drink themselves under the table and kill their livers? Of course not, we would be accelerating their destruction. For anyone to be cured of any ailment they must first accept the reality of their situation. Alcoholics get better by avoiding alcohol, not by rationalizing their behavior. They know they need to avoid situations that tempt them to drink, and those who succeed often have a good support network to help them steer clear of the pitfalls. The same is true with those who have same-sex attraction. We do them no favors by pretending that their relationships are on par with heterosexual married couples, and federal judges and well-meaning

family and friends are contributing to their downfall by encouraging them in behaviors or toward goals that are impossible for them to achieve in the real and rational world. Unfortunately, key players in our society are currently caught up in a game of ‘let’s pretend’, and those of us who don’t want to play are sometimes subjected to vicious retaliation by the ‘children’ in the game. The former head of Mozilla as well as a florist, a baker, and a photographer come to mind; as does the conductor of an orchestra in California after the IRS illegally gave the radical Human Rights Campaign his information and thousands of others when they voted for the traditional definition of marriage in 2008.

However, the game of pretend marriage will eventually run its course, because despite the claim to wanting equality in marriage - which doubtlessly some homosexuals may think is the end-game – the elites in the movement know better: they want to get rid of marriage altogether. The goal is to completely normalize sodomy and all things homosexual and deconstruct the divide between heterosexuals and homosexuals in order to “genealogically explain away the rigid orientation schema because they believe this will give them the freedom and the power to make, unmake, and remake their sexuality as they see fit” (1). 

Human beings flourish when acting in accord with their nature, and human beings are acting in accord with their nature when a male and female bodily unite, remain faithful to each other, and raise their offspring…which are, of course, a natural result of their union. When this is done in the institution of marriage it is a good thing; a very good thing. The key word mentioned above is flourish. The fact is, since we have free will, we can act in any way we want: we can accept the natural order or we can deviate from it. The evidence of whether we flourish or not in this context is really not all that hard to find, and the evidence is abundant and clear: for our children to have the best opportunity to succeed in life – no matter how success is defined – they need to be raised with both of their biological parents. The happier the home, the better. The more educated the parents, the better. The more religious the family, the better. These are the facts accumulated over decades of research. Growing up with our biological parents is acting in accord with our nature and the ideal. Of course, we are not living in an ideal world: we are living in an ever-increasingly fragmented world, and that broken world includes divorce and remarriage, single parents, couples living together, homosexual couples, etc. Unfortunately all of the relationships just mentioned fall short in providing what is best for the children: some more than others. Note that I said what is best for the children: I am not saying or implying that your kids are doomed to failure because you are doing a terrible job of raising them since your husband ditched you for another woman…or man. Many kids appear to grow up to be psychologically healthy and well adjusted no matter what their living conditions. Children are often resilient. Many people do not willingly choose their current

family structure (e.g. divorced single parents) and make the best of it, and those people are to be commended. But people who have to ‘make the best of it’ prove my point: it could be better, should be better, and that’s what society should aim for. So the way to fix a broken world is not to double down on dysfunction and make it socially acceptable - and it certainly isn’t by taking a sledgehammer to it and renaming the pieces - but by patching-up the patient. How is this done? By being honest. By being truthful. And, quite frankly, by growing up. What is important here is not personal license to do whatever one wants, but personal responsibility to do what one needs. And what one needs – what is truly best for the individual in the long run – is what is best for society as a whole. But it has to be freely chosen. And encouraged.

Our young people are the lifeblood of the nation, and by depriving them of the opportunities to best succeed by deliberately separating them from those who are best able to raise them is not just a travesty, it’s criminal. “Marriage Equality” arises when husband and wife are devoted to each other and put the needs of their family before their own needs: they equally share the burden and joy of family responsibilities. The data doesn’t lie. And because it doesn’t lie, there are some who want to kill the nuclear family; it gets in the way of redefining our sexuality. A civilization can not long endure if the fundamental unit of society - the family - is attacked, redefined, and dismantled: and this is what is going on today.

“Cultural elites who favor same-sex marriage shape the imaginations of culture consumers, who are typically unaware that they’re thinking someone else’s thoughts and living someone else’s script.” (2). Some of these cultural elites work for influential newspapers. For those of us trying to salvage marriage and resist the progressive and homosexual agenda (and there most certainly is an agenda), New York Times reporter Josh Barro recently had this to say, “we need to stamp them out, ruthlessly.” Them. Yep, Brendan Eich of Mozilla, the conductor, the florist, the baker, the photographer, etc. Them and, by extension, me. That was not from the mouth of Stalin, Hitler, or Mao, but from a ‘tolerant’ man of the left who believes in “marriage equality”… and I have a problem with that. Unlike the three great butchers of the 20^th Century, Barro apparently only means to be ruthless in destroying my livelihood and otherwise making my life hellish as opposed to killing me – just like they have done to the others - but that doesn’t exactly endear me any more to him.

Rationalizing and normalizing homosexual relations is seriously colliding with traditional Christian values in America: and that is being seen today throughout the nation at an ever-accelerating pace, including in our military, universities, and states like Texas and Idaho - to name the most recent examples. In Houston the lesbian mayor tried to intimidate pastors by illegally demanding sermons and other information as it pertains to their criticism of the “bathroom bill” that allows men to use women’s bathrooms and vice versa, and in Coeur d’Alene where pastors were threatened with imprisonment if they don’t marry same-sex couples. In these two cases, the authorities have backed off – for the moment – but what we have seen so far isn’t even a preliminary warm-up of what’s to come. People like Josh Barro are getting bolder by the day since they are not being held to account and denounced for their inflammatory and hateful remarks. Christians of all stripes will increasingly lose their battles in the courts as our society continues to careen toward a Huxlian “Brave New World”. For many people this is good news, but to them I say BEWARE; for as the pillars of this country founded on Judeo-Christian principles become further undermined the foundation will rest on nothing but shifting sand. And these sands might just wash away some of their cherished rights too.

The founders of this great nation were all unequivocal in the importance of morality and the religiosity of the people in maintaining a free country, and 60 years later when Alexis de Tocqueville visited the U.S. from his native France he agreed that the young country was exceptional due to its morally superior nature brought on by it’s adherence to Christian teaching. De Tocqueville understood that true freedom was linked with self-restraint and that self-restraint was a moral Christian virtue. He recognized warning signs in our society even then, but he had no idea how far we would descend to the depths. Unfortunately, we don't either. Yet.

What does morality and virtue have to do with marriage?

Everything.


1. Against Heterosexuality, First Things, March 2014 by Michael W. Hannon.

2. Cultural War, Spiritual War, First Things web exclusives 10/24/14 by Peter J. Leithart

Other resources: Making Gay Okay, Ignatius Press, by Robert R. Reilly