Recovering the Meaning of Marriage

Print Friendly and PDF

The stage is being set for the U.S. Supreme Court to manufacture a “right” to homosexual “marriage” in the Constitution. That’s the document written by the same American Founders whose minds the court read in 1973 to include fever dreams of unlimited abortions.

This time around, the court might desist. We can only hope.

Meanwhile, the Orwellian juggernaut of intolerance in the name of tolerance rolls on, with Mozilla Firefox CEO Brendan Eich the latest victim. Mr. Eich resigned Thursday for the crime of donating $1,000 in 2008 to support Proposition 8. He was in good company. California’s marriage amendment was widely approved by the electorate — including 70 percent of black California voters.

I guess they should all be fired from whatever jobs they have.

Marriage is not just any relationship. It predates the law and the Constitution, and is an anthropological reality, not primarily a legal one. No civilization can survive without it, and those societies that allowed it to become irrelevant have faded into history.

It’s one thing to have the idea that a cow is now a horse. It’s another to use the power of the law to impose this delusion on everybody else. Same-sex “marriage” is a direct attack on freedom of conscience for millions of people.

Marriage is the union of the two sexes, not just two people. It is the binding of two families, and the foundation for establishing kinship patterns and family names, passing on property and providing the optimal environment for raising children.

Marriage is the only type of coupling capable of natural reproduction of the human race — a man and a woman. Children need mothers and fathers, and marriage is society’s way of obtaining them.

Even childless marriages are a social anchor for children, who observe adults as role models. Children learn crucial things about family life by seeing relationships up close: interactions between men and women, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, and parents to children of the same and opposite sexes.

Human experience and a vast body of social science research show that children do best in married, mother-father households. Junk science can’t change that, nor can it prove that people are “born gay” with no hope of change.

After Massachusetts legalized homosexual “marriage” in 2004, the Catholic Church had to shut down its large adoption agency, and later in the District of Columbia. This denies orphans one of the best chances of being adopted in an intact household with a mother and father. Collateral damage. Shrug.

Marriage laws have been part of the cultural and legal structures for thousands of years in all societies long before the modern “gay” movement became active in the 1970s. It is profoundly misleading for media to refer to marriage laws as “gay-marriage bans,” as if the laws never had any purpose other than excluding same-sex couples.

Citing laws in some states that once barred interracial marriage is also misleading. The very essence of marriage — the joining of the two sexes — was never at issue when the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia (1967) struck down Virginia’s law barring interracial marriage.

Hijacking the moral capital of the black civil rights movement to turn a wrong into a “right” is part of a detailed strategy in the 1989 book “After the Ball,” by public relations experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, who advised: “In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector.”

They suggested branding people with traditional values as “haters” and “bigots.”

That PR strategy has worked like magic, pounded into the American psyche over and over via the media, Hollywood, the educational establishment and liberal corporations that have become willing accomplices.

Many well-intentioned people, such as students in “gay-straight alliances,” unknowingly aid what is fast becoming a totalitarian movement.

Businesses that decline to recognize nonmarital relationships are being punished through loss of contracts. Christian-owned firms have been fined or ruined in New Mexico, Oregon and elsewhere for declining to service homosexual ceremonies. People are being fired or denied credentials.

In 1994, writer Michelangelo Signorile urged activists to “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”

Contrast that with what Jesus said about marriage, reiterating God’s directive in Genesis:

From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh.

People need not burn bridges with friends and loved ones who differ on this issue. All people are precious, created in God’s image, and all are subject to various temptations — and hope for change — during our lifetimes.

We must speak the truth in love, and never, never surrender to the demand that we lie to our Creator, to ourselves and to our children about what is right and wrong — and what constitutes a marriage.

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

  • peteykins

    LOL, must be hard to sense your world slipping away like this.

    • Martin Rizley

      What is hard is for anyone who loves his country to see it slipping away into insanity. I’m sure there were a few Germans who felt that way as they saw countless multitudes cheering the ‘triumphs’ of Adolph Hitler and the ‘advances’ that National Socialism was making in the world. Utopia was just around the corner, because Der Fuhrer was going to rid the world of all those nasty ideas invented by a group of ‘parasitic’ Jews who wished to foist their deity and His moral laws on the rest of the world. Well, here we are three quarters of a century later, and where are those cheering multitudes? Societies can indeed “slip away” into lunacy, and it is tragic to see it, but God is still in charge and after their little heyday of rebellion, the promoters of lunacy and corruptors of a nation’s youth will be judged by the Almighty.

      • John

        Nazi = MAJOR FAIL

        • Martin Rizley

          It is clear to me why pro-LGBT people don’t like Nazis being mentioned in threads that concern LGBT intolerance in America– because they don’t want the clear parallels between Nazi fascism and homofascism being exposed. They don’t want people being reminded of the historical past, so they consider it ill-mannered to mention the Nazis and Hitler unless a group is actually promoting genocide, as the Nazis did. They forget, however, that Nazism did not in its early stages promote genocide; it was simply an “intolerant” movement driven by a small but influential minority of people in the culture who sought to use the civil law as a penalizing force to shut down free speech and to impose a particular worldview on the people that was radically anti-Jewish (it especially opposed the Judaizing influence of the culture rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures). It aimed especially to penalize those whom they believed were “unevolved,” and they regarded themselves as being on the “right side of history” and of having a destiny to rule the world. All these features are dramatically similar to the most extreme voices among homofascists in our day, which is why it is perfectly legitimate to point out the frightening parallels between German Nazism in its early stages and the radical LGBT agenda that seeks to use the force of the civil law as a bludgeon to penalize those who refuse to ‘evolve’ and ‘get on the right side of history.’ Homofascists also wish to eradicate “Jewish” influence from our culture by undermining the Judeo-Christian values system on which our legal system was founded. History does repeat itself.

          • shepetgene

            What’s most ironic to me is that I’ve seen many commenters on this website praise Russia for it’s anti-gay laws. You know Russia, the country that promotes intense nationalism. The country that invaded another to “protect ethnic Russians.” The one with the same leader for the last 15 years. Where a website like this wouldn’t exist because of tightly state-controlled media. You don’t see a stronger tie to the actual definition of fascism there?

          • Martin Rizley

            I am by no means saying the homofascism is the only form of fascism in the world today. Were I living in Russia, I might find the system there oppressive in many ways. But I have nothing but praise for the Russian government’s decision to ban homosexual propaganda to minors. I wish our own country would do the same. It was an American, Scott Lively, who helped to frame Russia’s “anti-propaganda law” law; and as an American, he was well qualified to do so, since he was schooled in our American tradition of recognizing God-given “natural law” as the only just foundation for civil law. That’s why Thomas Jefferson, whom no one would accuse of being a Christian fundamentalist, saw no contradiction between his view of American government and his support of a bill that actually penalized sodomy with castration! Am I for going back to that sort of penalty? No; but I believe, along with our founders, that the civil law should be based on a recognition of God-given natural law as its inviolable foundation; for which reason, children should not be corrupted through being ‘sexualized’ by adults with propaganda in the public schools advocating the ‘normalcy’ of sexually deviant lifestyles. We should oppose that sort of thing as a menace to our children and our very future as a nation. The Russians are more civilized than us in that respect, and more wise. They are determined not to have what Putin called the ‘genderless, infertile’ society that we are wanting to create for ourselves in the West.

      • peteykins

        Annnnd we’ve achieved Godwin’s Law. Well done!

        • Martin Rizley

          Funny how fascists don’t like to be exposed for who they are, so they chide people who compare them to Nazis by saying, “You have now proven the truth of Godwin’s law by pulling the ‘Hitler’ card and ending all reasoned discussion.” The fact is, however, not all comparisons to Nazis and Hitlers should be regarded automatically as ‘out of court.’ Rather, proof should be offered to see if there is a reasonable basis for such a comparison. Is the group in question using the civil law as a tool to penalize and even silence those who don’t agree with them by depriving them of their means of livelihood? Are they targeting such individuals for criminal prosecution because of their ideas, as Scott Lively has been targeted by homofascists? If so, the comparison to Nazi fascism is warranted. Even an atheist like Bill Maher now admits that we have in America a “gay gestapo.”

          • peteykins

            Actually, I really enjoy it when sites like this (and commenters like you) constantly use Nazi analogies. One, because it’s funny, and two, because it prevents people from taking you seriously.

            But mostly because it’s hilarious. Keep ‘em coming!

          • Martin Rizley

            Sarcasm and spiteful laughter are the only weapons a person has who is incapable of responding intelligently to a fellow human being with whom he disagrees. It is the response of one who undoubtedly views life itself is a joke. I don’t want know what sort of “strategy” you think that is. Sarcasm only tends to alienate others by making one appear like an arrogant and shallow “know it all” who refuses to engage on the level of dialogue with those who are “beneath him.”

          • peteykins

            You are awesome.

    • thisoldspouse

      What world is it that is slipping away? Characterize it. Realize what it has produced.

      You want the antithesis of a world which has brought about civilization. In other words, barbarism.

      • peteykins

        I think you’re my favorite commenter here. So good!

        • thisoldspouse

          So, you can’t answer the question?

          • peteykins

            I love you. :)

  • Martin Rizley

    What you have stated here is really self-evident truth concerning the nature of marriage which any nation ought to recognize, confess, and codify into law. Our society is going in the opposite direction, however, by trying to ‘rewrite’ the definition of marriage in ways that contradict common sense, undermine religious freedom, sabotage the cultural, social, and economic future of our nation, and even threaten the lives of children– by promoting deadly lies about sexual deviancy in public school classrooms and sacrificing children on the altar of “political correctness.” In such a tragic environment of societal decay, God’s people have no choice but to speak sanity into an environment characterized by lunacy. We must continue to defend freedom in an environment characterized by tyranny. We have no choice in this matter, for when your nation is under attack, you cannot respond by saying, “But I do not want to fight a war!” You must fight. When you are being shot at, you must either defend yourself by shooting back or be killed by the attacker. Christians must take aim at the lies that homofascists are promoting and shoot down those lies with the force of truth. We must do that, or else we flee the field of battle as shameful cowards who have abandoned the defense of truth. We didn’t pick this hellish fight, but we must ‘man up’ and give ourselves to the fray, by fighting this battle with all the skill, determination, and passion we can muster, by the grace of God. God bless you, Robert Knight, and all other culture warriors like you, who care enough about truth to defend it.

    • peteykins

      Haw haw, *somebody* has issues!

  • Dannyboy

    There are laws against discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation.”

    This means that you cannot discriminate against sado-masochists, or people who like to indulge in bondage.

    Therefore, if a homosexual couple which has adopted a couple of children is looking for a baby-sitter while they attend a gay pride march, and a sado-masochist applies for the job (sporting leather and whips, and a red ball in his or her mouth), the homosexual couple can’t turn him down.

    This is what the law mandates.

    Or if a sado-masochistic doctor applies to work at a hospital, he can’t be turned down just because he likes to have sado-masochistic parties at his house, or reads sado-masochistic magazines in the hospital cafeteria.

    This is what the law mandates. Is not everyone entitled to the sex life he or she wishes without discrimination?

    • shepetgene

      Sado-masochism isn’t a sexual orientation. Sexual orientation implies the gender one is attracted to, not the behaviors you prefer with those genders. These are ridiculous false examples meant to take a argument to an extreme and scare people. Respecting someone’s sexual orientation and reading pornographic material at work are unrelated. Nobody except the most extreme persons would argue for the right to do what you’re stating and if you really believe the vast majority of LGBT people and their allies want this then I think your paranoia is getting the best of you.

      • Dannyboy

        Prove it. Sexual orientation is any orientation to sexual behavior or identity and, as such, includes sado-masochism.

        Pedophilia is also a sexual orientation, and by itself is not illegal. Sexual molestation is illegal. Pedophilia is not and I and others believe that the law is worded such that a pedophile cannot be discriminated against.

        Sado-masochists do march in gay pride parades as do bondage adherents. I have seen them. Why are they allowed in a “gay pride” parade? Because all sexual orientations are welcome, that’s why. You don’t make the law, and you don’t get to decide what is a sexual orientation
        or not. It remains to be decided for sure.

        This is what homosexuals get for defining vague terms so that even a transgendered/drag queen person can qualify.

        • shepetgene

          Here is the legal definition of sexual orientation from ENDA – “The term sexual orientation means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.” By that definition, pedophilia would not actually be protected.

          As for why sado-masochists are in Pride Parades, that would probably be because there is a niche fetish culture of (typically but not exclusively) gay men who are into bondage and many Pride Parades are attempting to be sex positive. What it’s in a Pride Parade doesn’t determine legal definitions.

          • thisoldspouse

            There is no ENDA.

          • shepetgene

            I’m aware ENDA hasn’t passed. I was simply showing that there is a standard legal definition of sexual orientation and it does not include “sado-masochism” or pedophilia.

          • Dannyboy

            That is ENDA’s definition, not those of the various states and other Federal laws. Many of those laws do not define sexual orientation.

            And why the prejudice against transgendered in ENDA – why are they not protected by law? Also, bestiality is another sexual orientation.

            Why suddenly protect anyone with a certain sexual orientation? What does that have to do with anything?

          • shepetgene

            Dannyboy, could you please find a state law that does not define it similarly. I started for you. Seems pretty standardized to me:

            Maine: Sexual
            orientation” means a person’s actual or perceived heterosexuality,
            bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or expression

            New Jersey: Male or female heterosexuality,
            homosexuality or bisexuality by inclination, practice, identity or expression,
            having a history thereof or being perceived, presumed or identified by others
            as having such an orientation.

            Wisconsin: The Wisconsin Fair Employment Law defines
            “sexual orientation” as having a preference for heterosexuality,
            homosexuality or bisexuality, having a history of such a preference or being
            identified with such a preference

            Colorado: By legal definition, sexual orientation means
            heterosexuality, homosexuality (lesbian or gay), bisexuality, and transgender

            Minnesota: “Sexual orientation” is defined as “having or
            being perceived as having an emotional, physical, or sexual attachment to
            another person without regard to the sex of that person or having or being
            perceived as having an orientation for such attachment, or having or being
            perceived as having a self-image or identity not traditionally associated with
            one’s biological maleness or femaleness. “Sexual orientation” does
            not include a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult.”

            Iowa: “Sexual orientation” means
            actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.

            California: “Sexual orientation” means
            heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality

          • Dannyboy

            Thanks. I don’t know how every law everywhere defines it. I am sure it will expand, however. Why not?

          • shepetgene

            Okay so just to be clear, you have no evidence backing your earlier claims. There is a fairly standardized definition of sexual orientation and it does not include any of what you said earlier. And your only further claim is that “it will expand” again based off of…your paranoia? There are no mainstream LGBT groups arguing for the types of things your claiming.

          • Dannyboy

            From an ACLU site and God knows what else is coming down the line:

            ‘Do laws that prohibit sex discrimination protect transgender people?

            An increasing number of courts say yes. Although there are some older decisions saying that the federal law banning sex discrimination in employment (Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act) does not prohibit gender identity discrimination, federal courts that have considered the issue more recently (e.g., the Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee; Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington; Alabama, Florida and Georgia) have found some protections in the 1964 Civil Rights Act for transgender people. In addition, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. ruled that employment discrimination against an individual for transitioning from one gender to another is a form of discrimination “because of sex,” prohibited by federal law.’

          • shepetgene

            Transgender persons are protected under the “Gender Identity” clause in ENDA. It’s a separate clause.

            Bestiality is not a sexual orientation by the legal definition. Sexual orientation legally and by general vernacular refers to human attraction. Pedophilia and bestiality are usually classified as paraphilias.

        • chasaragdy

          Even “one man and one woman” qualify, huh?

          However, the great majority of “one man and one woman” do NOT wish to be included under the umbrella of “homosexual banner” miscreants and sexual deviants.

          Therefore, the crux of the matter is the umbrella of “homosexual orientation” should form their own word of choice, group-wish recognition (other than MARRIAGE as it has been historically, holy and spiritually defined), bound themselves with their word of binding, or rope, chains, handcuffs, etc. And then those of us bound and wed by the true and historical meaning of the word “MARRIAGE” will recognize your word of your unique unity! Maybe you might consider “UU”s, as in Unique Unity(ies)!!

          Good luck when you umbrella groups of “homosexual orientation”, as will we all, meet our Lord and Maker!

    • chasaragdy

      Many ‘laws’ are not justified nor were coerced and/or correctly enacted according to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. However, a great majority of those ‘laws’ were enacted by most of the radical and leftwing Liberals and Democrats. Words such as ‘sodomy’ pop up (no pun intended). Therefore “sexual orientation” (SO’s) could revert to mean the uniting and merging of humans not defined by the word “Marriage”!

      The phrase “sexual oritentation” is so broad that it should also mean even the heterosexual one man and one woman couple!! Including “one man and one woman” marriage into that one concept would effectively invalidate all the legal protections afforded the deviant crowds gathered under the ‘homosexual banner’, making every human–though not animals–of equal value as to choice of sexual preference!

      The ‘homosexual banner’ crowd would then have to reorganize and reunite through some other process! They could be united in a legal concept of ‘Sexual Orientation’, or SO’s–and the real, true, historical and spiritually holy meaning of the word “Marriage” could and would remain with the meaning in every true sense of the word–the legal, spiritually holy, historical and true value (meaning) of the word “Marriage” would be one man and one woman in “Holy Matrimony”!!

  • Halou

    “Marriage is the only type of coupling capable of natural reproduction of the human race….”
    No it isn’t. Marriage by itself does not get a woman pregnant, and women who are not married can end up getting pregnant. Likewise it is not the case that a man is infertile until such time as he gets married.
    If Marriage on it’s own was enough to create children then every married woman in the country produce a new child every 9 months without fail. That sort of flawed logic would see a woman who marries at the age of 18 reliably producing over 40 children before they reach menopause.

  • shepetgene

    Wow, you’re really working hard to find an example. Seems like a vast majority really do have a consensus. Also, your previous comment about transgender persons is referring to “Sex discrimination,” which is different than “sexual orientation.” Sex being characterized by genitals not by gender attraction.

  • chasaragdy

    Considering the fact the majority of all sexual deviants–LGBTQ, BDSM, NAMBLA, Sexual Lover’s of Animals By Humans (SLABH) and related queers of Nature, fall under the “homosexual banner”–the vast majority being Atheists (as in non-Believers of Religion or Creation) and in order to be accommodative to the thuggery group–the law should segregate and designate the word ‘UNION’ for the LEGAL and AETHIST connection, marital or otherwise, of those groups and their member beings, human and/or animal! The word ‘Union’ is not to be elevated nor equal to the word ‘Marriage’!

    The word and meaning of ‘MARRIAGE’ is forever reserved to remain as it has always been, which is the legal AND historically religious word, meaning and connotation for the uniting, merger and spiritual bonding of a one man and one woman in HOLY and LEGAL matrimony! The word ‘Marriage’ is not to be degraded nor lowered to equal nor junior to the word ‘Union’!

    Today, the word ‘marriage’ does NOT have to be in effect in order for a same gender ‘Unioned’ partner of the ‘homosexual banner’ to visit the other in a hospital, a mantra and howling he ‘homosexual banner’ crowd crow often! That and many other similar ‘marriage’ benefits can be undertaken even now, with Trusts and other ‘Unioned’ documentation. All the bull crapp (sp), posturing, bantering and insane reasons the groups of the ‘homosexual banner’ (and rainbow colors) use in their attempts to hijack the religious and spiritual meaning of the word ‘Marriage’ are NOT necessary! A properly worded legal document can form and direct any bond, unity, entity or the forming of any type or kind of partnership!