Skip to comments.A Pivotal Time For Marriage
Posted on 07/14/2014 7:45:12 AM PDT by wagglebee
Every poll reveals that Americans are gradually shifting away from an understanding of marriage as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman, to one in which marriage is defined only by the whims of its participants. If we are going to safeguard the future of marriage – as defined by God and supported by Natural Law – and secure the healthiest environment for children to grow up, we cannot rely on our political leaders or the secular media to speak the truth about marriage and its importance.
On June 19, thousands of Americans from various religions, races and political parties participated in the 2nd annual March for Marriage in Washington, D.C. Participants and speakers called upon the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government to protect traditional marriage. As we reported shortly after the March, the opposition was much lighter this year, which made it a more peaceful event.
The reason we’re even having a conversation that ten years ago everyone said would not happen is that aggressive political activists are making the most of the secular relativism that has become the default morality of most Americans. On this view, religion, even if privately held by many, simply does not impact public life, or it should not. Hence, the percentage of Americans supporting same-sex unions has steadily grown from about 30% decade ago to nearly 60% today.
With the moral influence of religion waning, confusion about the most basic and important concepts abounds. If marriage is so good, why not extend it to same-sex couples? If heterosexual couples are allowed to marry the people they love, then why can’t same-sex couples have the same opportunity? The language of equality, justice and non-discrimination, divorced from any objective moral standpoint, is now used to stifle dissenting opinions and shut down conversation.
Contrary to what supporters of same-sex unions say, the public debate is not about the supposed denial of a “right” to marry, it is about the integrity of marriage and its social purpose. Even if you don’t hold, as the Catholic Church and other faith communities do, that marriage is a natural institution established by God, you should still be able to see that this is more than a merely private relationship. If it’s only about how two (or more?) people feel about each other, then what is this whole conversation about? Marriage is not a private institution, but it is the event that forms the foundation of the first cell of society, the family. Family is where children learn values and virtues that enable them to be good citizens. This (formerly) common sense understanding is why marriage was recognized in law, because it was good for all that marriage be protected so that the next generation would have the best chance at contributing to the common good.
The debate hinges on whether or not we should change the definition of the fundamental natural and social institution. Love and commitment are necessary for marriage, but they are not sufficient. The union of a same-sex couple can never naturally bring about children. To make the argument that those opposed to same-sex unions are attempting to define love is erroneous. They are simply recognizing the fact that by its nature only one form of a loving relationship, the conjugal union of husband and wife, constitutes marriage.
We have already seen in court cases and in the news that those who would redefine marriage also intend to use their upper hand in law to suppress all dissent. In Europe, the vanguard of so much of the “progressive” agenda, churches are starting to have to defend themselves in court if they stand by their own moral teaching and refuse to sanction same sex unions. In America, those who admit that their movement is not really about ”marriage equality” as it is about destroying marriage itself receive thunderous applause for stating their true intentions.
This is a pivotal time for the future of marriage in the United States. It is up to us to show the world what marriage truly is, why it’s important and why it must be defended for generations to come. The defense of life and the defense of family are so deeply intertwined that they cannot truly be separated, even if at times we rightly focus on specific issues.
Reprinted with permission from HLI.org.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
“The debate hinges on whether or not we should change the definition of the fundamental natural and social institution.”
We can’t change the actual definition, that is beyond humanity’s power. The debate is about changing the state’s understanding of the fundamental natural and social institution even more then it ha already been mutated with serial civil divorce and remarriage. No one would even be having the debate if so many weren’t conditioned to think the state defines marriage. Pope Leo XIII warned about this happening 130 years ago.
Definitely something was lost when governmental notions of marriage became bastardized.
But perhaps something has been gained too. To create a metaphor, people were too “married” to their governments. It was “my country, right or wrong.” Now the wrongness is becoming perfectly clear. Even many folks who may have liked the “gay marriage” in theory may not be so thrilled to see it in practice. The problem with engineering your own utopia is that you have to then live with it. Persistent sin will punish itself.
Jesus, Mary and Joseph, Holy Family pray for us.
English Standard Version (ESV)
26 Then God said, “Let us make man[h] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
I have been married 3 times, divorced twice. The first time, I was weak and ended up married to a woman who was not like me in personality or outlook. I thank God that she found someone that was more to her liking than I. The second wife was more compatible, but she was dishonest and misrepresented herself as a working person, when her only desire was to be sick and on disability. Fortunately, she and her mother didn’t like the kids I had from the first marriage.
If I had had to be committed to either of those women for a lifetime I would have gone mad or become alcoholic. I was fully prepared for the lifetime commitment, but they had other ideas. I am happy now with my wife, and I thank God every day that there is such a thing as divorce, although I will never use it again.
0bama promised the "fundamental transformation" of America.
He wasn't joking.
He's not an idiot, and he's not a "failed President".
He is absolutely evil; bound and determined to destroy America, to turn America into just another third-world hellhole. Everything he does is intended to further that goal, and he has been remarkably successful in his destructive mission.
I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you, but your gripes are a joke.
People like you ARE the reason the culture is degrading. Any excuse is a good one if the only person you need to convince is yourself.
And he is working towards ensuring his plans continue after he steps down.
The debate is about changing the states understanding of the fundamental natural and social institution even more then it ha already been mutated with serial civil divorce and remarriage.
...civil divorce and remarriage are nothing new...
No one would even be having the debate if so many werent conditioned to think the state defines marriage.
...and what kicked off this whole redefinition of marriage are estate tax code benefits accruing to spouses...absent that, and civil unions would have sufficed for the gay crowd...
You’re the perfect example of what’s wrong with marriage today. What the hell were you thinking when you married the first two?
The problem with marriage today is that people enter into it for the wrong reasons. Love is not a pre-condition to marriage; love is a promise within marriage. Romantic love ebbs and flows; it is not the basis for getting married.
When I got married about 20 years ago, I was not head-over-heals in love with my then girlfriend; I did not find her nearly as attractive sexually as my previous girlfriends. But after dating her for a year and having been exposed to her at her best and worst, I asked myself, “Is this a woman with whom I could spend the rest of my life with, and is this the woman who will raise my kids in the manner that I would want for them?” Bingo!
And I continue to fulfill my promise to her to love and honor her, no matter how much I might hate her at times, lol.
“...civil divorce and remarriage are nothing new...”
No fault divorce is pretty new, isn’t it? I think Reagan signed the first one into law as governor of CA.
“...and what kicked off this whole redefinition of marriage are estate tax code benefits accruing to spouses...absent that, and civil unions would have sufficed for the gay crowd...”
If that was the case we wouldn’t we be seeing comparatively large numbers of gays marrying in the state’s where they can do so? I think what kicked off the whole redefinition of marriage thing is the ability to be able to use the state to punish those who they know will never buy into it. It’s the stick they will never have to put down.
The problem with engineering your own utopia is that you have to then live with it
...no you don’t...if you are capable of ‘engineering’ your own utopia, you are also capable of making changes to it, so that ‘utopia’ is whatever you want it to be at any time, thus ensuring perpetual satisfaction...our homosexual friends are the perfect example of that in action, what with progression from civil unions to marriage equality...
If that was the case we wouldnt we be seeing comparatively large numbers of gays marrying in the states where they can do so?
...your response is baffling me...perhaps one too many we’s confuses the meaning...do you mean to say ‘we wouldn’t be seeing’, or ‘wouldn’t we be seeing’...
Sorry, if it was all driven by benefits, how come there aren’t comparatively large numbers of gays getting married where they can now do so?
Yes, you seem to be right. I wonder why he is credited for it in so many places, even conservative pro-marriage websites.
Their fallback position is due to Reagan “popularizing” No-fault, but a bit disingenuous considering Oklahoma passed No-fault first and is often viewed as a “conservative” State.
Yeah, it’s always something like ‘he signed it and a decade or so later it was everywhere.’ I do recall that his son said he regretted it, or maybe I’m thinking about the abortion bill.
I found the article where there is a claim he regretted it, but I suppose you have to take it with a grain of salt in that they say he was the first to sign no-fault divorce legislation too. Maybe the bulk of the states went no-fault soon after CA and there was a big gap between Oklahoma and CA?