Posted on 06/17/2013 5:43:04 PM PDT by ReformationFan
There is much debate and much concern today about redefining marriage. Where it hasn’t happened already, it seems very nearly inevitable that the definition will soon be expanded to include homosexual unions. And once marriage has been redefined away from the union of one man to one woman, it seems almost impossible not to see it also expand to include polygamous relationships. Already books and media and reality television are attempting to convince us of the goodness, normalcy and health of polygamy; this is just the advance guard the portends a coming all-out attack.
Of course this is not the first attack on marriage in human history. Marriage has always been a battleground. No-fault divorce is taken for granted today, but was a massive, double-barrelled attack on marriage. Before 1968 in Canada, and beginning in 1970 in the United States, couples no longer had to prove adultery or unusual cruelty in order to divorce a spouse; now they could simply separate for a time or cite “irreconcilable differences.” What is considered normal and unremarkable today represented an incredible affront to marriage in its time.
Marriage is under attack. Those of us who look to the Bible for guidance in interpreting life, the world, and the course of human history, see the hand of Satan behind all of this. He is the sworn enemy of God and, therefore, the sworn enemy of anything good—especially something so very good as marriage. He is a master strategist and a master tactician and knows how to get his way.
(Excerpt) Read more at challies.com ...
This is a issue that isn’t going to be easy to sort out. Sme sex marriage isn’t going to be allowed in most of the country. What happens with DOMA in the courts will be interesting to say thje least. I can’t see any of the “red” states allowing it, but will they have to recognize it from other states? Time to dig in our heels and push back against this with all our might
A good article. Reagan actually signed the first no-fault divorce law,
“Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.”
—Pope Leo XIII, 1880
He was writing about civil divorce and remarriage at the time. His mitre would have spun off his head if someone would have explained ‘gay marriage’ to him. To the state in the modern era, marriage is simply whatever judges, pols, or 50% +1 of the voting public thinks it is at any one time. It was always a danger, and the longer it goes on the more people are conditioned to think that marriage comes from and is defined by the state.
Freegards
“It was always a danger, and the longer it goes on the more people are conditioned to think that marriage comes from and is defined by the state.”
With the ultimate leftist goal of marriage and the natural family being replaced by the state.
Yup. The best way we know of to create robust successful families who don’t need big gubbment is to create an environment for successful marriages. If that is true, the state’s role in marriage and what has happened as a result of that involvement in the institution in the last 4 or 5 decades(maybe more) makes sense.
Freegards
Yup. The best way we know of to create robust successful families who don’t need big gubbment is to create an environment for successful marriages. If that is true, the state’s role in marriage and what has happened as a result of that involvement in the institution in the last 4 or 5 decades(maybe more) makes sense.
Freegards
IMO the bigger issue is the idea that the only govt that exists IS the state, i. e. that there is not a God who has defined it for us.
Yep. The atheist crowd does not like that idea at all. Hence, statism is the natural political choice for most atheists since it’s their replacement religion.
it seems very nearly inevitable that the definition will soon be expanded to include homosexual unions. And once marriage has been redefined away from the union of one man to one woman, it seems almost impossible not to see it also expand to include polygamous relationships.
No. That would be considered be “polyphobic” and “discriminatory”.
No. That would be considered be “polyphobic” and “discriminatory”.
It seems very clear that the leaders in this fight are once again using women as their war machine because they know the Bible and know that plural marriage is the ultimate sin against women.
The scripture ( hell has no fiery as a woman scorned ) is one every man knows to be true.
Plural marriage is the ultimate sin against women because it makes them feel inferior to men, where homosexuality does not, since it happens in both sexes.
So it is clear that the leaders in this battle see women as too uncaring or too ungodly to fight for the real issue which is the marriage of men to men so they bring in the non issue in order to get women on their side.
And of course the wimpy ungodly husbands will back their wives up.
While the real issue has everything to do with God, the tools they are trying to use has nothing to do with God but only the pride of women, and for that reason it will fail and people will wonder which man they are going to be stuck with for a daughter in law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.