Posted on 03/09/2012 5:15:00 AM PST by rhema
Robert Franklin's call for "some straight talk about the marriage commitment" (Feb. 24) is on the money. He notes the percentages of divorces, cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbirth.
Marriage is in such bad shape, he says, that calling for a constitutional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is like calling for an architect when the house is ablaze.
Then, as a reductio ad absurdum, he suggests that we could, if we wanted, make divorce difficult to obtain and enforce laws against fornication. Will we? No, because we have grown beyond such government control of personal choices.
There was a time within the last 40 years when divorce was difficult to obtain, and when the community did enforce laws against sodomy, fornication and adultery (laws that, in many jurisdictions, remain on the books).
So Franklin has brought to the forefront a fascinating question: Why did such laws exist? Was society power-hungry or collectively insane? The answer: Neither.
Until quite recently in history, the human race understood that when a man and a woman have sex (even "protected" sex), there is a good chance they will have a child. It is the nature of things. This result has grave consequences for the couple, the child and the community at large.
We recognized that the only responsible way to engage in sexual activities is in a relationship committed to lifelong self-gift and sexual fidelity, a commitment protected by the community -- hence, marriage. It is here that human beings come into existence, grow up, and learn how to be truly human.
If sex did not naturally lead to children, no one would have ever thought up marriage. Nor would there be laws against fornication. Adultery and divorce would have no meaning. Rules exist not to ruin our fun, but to
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Define the meaning of marriage in our Constitution.
Marriage is in such bad shape, he says, that calling for a constitutional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is like calling for an architect when the house is ablaze
........................................................
And calling for the definition of marriage to include same sex marriage is like throwing gasoline onto that fire.
“Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” ...Alexander Solzhenitsyn
It was always a danger, at least in the modern era, as the state’s definition of marriage is simply what judges, pols, or the majority think it can be at any one time. That works fine, up until the state’s definition departs from the actual definition, and society has become used to letting the state determine what a marriage can or can’t be.
“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 about a hundred and thirty years ago.
Freegards
What this means, of course, is that Rome had already declined into decadence too deeply for the decadence ever to be reversed.
Significantly, during this same conversation she informs Claudius that Caligula (her great-grandson) was a monster and would become the Emperor of Rome.
Caligula--as we all know--did become Emperor of Rome, and he was granted absolute power over the decadent and functionally stupid Roman people, who adored him. (Kinda reminds you of Hitler, doesn't it?) (Think it couldn't happen here?)
What this means, of course, is that Rome had already declined into decadence too deeply for the decadence ever to be reversed.
Significantly, during this same conversation she informs Claudius that Caligula (her great-grandson) was a monster and would become the Emperor of Rome.
Caligula--as we all know--did become Emperor of Rome, and he was granted absolute power over the decadent and functionally stupid Roman people, who adored him. (Kinda reminds you of Hitler, doesn't it?) (Think it couldn't happen here?)
Noah Webster,1833 Common Version of Holy Bible— and Robert Charles Winthrop -speech to the Mass. Bible Society May 28,1849 the Bible or the Bayonet are both recommended to the Professor and to the State considering the redefinition of Marriage. If the house is burning down firefighters and homeowner alike benefit most- if they arrive early enough to put out the fire before the structure is lost. The institution of “marriage” as commonly defined under American Law can yet be restored. To abandon “marriage” to the passions of a minority and one where fidelity and monogamy and the redefinition of terms is common would be to refuse to fight a fire that will consume the structure.
Adultery is not just sex outside of the Marriage commitment, but also anything that tears down the sacredness of marriage. In its worse form it is to allow anything under the umbrella including bestiality, sex with the dead, sex with children and a host of other despicable actions which have already begun to be sanctioned in some states.
No, a Constitutional Amendment recognizing Marriage as only between one man and one woman is not only absolutely necessary but the only thing that will stem the tide.
The next thing is for our state to Repent of Adulterating Marriage. For that is the only way for it to be turned around.
In the first three paragraphs, Stephen Heaney is paraphrasing ideas from a previous article by Robert Franklin, an article with which he largely disagrees; his comment “right on the money” is ironic.
This reminds me again why it’s wise to avoid irony in writing for a general readership.
notice they never include remarriage to the same person.
if you remove those marriages then the stats are not as bad.
Since you bring up Rome, didn't the Senate exist through to the end of the western empire? Didn't the Emperors richly reward Senators for rubber stamp approval of their diktats or certain death for crossing him?
If so, our Senate is well on a similar path. Reid's Senate works for Obama, not for States as they once did and certainly not for the people who elect them. Once elected, most are senators for life and enjoy a rich lifestyle and incredible personal enrichment.
WELCOME TO FREE REPUBLIC’S MINNESOTA PING LIST!
151 MEMBERS AND GROWING...!
FREEPMAIL ME IF YOU WANT ON OR OFF THIS LIST!
Excellent point and a highly significant observation.
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.