It is more than just gender issues -- MARRIAGE STILL NEEDS DEFENDING

The big debate ends.    Marriage can be defined as a legal agreement between two people of any  gender combination.   Amid all the rhetoric, hostility, defensiveness, and sentimentality exhibited in the public debate of recent years, certain basic definitions got thoroughly lost in the legalistic and persuasive smoke and mirrors.


 
A BASIC DEFINITION

Marriage is not a domestic agreement between two people – maybe of two genders.

Marriage is a covenant between at least four entities

1 the man

2 the woman

3a  the culture in which they live

and / or

3b God

4 children, who have a vested right to a solid stable extended family. 

The two entities in the third part of the definition have for ages tried to ignore the interests of the other.  Fact is – God cannot ignore the legal requirements of civil governments in the marriage contract.  Fact is – civil governments cannot just dismiss God as an outside observer.  If God did not invent the institution, then he is the key custodian. 



DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE

The desperation of people who want to defend marriage as exclusively heterosexual became palpable in recent months.  For example, some started to talk again about how marriage supports children.   It was laughable.   For decades I heard people of the highest rank carefully parse the definition of marriage and the reproduction and needs of children.  Children, for years, were the lost element of marriage.  Even in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint , an institution which sometimes acts as if it invented the family, I remember major conference addresses from apostles that noted that the man and the woman were the most important part of a marriage, not whether or not it produced children. 

If Martians landed on Earth tomorrow and started studying human sexual habits, would they see any distinction or difference between same-gender sexual attraction and opposite-gender sexual attraction?

Interesting that around here in Utah when heterosexuals corrupted the concept of marriage, they called it "progressive," and when the homosexuals corrupted the concept, heterosexuals called it .sin.  Changing the gender ratio in marriage may be a corruption of marriage, but marriage is a corruption institution and has been for ages.  This is only just the latest step in the devolution of marriage as a legal definition. 

Marriage as political alliance.  
Child marriages. 
Bride prices. 
Dowries.  
Legalized and acceptable cruelty in relationships.
Women treated as property with no rights.  
Polygamy. 
Polyandry. 
"La casa grande -- la casa bonita." 
Mistresses having legal rights along with the wives. 
No-fault quickie divorces.  
Female genital mutilation. 

These practices are not the fault of homosexuals.  Heterosexuals over time have done the most damage to the concept of marriage.  They have certainly done a lot of damage to marriage since 1960.    

Civil governments in general have done a lousy job in protecting and preserving marriage.  However, churches have not been entirely effective, either.    In fairness, though, neither the Old Testament or the New Testament are really clear on the subject of when God considers a couple “married.”     The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has sections that do a more convincing job of defining that point.

Marriage was a lot simpler when romantic love was not considered essential to the mix.  Marriage should not be first and foremost about companionship.   Marriage should not be confused with companionship.   Marriage is about a stable legal framework to raise children.   Eventually most –  if not all –  marriages get in-laws, friends, ecclesiastical leaders, accountants,  lawyers attached to them – and children.   This is not necessarily a bad thing. 
 
Marriage is not a 24-hour service station.   One spouse cannot expect the other spouse to fix everything for him/her.   Some things the individual will have to fix on his/her own.  Both spouses need friends for companionship and backup. 

Still – If a married couple is not careful, a marriage is a great way to insure that you get what you do not want.


THE CALL TO ACTION

It would be nice to think that marriage is evolving upward like the human race is evolving upward.   We can only hope that is true.   However --  marriage does need Defense of Marriage Acts, but they need to be on a variety of marriage practice reforms and on an International level of action.