By 5-4 in the Supreme Court, the big debate on marriage ends. Marriage can be defined as a legal agreement between two people of any gender combination. Amid all the rhetoric, political strategies, hostility, defensiveness, and sentimentality exhibited in the public debate of recent years, certain basic definitions got throughly lost in the legalistic and persuasive smoke and mirrors.
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 – churches and governments -- have for ages tried to ignore or discount the other. Neither can. Church leaders cannot ignore the legal requirements of civil governments in the marriage contract. Nor civil governments cannot just dismiss God as a mythic outside observer. God invented the institution; he is the key custodian.
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 the main purpose of marriage is to support children. It was laughable. For decades I heard all kinds of people of the highest rank carefully parse the definition of marriage from reproduction and needs of children. Children, for years, were the lost element of marriage. Even in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, –an institution which sometimes acts as if it invented the family and the family’s chief conservative defendant -- I remember in years past major conference addresses from apostles that noted the covenant of the man and the woman are the most important part of a marriage, not if any particular union produced children.
Opposite gender marriage of one man and one woman constitutes an 80 percent market share. It is true a considerable percentage of people in this market share are single. Neither governments nor churches have done a great or even a good job in protecting from evil this type of marriage.
Same gender marriage constitutes a 5 percent market share. Not everyone in this market share is in fact interested in marrying.
It is hard to fathom what the opponents of same gender marriage believe is possible. Do they, for example, think that it will become trendy and fashionable among heterosexual American guys in general and LDS guys in particular for them to have an intense bromance and then marry their best male friend? How many parents think that this is a distinct possibility among their heterosexual sons and grandsons? Even as a stage or fad? I personally doubt this scenario will happen, even in jest.
The leftover number between these two market shares constitutes the big 21st Century growth market in marriage: the multiple gender group marriage. It will be a big legal topic in American from now to 2045.
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 5 percent market share corruption of marriage. However, opposite gender marriage is a corruption institution and has been for ages. Among the various devolutions of marriage in the past thousand years:
Marriage as political alliance.
Child marriages.
Bride prices.
Dowries.
Legalized acceptable cruelty in marriage relationships toward women
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 crystal 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 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 should also be stable, legal framework to raise children. Eventually most – if not all – marriages get various attachments. In-laws, friends, ecclesiastical leaders, doctors, accountants, lawyers. Children. And then their in-laws, friends, and so on. These attachments are really a good thing because no spouse can be everything to its spouse and children.
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. History teaches us that culture goes up and down in its improvements and corruptions. However -- marriage does need Defense of Marriage Acts, but they need to be on a variety of heterosexual marriage practice reforms and on an International level of action.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
LINCOLN'S JUSTICE: a commentary about Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address on its 150th Anniversary
On 4 March 1865, Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office for President of the United States for his second term, a term that lasted 41 days.
The address he made on that occasion was short and to the point. Many people admire it for its supposed great style and its lofty thoughts.
Great style, yes. I do not think the thoughts are lofty. I dislike the talk intensely.
Here is the core of why I do not like the address.
This is what Lincoln said in the middle of the short talk. If I had been Lincoln, I would have been loath to blame God for his war’s overall bloodiness.
“ Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
If Lincoln had wanted to be truth and accurate, this is what he should have said on that day:
"My government did not expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither side anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Neither side would give up the war.
"Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, or in conscripting young men into a war they did not start or want. However – Let us judge not me, so I will not judge you. The prayers of both sides might have been answered. So far, neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.
" 'Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.'
"American slavery is one of those offenses which according to MY will must needs come to an end.
"Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.
"However – if I and my generals will that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, remember this fact my subjects – my judgments are true and righteous altogether."
For it was Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, their governments, and their generals -- not God -- who dragged out The Civil War.
The address he made on that occasion was short and to the point. Many people admire it for its supposed great style and its lofty thoughts.
Great style, yes. I do not think the thoughts are lofty. I dislike the talk intensely.
Here is the core of why I do not like the address.
This is what Lincoln said in the middle of the short talk. If I had been Lincoln, I would have been loath to blame God for his war’s overall bloodiness.
“ Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
If Lincoln had wanted to be truth and accurate, this is what he should have said on that day:
"My government did not expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither side anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Neither side would give up the war.
"Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, or in conscripting young men into a war they did not start or want. However – Let us judge not me, so I will not judge you. The prayers of both sides might have been answered. So far, neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.
" 'Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.'
"American slavery is one of those offenses which according to MY will must needs come to an end.
"Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.
"However – if I and my generals will that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, remember this fact my subjects – my judgments are true and righteous altogether."
For it was Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, their governments, and their generals -- not God -- who dragged out The Civil War.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
