Inspired by the Walker ruling on Proposition 8, AN EDITORIAL ON THE DEFINITIONS OF MODERN MARRIAGE

On 4 August, Judge Walker ruled unconstitutional California Proposition 8 defining marriage in California as a domestic arrangement between one man and one woman. His logic, such as it was, seems along the lines of what’s sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose, and in the 21st century we cannot go around following the foolish old traditions of our fathers.

Some bigots will probably try to make an issue of Judge Walker’s sexual preferences, but few associated with the case cared to do so. American culture for year has allowed heterosexual married judges make rulings about marriages.

Heterosexuals ruined the concept of marriage ages ago. They saw nothing wrong in defining heterosexual marriage in polygamist terms, in terms of la casa grande and la casa bonita, and in terms of man-woman companionship of various types and stripes. Heterosexuals for ages allowed violence to become part of marriage traditions and laws. Heterosexuals made divorce more prevalent and easier to obtain.

Meanwhile in Salt Lake City, the public communications department of the Church of Jesus Christ issued a statement expressing regrets at the judge’s decision. We would hope the Brethren and their department could come up with a line more sophisticated than [paraphrase here] God ordained marriage between a man and a woman and that’s the way it has always been and that is the way it just has to be sort of stuff. The P C department does a fine job making God look like some sort of bigot.

For Mormons with parents or children who prefer same gender relationships, this current situation resolves itself by whom do they list best – the Brethren or their gay relatives and their gay friends. If the gay crowd has more charming people, then there goes the Church’s influence.

Marriage is not a domestic arrangement between two people. Marriage is a covenant among four entities, not two:

one man

one woman

children of the culture

the culture in which the covenant takes place.

Children have a personal stake in the definitions of marriage. Children’s interest always gets lost in heterosexual – homosexual marriage controversies.

A child has a right to the love, respect, nurturing, and care of both a mother and a father. Fathers are not just a biological act or an afterthought.

Companionship and domestic arrangements are one's own business between Consenting Adults. A child has a right to the loving influence of both a man and a woman.

RIGHT ASCENSION CALL TO ACTION

Politicians in California, Utah, and elsewhere mouth platitudes about protecting the sanctity of marriage, but most of them possess vague notions and definitions of marriage. Congress and the states should spell out the covenant relationship of marriage among the four entities of a man, a woman, American culture and American children in a black-letter law Constitutional amendment. Politicians should not banter marriage about for electioneering points.