Subscription Lists

The “defense of marriage” debate is an ongoing one across the country and the world. At the center of this debate are challenges to the traditional view of marriage in two fundamental areas, fairness and equality. One argument against the time-tested standard of marriage – which has never proven itself to be perfect but has shown itself as the best chance for stability in families, communities, states and countries – being based on the assumption that reserving marriage to a man and a woman is somehow unfair and even discriminatory.1

A counterpoint to that assertion is that any entity whose success is dependent on at least a modicum of order must establish standards, laws that benefit the greatest number of people by defining the parameters of acceptable and unacceptable behavior, certainly with consideration and safeguards for minority views; the application of these standards always found irksome by some who promptly brand them unfair. (The ban on public smoking being a case in point, considered a minor issue by some but for others a very big deal indeed – not to mention immigration laws etc, etc.)

For instance, state mandated standards for driver’s licenses are a must, but even these are questioned by the still too young to drive enthusiast, the elderly who can still get by – for the most part – and the not really drunk but buzzed driver. Another recent hot-button issue being the election laws that stipulate who can vote and where their ballots must be cast, as well as mandating that those running for office must actually reside in the area they seek to represent. The result being that some are denied the opportunity to run for office, others being inconvenienced in the act of voting – and expressing outrage. Even as these laws are in place to protect people from being represented by those who don’t know or care about them but are merely seeking fame and fortune through political influence, or gaining office through “ghost” votes. (Which is not meant to support mere “gerrymandering.”)

The truth being, marriage is not a universal entitlement open to anyone who has an emotional attachment to someone else. It’s illegal for brothers and sisters and the underage to marry – although what constitutes underage may vary a bit from state to state – no matter how sincere their feelings may be. (For good medical, scientific and psychological reasons.) In fact, an older partner (usually male) having sex with a too-young counterpart (usually female) is guilty of statutory rape whether the sex was consensual or not; the female considered too young and inexperienced to make that decision; which many consider unfair. But love or lust is not the only qualifier for a marriage certificate or physical union. If it were, then any and every other configuration of individuals would have to be considered as well; from homosexuals up to and including bigamists and polygamists. (One new “movement” brandishing the slogan, “Polygamy: the next civil rights battle”, mimicking the tactics of the LGBTQ community.) Which raises the prospect of bisexual activists demanding the “right” to simultaneously marry a man and a woman.

Much like the fairness issue, portraying Judeo/Christian marriage laws as a violation of civil rights has emotional appeal; with the right actors, music and “presentation” of facts, the most vile offenders and practices become capable of gaining sympathy and support. Established law, however, allows a certain amount of “discrimination” when the legal qualifiers are reasonably applied and work for the greater good. (Which will always be challenged for clarification – as it should be.)

Micah Clark of the American Family Assoc. of Indiana, asserts that “The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach men to women, fathers to mothers, and both to children. Whatever two men may be; they are not a mom. Children have a right to a mother and a father. Some are quick to note that not every husband and wife have children” (Or should have) “Yet, every child has a father and mother. This requires us to look at marriage not just from the desire of adults, but as a societal responsibility to the needs of children.”2 (Rosie O’Donnell; a vocal gay rights activist, admitting during an interview on ABC’s Primetime that her toddler son often asked, “Mommy, why no daddy?” Her response being, “I’m not that kind of mommy.” Her son, however, is apparently “that kind of child”; wondering about and – at least on some level – yearning for a mother and a father.)

“If we change the standard for marriage into anything anyone desires,” (As opposed to what God has decreed and civilized societies have been founded on), “marriage will ultimately mean very little.” (See Genesis 1:27 & 2:18-24; Leviticus 18:6 & 22; Matthew 19:4-6 & Malachi 2:15 See also Romans 1:26,27; 1 Corinthians 6:9,10) “Such an unraveling will weaken and devalue marriage and detach more children from mothers and fathers. This would be neither “fair” to children nor “right” for society.”3

1Taken from a Flashpoin t essay by Mr. Clark titled, The Fairness of Marriage .

2Ibid.

3Ibid.

"The Way" from Kevin Pauley

The Second Sin