These times in which we live are remarkable. It would have been hard to imagine some of the remarkable things that have happened recently just 20 years ago. It seems as if events are accelerating. Perhaps the end of all things is closer than we think? Or maybe it just seems that way to this Christian simply because common sense has become an anachronism.
Just when we thought gay marriage or as I prefer to call it, homogamy, was only something in the same realm of possibilities as unicorns and pots of gold at rainbow ends, along comes government to call those things into being which are not. Not only this, but to add insult to injury, the arguments before the SCOTUS in the Obergefell v. Hodges case to decide the legitimacy of homogamy seem to this Christian observer to be precisely backward. Consider the following quotes from attorneys arguing before the SCOTUS on each side of the issue. (Bold my emphasis)
The opportunity to marry is integral to human dignity. Excluding gay and lesbian couples from marriage demeans the dignity of these couples. It did demeans their children, and it denies the — both the couples and their children the stabilizing structure that marriage affords.
Well, I — I — I’m not entirely sure there would be, but, of course, marriage is something more fundamental than that. It is an enduring bond between two people. – Gen. Donald B. Verrilli, Solicitor General for the US Department of Justice; arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs for same sex marriage
Our answer number one is that the marriage institution did not develop to deny dignity or to give second class status to anyone. It developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, arise from biology. Now, imagine a world today where we had no marriage at all. Men and women would still be getting together and creating children, but they wouldn’t be attached to each other in any social institution. Now, the — the marriage view on the other side here is that marriage is all about love and commitment. And as a society, we can agree that that’s important, but the State doesn’t have any interest in that. If we’re trying to solve that social problem I just described, where there’s no marriage, we wouldn’t solve it by saying, well, let’s have people identify who they are emotionally committed to and recognize those relationships. – JOHN J. BURSCH, ESQ., Special Assistant Attorney General of Michigan; arguing on behalf of respondents against same sex marriage
Strange it is to consider that the homogamy proponents base their arguments using transcendental ideas like “enduring bond” and “dignity”, while those supporting hundreds of years of religious tradition accept the view of homogamy as being “all about love and commitment” offering “biology” as support for their claim of marriage. Strange it is indeed when the irreligious reach for the transcendent and the religious use but the mundane to support their arguments. This is with what the religious right is left. It supported the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It further wanted a Constitutional amendment defining marriage. It voted for presidential candidates who would appoint conservative judges to the SCOTUS. It finally thought passing state initiatives and referendums on marriage would settle the matter. Virtually all those state measures have been overturned by federal circuit judges. DOMA has been emasculated by the supreme court in the Windsor case. Justice Kennedy, who will by many accounts be the deciding vote on the court and is expected to rule in favor of homogamy, was a Reagan appointee.
It comes down to one thing. Government is not the answer. It’s not even the question. Marriage was defined, not by some legislative body or court, but by divine fiat of the Creator God at the beginning of all things. Gen. Verrilli, et. al. have swerved by the truth as a testimony against themselves. Marriage is spiritual, not legal. One clear point to remember is that whatever government is allowed to define, it will legitimize. The court, by way of Justice Kennedy, eisegeted the transcendent concept of “equal dignity” into the 14 Amendment in the Windsor case. After reading and listening to the oral arguments before the SCOTUS in this “landmark” case it seems clear that this court, by oligarchical rule, intends to change an institution into something it hasn’t been for hundreds of years, and the sanctity of the marital love of a man and woman into a parody of itself.
Legal arguments such as these are slippery. The terms change as the times change to suit the participants. There is not only the direct issue at hand, but the indirect issues in consequence. Marriage won’t stop with two men or two women. If we accede to the idea of marriage being “all about love and commitment”, regardless of whether the state has an interest in it or not, it won’t be long before it will be redefined to include polygamy or pederasty as legitimate. Government will act as god, defining and redefining “love and commitment” to mean anything it chooses, granting “equal dignity” to those in decadence.
Justice Sotomayor made an interesting statement during the course of the proceedings.
But the problem is that even under a rational-basis standard, do we accept a feeling? I mean, why is — why as — and I think Justice Kagan put the argument quite clearly, with something as fundamental as marriage, why would that feeling, which doesn’t make any logical sense, control our decision-making?
This ironically seems to bring the discussion back to the point of it all. Does love not “control our decision-making”? Is marriage a just feeling? What is love? Hartley Coleridge’s Sonnet VII begins this way, “Is love a fancy, or a feeling? No. It is immortal as immaculate Truth…” Love can be many things to many people, but true love, the kind upon which marriages are built, is eternal.