IT MAKES SENSE TO ME
by Larry Peterson
The United States Supreme Court has now heard the arguments for and against "gay- marriage". Now we wait to see what the almighty Justices have decided. We will not hear the decision until sometime during the early days of summer. As for me, I do not get it. No sirree, this does NOT make sense to me. From the modern dictionary we have this:
any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various part of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage.
That dictionary could not be more politically correct so I traveled back in time to the 1988 Webster's Dictionary; This was a bit more concise (It was before PC had rum amok) From Webster's:
the state of being married, relation between husband and wife, married life, matrimony.
This is from Webster's 1913 dictionary:
The act of marrying, or the state of being married: legal union of a man and a woman for LIFE, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.
I had to go back to the dictionary of one hundred years ago to find the words, man and woman, included in the definition of marriage. By 1988 only the words husband and wife were being used to define the word. But I was not deterred. Onward and forward and I looked up the word, "wife". VOILA! The modern dictionary describes the meaning of the word like this:
a married woman, especially when considered in a relation to her partner in marriage.
I had one more stop and that was back at Webster's. Here it is:
a married woman; specif., a woman in her relationship to her husband.
But, alas, it does not matter. Within the same-sex marriage phenomena, in a man/man marriage they refer to each other as "my husband". In a woman/woman marriage they refer to each other as "my wife". The words, man and woman, are gone. They could use other words such as; companion, partner, spouse, or mate but, what is the difference. Same-sex marriages can NEVER be the same as the marriage of a man and a woman. Why are they trying so hard to get a recognition that is illusory at best? For crying out loud, even Social Security is available to same sex relationships. Why the obsession over the word "Marriage"?
I am a Catholic man and I love my faith and am probably among those considered as "devout". I freely admit, I do not understand how two men or two women might be romantically attracted to each other. However, since I do not understand it and I believe we are truly all God's individual creations it follows that I will not pass judgment on gay couples. I am an individual creation of God just like they are. Pope Francis has said, "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" Well, it follows, I will NOT judge nor do I have the right to do so.
The Catholic Church has its teachings and beliefs about homosexual relationships. It does not condemn homosexuality. If you are homosexual you can be in full communion with the church. But the Church requires living a life of chastity outside of marriage. That also applies to a man and woman who are not married. The Church will never perform or sanction a "gay-marriage". That is how it is and will always be.
The Church is often denigrated because it holds fast to certain teachings and says "NO" to progressive and secularists who want change only to accommodate their own agenda. "Same-sex marriage" is foremost among those changes sought. It will not and cannot happen. Let us not forget that the Catholic Church also encourages self-denial because it does bring one closer to God. Chastity is still on the "books" as a moral virtue and is considered a gift from God (Catechism of the Catholic Church #2344,#2345)
It seems to me that we are in the midst of the Great Illusion of the modern era. If a man and a man or a woman and a woman want to enter into a pseudo-marriage alliance and call it "marriage", it seems they are entering into an illusory world. "Marriage" is only a word. It can never change the fact that two men or two women will never be heterosexual. It will never change the fact that they will never be able to procreate and continue their family bloodline because it will not exist.
In fact, the only way to do that would be to create the three parent family and one of the married persons would not be an actual parent. But to accomplish this the OPPOSITE sex must participate. They would have to be an egg or sperm donor. How can that be a family? Will that also require new court battles to redefine the meaning and constitutionality of what "family" is? Imagine how convoluted and mixed up for the child. When it comes full circle and a child is involved, there had to be a man and a woman to bring forth that child. Plus, there will be no genealogy and no family tree to build on unless it is outside of the same-sex couple's marriage. What a damn mess.
Okay, final thoughts: If the United states Supreme Court decides that "same-sex marriage" is the "law of the land", what happens to tax exempt religious schools who cannot abide by such an unnatural and anti-religious law? Will they all lose their 501(c)3 exemptions? Will it be illegal to teach Traditional marriage? The proverbial can of worms that has been opened is about to explode.
Lastly: If the SCOTUS declares that same-sex marriage is legal under the United States Constitution that could very well mark the end of The First Amendment and Freedom of Religion. I think it will be unavoidable, with that entire, magnificent document falling like dominoes.
©Larry Peterson 2015 All Rights Reserved