Friday, October 10, 2008

The Tyranny of Gay Marriage

By now, of course, you've heard that today Connecticut became the third state to tear down and destroy the traditional definition of marriage, deciding that since neither biology, reproduction, parenthood, or anything else sane or rational has anything to do with getting married, we might as well let two guys or two gals call themselves a married couple; marriage is meaningless, so why shouldn't everybody have one?

Of course, the Court's reasoning is amazingly bereft of anything even approaching an idea; essentially, the four members of the Connecticut Supreme Court that foisted this travesty upon the unwilling citizens of their poor state behaved like two-year-olds, stomping their judicial feet and imposing a judicial fiat that boils down to "Because I want to!" See for yourself:
The Supreme Court released its historic ruling at 11:30 a.m. Citing the equal protection clause of the state constitution, the justices ruled that civil unions were discriminatory and that the state's "understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection."

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," the majority wrote. "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."
Got that? The whole history and tradition of what a marriage is and whom it involves and what it's for must yield to the judges' trendy new ideas, 'cause otherwise they don't get what they want. That's no different than a child informing his parents that they must yield to his request for a later bedtime, on the grounds that he wants one, and that some of his friends have been known to be given one.

You can go ahead and start planning for incestuous marriages, polygamy, group marriages, swingers with tax breaks, and any other hideous perversion of marriage you can imagine; it's all going to be there, because absolutely nothing in the Connecticut Supreme Court's temper tantrum--it's way too kind to call it a decision--would forbid any of that. Heck, if they're going to make some kind of god out of the equal protection clause, why can't kids get married? On what grounds do we deny fifth-graders, whom we fully expect to be sexually active and thus shove condom-covered bananas at them in the schools, the right to get married to the opposite or same-gender paramour or paramours they're romping under the bleachers with?

You can also start planning for the brave new world where Catholics and others who share our beliefs about marriage are defined as bigots, marginalized, excluded, and persecuted for adhering to our Church's teachings about the sanctity of marriage and the absolute impossibility of two men or two women having anything even remotely equal to the fruitful and loving relationship of a husband and a wife. Indeed, a gay "marriage" will never be equal to a real marriage for the simple reason that a gay couple can never as a couple bring a new human life into being for which they are responsible; even a married couple who can't have children of their own can model Christ's love to their adopted children, but gay "couples" who adopt are causing spiritual damage to "their" children's souls, handing them scorpions instead of bread, and making them little more than objectified pawns in their game of pushing for societal approval.

Next week, I'm going to return to Rod Dreher's idea that we traditionalists might, indeed, have to form intentional communities in order to stand strong with each other against the onslaught that this madness will inevitably produce. To a certain extent, we've already begun to do that, through this medium of the Internet and the ability it gives us to connect with each other. In the meantime, we have to do what we still can while we still can to keep our children from growing up with the lie that gay marriage is good and the lie that opposing it is bigotry. Their souls require us to remain diligent, despite the growing darkness.


John Thayer Jensen said...

Sometimes I feel like Hezekiah (was it?) - "thank God it won't be in my time!" I am 66.

But God have mercy on my children and grandchildren!

Charlotte said...

Amen, Erin! I'm going to put this on my blog, word for word, even while I know I'm going to get stormed with comments from those who might think I'm a bigot - as happened to me earler this week when I questioned the rights of the transgendered. I would be very interested in whatever this "intentional communities" idea is. Sometimes, when things get crazy, I turn to my husband and say, "That's it - we're moving to Montana!" But I know that what happens in places like Connecticut and California eventually starts to happen everywhere; there really is no place to hide. By the way, don't you think it's interesting that this Connecticut development happened less than 30 days before the Proposition 8 vote in California? I don't think that's an accident....

Alexandra said...

I agree, Christians and other conservators of the family need to get much more politically active.

Have you hear of NAMBLA? They have been pushing for years to pass legislation to legalize pedophilia.

Keep your children close!

Anonymous said...

One positive note amidst the madness--Prop. 8 is actually leading in a recent poll. So there might be a glimmer of hope yet, which is not to say that I do not agree with your post.