Defense of Marriage

The current debate about the nature of marriage keeps getting caught up in distractions. The question of someone's right to be married is being waved about like a banner of freedom and liberation by the very people that in the 60's and 70's were avid opponents of the whole concept of marriage. Back then, they portrayed marriage as a sort of slavery, particularly for women, and declared it an antiquated notion of the past and a symbol of Victorian religious oppression.

For some reason, now that GLBT&T-S&M-ETC's are claiming the prerogative of "expressing their love" in a marital commitment, the people that championed free love, not needing a "piece of paper" to prove their love and who turned divorce into a proceeding no more significant than paying a traffic fine are howling about the unfairness of denying that previously distasteful union to a group of people who have no real need for the ceremony other than the legitimacy they think it will give to their proclivities.

Funny thing, legitimacy. They think marriage will give them legitimacy, but totally discount the value of legitimacy in the life of the average child today. Really, who needs it? So a mother has to raise a child alone because the father is not held responsible for his libidinous pursuits? No problem, the state will take care of them. Let the father go about in his randy way and procreate to his heart's content. There are plenty of rich fat cats out there that can have their wealth confiscated to pay for the unwanted offspring, and when that money runs out, we'll just abort the rest of them.

The sad thing is that there are way too many people out there that don't see anything outrageous in what I just said. Their attitude, at least superficially, is that people should be allowed to do anything they feel like and not face any consequences. Dig a little deeper, though, and you will find that they have to admit that there is a limit to that. They know that eventually some limits will have to be made. There will be people who are considered too stupid or brainwashed to manage their own affairs: or who are too educated in the "wrong" things to be trusted to allow their seditious ideas to propagate.

Again, enter the State. As far as they are concerned, everything can and should be regulated. There is no activity that they aren't willing to force on people to follow their notion of what is right and proper, including tolerance of all lifestyles and sexual orientations. How is that different from a state religion doing the exact same thing, somewhat in reverse? I don't think they care about that hypocrisy, because it's all about getting back at the people that "put them down, " so turnabout is fairplay.

They cannot deny their secularist imperative and still insist that they only want the "rights" of marriage, rather than the sanction of any religion. They would never want that, they assure us, though I recall that in my youth, some 30-odd years ago, as various other "rights" were demanded for the same-sex oriented, when the issue of the slippery slope was brought up, e.g. if you get this, the next thing you will want is same-sex marriage, there was adamant denial- "That's ridiculous! We would never ask for that!"

Now, it's looked at as ridiculous that they wouldn't ask for it. So, let's suppose that all they want is the rights of marriage. What rights of marriage don't they have or that they couldn't have with another stroke of Pres. Obama's pen? There's really only one thing that they can't get until they subvert religion and that is religious sanction. Some religions say that they will never submit to that even if it's government mandated. The result would eventually amount to that religion being outlawed, and their opponents are just fine with that, because that's all they are really after.

As they like to point out, marriage is not necessarily a religious institution. In fact, with their current argument, it has to NOT be a religious institution for it to be a universal right for anyone to marry anything that they want to. Well, how about that? What societal purpose does marriage serve if it's not to keep sexual relations within the sanctity of a dogmatic obligation? Since that purpose is entirely based on belief in divinity of some sort, what other use could marriage have?

Why should the state value and endorse marriage themselves? Remember, it can't be something insidious like controlling sexuality and freedom of expression, or it wouldn't be of any value to people that want to act completely outside of the conventional mores.

The fact is, there is a perfectly good reason for marriage both historically and in the present day that, while compatible with religions prerogatives, does not require any religious views to justify it for state endorsement, and I have already pointed it out. Quite simply, the protection and support of those who are unable to provide for themselves.

Men are, by nature, an extremely libidinous lot. Lacking societal or institutional restraint, some men would be having sex with most anything that offered the opportunity, including women. There is a certain inevitability to conception happening in an environment of unrestrained copulation, of course, only when there is at least one man and one woman involved. Oddly, that is the only condition in which it IS a possibility. As long as men and women continue to engage in sex, and I don't hear anyone on the liberal side arguing against that, there will be offspring, even if there were state-mandated birth control and abortion of any zygotes that managed to circumvent it; and yes, zygotes do circumvent it (actually gametes do, before becoming zygotes).

What is to be done with those that make it to live birth? So far, at least, Western society has not gone so far as to promote the euthanization of unwanted births (despite some attempts). Historically, the solution was pretty simple: a thing called a shotgun wedding. Men who played around were held responsible for the consequences. Women who were unable to work because of pregnancy and then having a child to raise had the security of knowing that society would make the man who contributed to it provide the support. Children could be guaranteed a maintenance beyond a mother on government hand-outs if we just went back to the notion that men who did the deed must live up to it.

That's not a concept that could only come from religion, but in a really odd irony (to those who don't believe in religion) it's a core tenet of every world religion. At its heart, marriage is only important if there is someone that could be left destitute if that bond is not enforced by government or society. For the religious, it is that and more, but it is never less than that for anyone.

To imply that two adults that have their own careers and means of support, and who will never naturally acquire any offspring to require the support of one or the other, have any need for marriage is the most ludicrous falsehood ever to be uttered. There is no right there to be given or denied, so the whole argument is just a pathetic pointless distraction designed to take our eyes off of their real goal: the stripping away of the rights afforded to religious practice in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America- one of the core principles upon which this nation was founded, and after that, the complete abolition of religion.

I'd suggest we keep our eyes on the real issue.

Social Justice Is Just Socialism

People in this country can get so bent out of shape over words. Most of the time there is at least some basis for the offense given or taken, but even then, what's the big deal? People have called me all sorts of vile and terrible things. At least, they would be terrible if I bothered to let them bother me. My impression is that people get the most upset when the label is either a bit too close to the truth, or they don't really know what it means. They just know it must be bad if you're calling them that, even if it turns out to be true.

Seriously, in the public arena, who is really annoyed by the type of moron that has to use an epithet to defend their viewpoint? Most of those type of people are just wacko nutcases (yeah, I'm name-calling), who no one really pays any attention to unless they think they can use them to demonize an opponent.

Albeit, some words have earned a bit of a reputation for cruelty and insensitivity, and only a bigot with no motive other than to hurt would use them. But, so what? Do you win by protesting, since you are just giving them the power to manipulate your emotions? (If you didn't get it, that would be NO.)

The truth is that the people who generally make the most noise about an "offensive" word are not really offended at all. They just know they can stir up public outrage by acting offended. Though some politicians and activists are better at pulling this off than others, there is no political ideology that isn't willing to give it a try.

However, conservatives, especially the so-called Religious Right, tend to be a bit more vulnerable to accusations of meanness since they actually claim that they are supposed to be nice. When they slip up, all the opposition has to do is call them hypocrites and the apology tour is on the road. Never mind that being called a hypocrite is another form of name-calling. If you let it bother you, you've already lost the word battle. If you really are a hypocrite, then I'm okay with that, but if you really have beliefs to stand up for, STAND UP!

The point is that there are people out there who don't care what words really mean, they just use them to disguise, misdirect, confuse, enrage and otherwise manipulate the population. They never mean what they say, and they never admit what they are really about. If one label gets discredited, they quickly grab another. The game is to never get pinned down on silly things like values, or core beliefs. They have them. They just know you wouldn't really like them.

So, now along comes Social Justice to masquerade as Christian charity. Socialist has become a dirty word, oddly enough, because of the people who actually stood for it once. Not many socialists want to be known as a socialist right now. That doesn't mean they aren't in favor of the ideology that word used to represent. They just know they can't sell it.

If you ask them what Social Justice means- and they actually tell you- then look in one of the older reference books (you remember books, don't you?) You will find that it is just socialism, or close enough that it doesn't matter. Taking something from one person and giving it to another person is not charity; which requires that the giver actually have a choice. It is the Marxist philosophy (meaning that Karl Marx would agree...you know who Karl Marx was, right?) of wealth redistribution. Interestly, socialism doesn't mean what it used to. It's more of what communism said it was, and now communism is...wait...I'm getting confused.

See, anymore, if you get caught up in trying to define who someone is by the name they call themselves, you're ready to be fooled. Ask them what they stand for. If they won't say, or they spout empty rhetoric to dumbfound you, that's all you need to know. Whatever they want you to call them, call them a cab, and get them the heck away from you.

The Opposite of Pride is Joy

The greatest personal struggle I have in this life is overcoming pride. I used to think there was such a thing as good pride; righteous pride, which is the pride in keeping myself fit and clean, and in keeping my home up to repair and pleasant in appearance. Or such things as being "humbly" proud of my accomplishments, such as writing something meaningful that touches souls, for instance.

I mean, surely I could take pride in accomplishing things, as long as I remembered that God gave me the gifts to use them for good, so what good I did was to my merit. How else could I have any self-esteem if I never thought that anything I did was of value, and praiseworthy? I just had to make sure that I gave the glory to God, right?

I've had many discussions with others about this and we decided that there was a pride with a big "P" and one with a little "p," with them being the evil type that causes whole societies to crumble, and the type that is the pride in yourself that makes you want to do good things, respectively. That's entirely wrong.

After being knocked down pretty hard again recently, as usual, by pride, but not of any sort that could be called good (yet didn't merit a capital P either), I had to rethink this concept. I was at a point in my life that I thought all I was capable of having was "pride," because I certainly didn't think much of myself at all, so "Pride "was out of the question. How could I be "high and mighty" and due to be knocked down when I was already as low as I thought I could be.

Thinking it would make me humble, I had gotten wrapped up in trying to do good things for everyone around me. Sure, it felt good to do things for people, but it still left me empty and hating myself when I wasn't actively involved in service. Furthermore, I wasn't doing anything for myself- nothing good anyway.

There were a number of selfish behaviors, but eating a whole package of cookies isn't doing something for yourself. It's trying to escape yourself, and is a denial that you have any worth. I wouldn't hesitate to warn someone else how bad that was, but I excused myself because "those people want to live," and I didn't.

Ironically, I thought I had no pride of any sort, but I had the worst kind of Pride: the kind that tells you that you know better than anyone, including God, both what you can do to/for yourself, and what you are worth. Pride is not the opposite of pride. Come on, it's the same word already. Maybe there's some difference in the two concepts of big and little, but there's a lot of overlap; therefore not opposites.

Humility, and especially humiliation, alone is not the opposite of Pride either. Both are steps toward the truth, however. Think about it, we've all known someone who was proud of how humble they were. As funny as that is, it's a much bigger stumbling block than Pride itself. It makes you think you are conquering pride, but you are just disguising it.

There is only one way to be free of pride: you must becomne aware of how insignificant you really are. You must know that you are nothing. That is, that you are nothing, of yourself. There is not one thing you do in this entire existence that you could do entirely by yourself. Without the power of God, even the very molecules that make up your body would lose the bonds that hold them together, and disorganized and without cohesion, you would simple dissolve away.

Once you become aware of that and then recognize that, at the same time, you are divinely created and of infinite worth, you are on your way to being free of pride. I am a son of God, whose power is infinite, and He saw fit to create me, exactly as I am. While that is enough to feel that I have greatness, if only in my creation, I can take no pride in it. It is not my doing. I may take this form that He has given me and try to do what I want with it and think that I have done either great things, or evil things, but I could do none of it if He just withdrew His power from me completely.

Having reached this point of awareness of being entirely helpless and dependent on God for everything, I give my will to Him, to do with me as He will, and every moment becomes a miracle. Each breath is a testament to His Glory, every step forward a celebration of His greatness. If I stumble, it is because He allows it for my wisdom. If I do evil, it is only because He stills permits me life, and is patient to let the fire burn me, so I will know to respect it.

Now, I am almost there. As I learn to trust Him, and He sees fit to lead me to do anything of greatness, of any size, I finally learn the truth. I see what has been done, and I know that only by His power that it could be done, but He allowed my hand to do it, so that I could feel His power and know His glory. Then, and only then, I have joy. Joy in the goodness of the thing that has been done, and joy in the love He has for me that He will lend me his power to do good. I can feel both worthy and worthwhile, yet insignificant unless I am a tool in the Master's hand.

I am saved by my God and through the blood of Christ, no matter what I do. There is nothing I can do to accomplish that on my own. I can win nothing by the strength of my arm, but I can do anything when supported by the arm of God, and when I trust Him in all things.

It's not a fairy tale

Now, I'm not ready to say that I don't believe that "true love conquers all." That's not something that can really be assessed while you're still alive, and it's not happily ever after until the fat princess sings. In our very real world, we know a few stories of romantic connections that turned out well in the end, but we know endless stories of star-crossed lovers whose initial romantic bliss ended tragically.

Not all ends are necessarily tragic. They are dreadfully painful, but not tragic. These are the ones in which, despite finding true love and all the heady delights it promises, duty and honor are more important. Throughout history, many people have married for convenience, or to serve a familial responsibility, or sometimes to avert wars through the alliance that is formed, even though their hearts were desperately, gloriously and irrevocably given to another.

In the fairy tale version, the two lovers are separated, but stay true to each other in some manner until whatever magical, mystical thing occurs to reunite them in an eternal state of joy. Westley comes for Buttercup disguised as the Dread Pirate Roberts, because thanks to true love, even being dead a couple of times isn't enough to keep them apart. Does this never happen (except for the being dead part) in the real world? Are there no real happy endings? It probably happens far more than we realize, but the key is the remaining true part.

Once in a while, two people choose to shirk their responsibilities, run off together and it actually works out. Most of the time- not really. People who are that impetuous and undisciplined usually find the magic wearing off as soon as hunger and other facts of day-to-day existence make themselves felt. Prince Charming on his gleaming snow-white steed is much less appealing after you have to eat the horse because he didn't happen to have put in the time to learn a trade. Having a few babies on your hip and still having to go to the convenience store job while he "looks for work," is a pretty sure romance killer.

What is more likely is that the person who marries for duty, knowing their obligations, will devote themselves to making the best of things. They may carry the love of that person they feel "true love" with in their hearts, never really abandoning hope, but still determined to serve in the place where they are appointed. Who knows what will occur in this life, or the next? It is their belief in the next life, or their sense of duty to society that obligates them to stay in their situation as long as it is just rather than give in to their emotions.

The people that want to believe in fairy tales would say that it's a shame; that it's a waste to spend a life in that way rather than to fulfil their love. I recall a line in a mediocre song from the 70's: "It's so sad to belong to someone else when the right one comes along." Poppycock. What is sad is to throw away a family, or a kingdom, or your eternal soul for a mere selfish gratification.

To quote Miracle Max, "True love is the greatest thing in the world..." We are supposed to be in the world, but not of the world. True love IS the greatest thing, and some people never know it in this life, because it must be a mutual feeling of respect, charity, unselfishness and desire for the other's happiness, not for their body. Adultery is not true love. Fornication is not true love. True lovers are willing to sacrifice any earthly pleasure, property or emotion for each other. Too many are willing to give up what could be a wonderful exaltation of the relationship that is possible between a man and a woman for a mere moment's pleasure.

The portrayal of true love in the movie "The Princess Bride" is the ideal. The young man a woman put off the consummation of their love, because the man is going to earn a living so he can support a family. When he is thought dead, Buttercup remains chaste and faithful for ten years, and only agrees to marry the Prince when it seems certain that Westley will never come back, and because the Prince is deceiving her anyway.

Likewise, Westley can be assumed to have been celibate for his time in the crew of the Revenge, or else he is a phenomenal hypocrite for condemning Buttercup for "only" waiting ten years. The couple's virture is also implied to remain intact (or else be inconsistent) throughout the rest of the movie, and even makes a point of the marriage to Prince Humperdinck being not legal, and void, rather than just having Westley kill the Prince and take his bride, like most movies these days would.

Of course it's fiction and some would imply, outrageously unrealistic. So, why do we have such stories? Don't we want to emulate these ideals rather than the notion that love that isn't immediately fulfilled sexually is tragic. It may not be the popular view in today's hedonistic society to believe that we can live up to those standards, but we still want our heroines to be virtuous, and our heroes to be honorable.

Why do we sell ourselves short? If we keep teaching that true marital fidelity is impossible, we will raise a generation that sees no purpose in marriage, and soon afterward the family will be an outdated concept, rather than the basic building block of society, without which there will be no society.

Sure we fall short of the standard, but that's no reason pull it down lower. We should rather aspire to live a higher law. Changing your goals to be easier is not the same as achieving them. I think we do want to believe that virtue is possible, and that's why we keep telling the stories. I believe in true love, but unless it is chaste, unselfish, humble and honorable it can't conquer anything.