Love and Marriage

A Nuptial Mass Celebrated in the Middle 20th Century.
I predict that on this day, the 12th of February, in the Year of Our Lord 2014, the final battle over gay "marriage" in the United States has begun.  I predict it will eventually end in the United States Supreme Court (perhaps within a few years) with a stunning defeat for proponents of traditional Christian marriage. I pray to God I am wrong about this....
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of eight gay couples that seeks to force Missouri to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states or countries that allow them... read more here
Now this isn't the first time this has been tried, but in the past, federal judges did side in favour of recognising gay "marriage."  What makes my home state of Missouri different?  Simple.  We have a state constitutional amendment that specifically defines marriage as strictly between one man and one woman...
That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman. -- Missouri Constitution, Article I, Bill of Rights, Section 33
This isn't just some state law.  This is written into the very constitution of our state.  Therefore, the governor, all elected officials, and state judges, are sworn to defend the constitution, and likewise the Missouri definition of marriage.  This is nothing short of a battle that is absolutely sure to land in the United States Supreme Court.  It's the ACLU versus the Great State of Missouri, and you can rest assured that Missouri will spend every last dime of its legal resources to defend this section of her constitution, because for Missouri, this isn't just about marriage.  This is about state sovereignty, and the ability of the people of Missouri to govern themselves.  For Missouri, the question isn't just "what is marriage?"  It is also "what is Missouri?"  Are states truly able to govern themselves?  Or are they just vassals to the legal whims of the United States federal government?  Likewise, the ACLU will spend every last dime of its legal resources to defeat it, because their credibility is now on the line.  If they can't defeat Missouri's constitutional prohibition of gay "marriage," then they can defeat no state's constitution on this issue.  Certain states will become invincible, and other states will have a clear path marked out for how to defend against gay "marriage."  The ACLU needs funding, just like any legal organisation, and if they fail in this case, they will lose donors -- guaranteed.  Literally everything is riding on the line for both sides here.  This is going to be legal Armageddon.

At the heart of this issue, on a legal level, is states rights.  Do states really have the right to govern themselves?  Does it really matter if the people of a state vote on a certain issue?  The Missouri Marriage Amendment passed by a popular vote of 71% in 2004.  I was part of that 71%.  Does my vote really count?  Does it even matter?  Do any of our votes count?  Are we Missourians?  Or are we just vassals to the U.S. federal government?  Can we, as a people of a state (any state), decide our own destiny?  Or will it be decided for us?  Are we truly free to govern ourselves?  Or is that freedom void where prohibited by judicial fiat from federal courts?  Whatever decision comes down from Mount Olympus, those "gods" in dirty black robes on the Supreme Court, it will decide more than just what marriage means in America.  It will also decide what America means, and what it means to be a state within this federal Union.

As for the issue of marriage itself, on a cultural level, I concede the battle is nearly lost, and I have to say it was lost long before gay "marriage" entered onto the scene.  I would say we (Christians) began losing the battle long ago, about the time of the 1950s.  This was when marriage began to be defined strictly in terms of "love" and not "family."  People began to marry for feelings rather than practicality.  Now I'm not saying spouses shouldn't have feelings for each other -- they should.  What I'm saying is that feelings are only a fraction of the picture.  One must consider the viability of parenthood, whether or not ones potential spouse will make a good parent.  The desire for children itself should also be a component.  Then there are spiritual elements to consider, such as "can this potential spouse help me get to heaven?" and also "is this somebody that I can help get to heaven?"  Which leads to the next logical question, "can we (together as a team) help our children get to heaven?"  Other factors to consider are manners, upbringing, discipline, empathy, etc.  What I'm saying here is this.  When FAMILY becomes the focus of marriage, that changes just about everything.  The whole reason why people get married in the first place changes, because the focus is different.

But around 1950 is when the cultural focus changed from "family" to "love," and when that happened, the battle was over before it ever really begun.  We lost.  The defeat of Christianity on the issue of marriage was inevitable.  It would take more than half a century, but defeat was assured.

Immediately following this paradigm shift in the understanding of marriage came the rapid onset of divorce.  After all, if the focus of marriage is "love" instead of "family," and you're not feeling a whole lot of love for your spouse any more, why stay married?  And so they didn't.

What followed was the sexual revolution -- of course -- which is a perfectly logical progression when you stop and think about it.  If the focus of courtship changes from "family" to "love."  Why court at all?  Courtship simply became "dating," and dating was all about -- you guessed it -- love.

Then came widespread artificial birth control, followed by abortion on demand.  Then came "safe sex."  Then came "living together."  After all, if the focus of marriage is "love," you really don't need marriage to love somebody.  So just dispense of marriage all together -- and so they did. 

Then and only then, after all that, came the struggle for gay "marriage."  For many of the proponents of gay "marriage," the focus is love.  Why not?   If the focus of marriage is love, and straight people can love each other through marriage, then why not gay people?  It's only logical.  Right?  If you don't agree, then you must have something against homosexuals.  You must be prejudiced.  You must be a bigot.  Are you saying that gay people can't love each other just as much as straight people can?

You see, when the focus of marriage is "love" instead of "family" the argument against gay marriage is lost before it is ever begun.  Now Christianity has lost so much ground, nothing but a miracle can gain it back.  I wouldn't say the situation is hopeless, because I believe in miracles, but I'm also going to be realistic.  It will take a miracle.

So now that we know what the focus of marriage should be -- family not love -- then the next question begins to answer itself.  Why do we have state civil marriage?  If the focus of marriage is love, then really, the state has no business in marriage.  It's just another case of the government sticking its nose into the private affairs of people again.  Why should the state care who I love?  What's the point of the state even offering marriage licenses in the first place?  However, when we shift the focus of marriage back to family, where it should be, then the reason for civil marriage starts to present itself as obvious.  Thousands of years of societal evolution has determined that the best circumstance for creating more children, and raising them in stable and nurturing environments, is the traditional family as defined in the Christian sense of one man and one woman, for the purpose of creating and sustaining new life.  New life in a stable home = new productive citizens = new taxpayers!  Yes, insofar as the government is concerned, it really is that simple.  So legal incentives are given to a male and female couple to engage in this sort of relationship.  It's sort of like a bribe you see.  "If you do this traditional marriage thing, and make new productive taxpayers for us, we'll give you a few perks!"  I'm talking about some tax incentives, and legal benefits, that simplify family affairs.  In other words, the state has always had a selfish motive in recognising marriages legally, but that's just how the state works on everything really, or at least most of the time.  Civil marriage benefits the couple, the marital act, and the family it produces. This in turn benefits the state.  It's a mutually beneficial arrangement.  When it comes to civil marriage, "love" never once entered into the equation.  The state could care less if couples love one another.  All the state wants is the product of the relationship -- children! -- preferable in a stable home.  The state obviously can't guarantee a stable home, but it can do everything within it's power to help, and the benefits of a civil marriage contract do contribute toward that end.

The most interesting thing about the whole gay "marriage" phenomenon is that as the culture forgot what the focus of marriage is, so did the state.  The state seems to be oblivious to the fact that granting marriage licenses to gay couples actually harms the state in the long run.  The damage won't be seen overnight.  This sort of thing will take a generation or two to manifest, but when it does, you can rest assured the state will awaken from its amnesia.  What it will do about it, if anything, remains to be seen. By then, the social problems may be beyond repair.  There are those who subscribe to "replacement theory," which states that in time, as demographic populations shift, so will governments.  Old governments will simply be replaced by new ones, that may or may not, have anything in common with the old.  This may solve the marriage problem in the long run, but again, that is just speculation and remains to be seen.

What I believe to be certain in the short term is this.  The ACLU case against the Missouri Constitution will go immediately to the federal courts.  How the federal courts rule is completely irrelevant, because regardless of who wins, the other side will appeal the decision.  Then it will work its way up to the United States Supreme Court.  The "gods" from Mount Olympus may refuse to hear the case at first, but they won't be able to put this off indefinitely.  Eventually they will consent to hear the case.  When they do, they will run into two issues that even the most conservative justice will have difficulty avoiding.  The United States Constitution clearly implies that a marriage contracted in one state is automatically valid in all 50 states, by virtue of the "full faith and credit" clause...
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. -- U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 1
Combine this with the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and what you have spells certain defeat for traditional marriage in the United States...
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. -- U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 1
Even the most conservative and traditional Supreme Court justice cannot deny this.  Granted, neither the founding fathers, nor the politicians after the Civil War, foresaw gay "marriage."  Granted, something like this never even occurred to them.  So they could have never imagined that their legal documents could be used for such a thing.  Nevertheless, they did unwittingly provide the ACLU with the legal tool it needs to make gay "marriage" the law of the land in the United States of America.  I predict, that barring an absolute miracle from God Almighty, this will happen, and perhaps within a few years or so, homosexuals will be able to marry and be recognised as married in all 50 of these United States of America.  As for those of us (all 71% of us) who voted to protect the traditional Christian definition of marriage, well, our votes simply won't count.  Missouri, like all the rest of the states, will prove to be nothing more than vassals of the United States federal government.  The "gods" on Mount Olympus (The United States Supreme Court) will rule, and when they do, the politicians of America will cower to the thunder of their gavel.  They will more than decide what it means to be married.  They will also decide what it means to be a Missourian, or the citizen of any state.  It will simply mean -- nothing.  Our votes won't count.  We won't have the power to govern ourselves, for the "gods" on Mount Olympus will simply overrule us whenever they want, just as they did on abortion.

I have said from the beginning, that nothing but a strong "states rights" movement can turn this tide of judicial oppression in the federal government.  Nothing but the willingness of states to call for a constitutional convention, or even secede if necessary, will stop this trend toward absolute judicial rule.  Nothing but a return to state pride, and identifying ourselves as Missourians first and Americans second, will turn these tables.  That and prayer -- a whole lot of prayer... And I do mean a lot... Along with repentance for our sins... And a return to "family" (not just love) as the primary focus of marriage.


Click Image to Learn More
Highly recommended by priests and catechists, "Catholicism for Protestants" is a Biblical explanation of Roman Catholic Christianity as told by Shane Schaetzel -- an Evangelical convert to the Catholic Church through Anglicanism.  The book is concise and formatted in an easy-to-read Question & Answer catechism style.  It addresses many of the common questions Protestants have about Catholicism. It is ideal for Protestants seeking more knowledge about the Catholic Church, and for Catholics seeking a quick refresher course on fundamental Catholic teaching. It's an excellent book for Catholics and Protestants alike!



The Lab Manager said…
Here is what all Christian denominations need to do do. Get the state out of marriage!

Marriage 'licenses' did not come about until the mid-1800s' and that was to make sure that there were no interracial marriages.

Don't be like the liberals and ask government to do something. Get the state out of it and call it your own.

The same with public schools. I hate the way Christians complain about them but do nothing disband them. There is no law that stops them from freely educating their kids. As a person with no children, why should I be forced to pay for a failing system that lowers my property value under threat of losing my property?
ek said…
On June 26, 2015 your prediction came true, unfortunately. This is the beginning of the end. Truly deplorable.