Gay "marriage" and the Civil Rights Movement??

If you haven't stopped by Little Catholic Bubble today, hop on over there now!  My husband, "One Man", wrote an excellent guest post on why he opposes associating gay "marriage"  with the civil rights movement.  He offers a unique perspective and fresh insights!

Outsourcing Pregnancy: Just Another Job?

Marriage Monday...on a Tuesday!


The following is a shocking article I read at the Ruth Institute Blog.  I've copied and pasted it in its entirety, but the extra large paragraph was emphasized by me!  We truly are on our way to "designer babies"- we are treating babies as if they really are an accessory.  Be sure to follow the links noted in the article.  They will make your jaw drop.


By Jennifer Lahl, CBC President

As millions around the world celebrated the birth of Jesus, Elton John and his partner, David Furnish, issued a press release announcing the birth of their baby boy, born on Christmas Day. Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John, a healthy baby, was born through modern, assisted reproductive technologies (ART). Using an anonymous egg donor and a “gestational carrier” (I always think this term sounds more like a new form of aircraft—as in “the cargo just arrived on the newest gestational carrier.” Where is the feminist outrage?!) Elton and David fulfilled one of their greatest wishes: to be parents. They have now joined the ranks of the growing list ofcelebrities having babies via ART.

This got me thinking about another list I read a few years ago: the “Ten Best Chores to Outsource.” Expecting to see housecleaning, gardening and landscaping, pool cleaning, laundry, I was shocked and saddened by the number one “best chore to outsource”: pregnancy. From the Time piece:

Outsourcing brings to mind big factories and call centers. But entrepreneurs around the globe now offer services—from tutoring to sculpting a bust of your grandpa—to regular folks for a fraction of the cost in the West. Thought the world was flat before? Well, now you can hire someone in India to carry your child.

Entrepreneurs like Rudy Rupak, CEO of medical tourism agency Planet Hospital, are just another example of those who are hopping on the ART modern-family bandwagon. Rupak’s brokering business even offers what his company calls the “India Bundle,” an “affordable” package deal that gives would-be parents an egg donor, four surrogates for four embryo transfers, room and board for the surrogate during the pregnancy, and transportation services when the parents arrive in India to pick up the baby. Costs escalate from there depending on services rendered. Gay couples wanting to do egg-sharing so that each can offer sperm to fertilize the eggs (so that each has a biological child) drives up the price. All the various preimplantation genetic diagnostic tests also drive costs upward. In sum, this setup is a consumer model of baby-making.

Twins cost more, of course, which brings me to the latest craziness: twiblings. Parents Michael and Melanie Thernstrom recently chronicled their entire infertility story, which is not atypical, inThe New York Times Magazine. After what Melanie describes as many failed relationships, she finally met Mr. Right, but maternal age hindered her ability to get pregnant, so they were off to the fertility doctor for five failed in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. Always wanting twins (perhaps forgetting about risks to maternal and infant health with multiple births), they decided to hire not one but two surrogates, enlisted the help of an egg donor, and “gave birth” to a boy and a girl five days apart. Since the babies were from the same egg donor and they used Michael’s sperm, the children are siblings. Since they were created in the lab at the same time, they are fraternal twins. But given that they were carried in separate surrogate wombs, they have been dubbed twiblings.

Pregnancy has been reduced to a “bits and pieces” brokered industry: sperm from a handsome Scandinavian stud, eggs from a beautiful Ivy League graduate, a womb-for-rent from a poor woman in India trying to provide food and education for her children, and brokers in the middle setting up the legal transactions to build a better baby the 21st-century way.

Meanwhile, cases like those of an Australian couple who aborted their twin boys because they wanted a girl, and Olivia Pratten’s battle for the right to have access to her biological father’s identity (she was born in Canada some 20-plus years ago via anonymous egg donation), make their way through the courts. Just this morning, Nicole Kidman and husband Keith Urbanannounced the birth of their second child together, brought to term by a carefully selected “gestational carrier.” These are uncharted global waters we are swimming in, and sadly, the international laws are at best ad hoc and at worst woefully unregulated. What is more disheartening to me is the lack of a faithful witness from Western Christians (with the exception of Catholic teaching) in response to infertility. From the twiblings piece, a director of a Los Angeles agency for those in search of a surrogate stated that many of their gestational carriers were “mainly white, working-class women, often evangelical Christians — the kind of girls you went to high school with.”

The basics are well established within Christian orthodoxy: Children are a blessing and a gift, not a right. They should be begotten, not made. ART is the manufacturing of children, often by design and often using third parties, and a violation of the doctrine of the two flesh becoming one. In the Garden, husband and wife were a complete family. This was declared very good, even without children being part of the story at that point. While infertility is a sad and difficult occurrence for those who want children, it has been made even more difficult because of a lack of clear Protestant thinking on the matter. Infertility is not a death sentence. Children are not products to be made. Our reproductive bodies are not to be blithely parceled and sold to someone else. And pregnancy is not a chore to be outsourced.

It’s time for some more serious corrective thinking lest the reproductive madness get even more out of control, and we be morally complicit in furthering the exploitation of some lives for the making of another.

This article originally appeared as A Woman, Not a ‘Gestational Carrier’ at Her.meneutics

When it comes to SEX, all bets are off

SMOKING
BINGING
ALCOHOLISM
RECKLESS DRIVING
COCAINE 
BULIMIA
OBESITY
TRANS-FATS
SUGAR
CARBS


As a society we speak up against ALL of these things and recognize them as unhealthy for an individual as well as society.  Obesity  is practically a federal crime, trans-fats outlawed, and carbs are otherwise known as the white devil!


But when it comes to SEX, ALL BETS ARE OFF!  We're handing out condoms to first graders!  In an age where relativism has taken over, we are so afraid of being judgmental that we have lost all common sense.  (Wondering if there is objective truth?  Go HERE.)  And so it's "anything goes".   We defend fornication, masturbation, contraception, divorce, sodomy and homosexuality.  The result?  Hearts are broken, families are destroyed, diseases are spread, and babies are murdered.  


Peter Kreeft writes,

The moral revolution is confined to sex. We are not allowed to steal another man's money without being put into jail, but we can steal another man's wife. You cannot betray your lawyer without being severely penalized, but you can betray your wife, and SHE is severely penalized. You cannot kill bald eagles or blue whales without being a criminal but you can kill your own children as long as you do it a second before the two blades of the scissors meet in the middle of the umbilical cord rather than a second after, or a second before the body emerges from the birth canal rather than a second after. What kind of logic is this? (Christian Anthropology verses the Sexual Revolution)

The reason we issue warnings about the initial list is because we care about the well-being of a person.  We don't judge a smoker as evil, we recognize that he is engaged in an unhealthy lifestyle and urge him to make choices that will better himself.  


The same is true for sex.  We do not judge a person engaged in fornication or homosexuality as evil.  We care about the person, and recognize the act as objectively disordered.  The actions do not define the essence of the person.  It is not their identity any more than my sins are my identity.  


Let's look at the consequences of male homosexual activity specifically.


But before we do- again I want to stress that I am focusing on the actions- not the person.  The Catechism states, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition" (CCC 2358).


The G.ay & Lesbia.n Medi.cal Associat.ion warns gay men of ten common issues.  

1. Increased risk for HIV/AIDS. (Also reported by the CDC here.)
2. Substance abuse- commonly marijuana, Ecstasy, and amphetamines
3. Higher rates of depression and anxiety- particularly adolescents and young adults
4. Increased risk of hepatitis which can be potentially fatal.
5. STDs occur in sexually active gay men at a high rate. 
6. "Gay men may be at risk for death by prostate, testicular, or colon cancer."  
7. Higher alcohol use in the gay community.
8. Much higher rates of tobacco use (nearly fifty percent) 
9. Fitness and obesity 
10. Anal Papilloma- increased rates of anal cancers in gay men.  "The rate at which the infection can be spread between partners is very high."  

Can we objectively look at this list and say with love, that this is not a healthy lifestyle?  Extending recognition and benefits to same-sex unions encourages more same-sex unions.  More people might feel free to engage in this dangerous and destructive life-style.   


A similar list of negative consequences could be written for heterosexual activity outside of marriage.  Contraceptives in the pill form come with a list of warnings from the medical community.   When sex is not used as it is intended- for a man and a woman in marriage to be open to life and unity- there are dangerous consequences.  


This is because sex is holy, and holiness is powerful.  As I wrote about in my last Marriage Monday post, sex is holy because it allows us to participate in the Blessed Trinity and reflects our total, faithful and fruitful giving of our body to another as Christ gives His body for us.  

Sex images God because it makes new images of God...Sex is like religion not only because it is objectively holy in itself but also because it gives us subjectively a foretaste of heaven, of the self-forgetful, self-transcending self-giving that is what our deepest hearts are designed for, long for and will not be satisfied until they have, because we are made in God's own image and this self-giving constitutes the inner life of the Trinity (How to Win the Culture War, pg. 95).  

This subject is hard.  It is one that I have sat on for months now, feeling called to write about, but not knowing how.  In almost all sinful relationships, there is real genuine human love, and it seems hurtful to call the relationship sinful when there is love.  But loving a person means to do what is best for them.  Sometimes that means speaking up.  Sometimes that means pursuing a chaste relationship.  Sometimes that means writing a blog post that you're scared to publish!  


We do not stand in judgment of souls, but as compassionate friends reaching out a hand.  The Manhattan Declaration states, “We stand with them, even when they falter...We are also sinners who struggle and fall short of the good God has for our lives.  We are also in need of God’s patience, love and forgiveness."  

"The Pill made same-sex nuptials inevitable."*

Are we too late to save marriage?  Did we lose the battle fifty years ago when the pill became accepted?  Today society views sex as a sterile act intended for pleasure that only occasionally should be used to allow life to come into the world. When sex is viewed as sterile and its only purpose pleasure, why should gender matter? 


The Catholic Church's teaching on sex and marriage is completely consistent.  

Sex is to unite the couple and to create new life. 

As Dr. Janet Smith wisely summarizes: SEX is for BABIES AND BONDING.  (Contraception: Why Not?")


The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, 

The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward (1) the good of the spouses AND (2) the procreation and education of offspring;  (CCC 1601 Emphasis and numbers mine!)

Contraception is wrong because it separates the unitive and procreative functions of sex, of which God is the author.  With contraception, man becomes the deciding fact on if and when a child is to be created.  "Contraception violates the natural law because contraception acts against the natural end, or goal, of sexual intercourse, which is the coming to be of a new human life" (Sex au Naturel, pg. 70).   Consider the natural ends of eating.  One both enjoys the taste of the food as well as benefits from the nutrition.  But what if one ate only to enjoy the taste.  What if one either spit out the food after chewing, or induced vomiting, so as to not receive the nutrition and calories?  In a similar fashion, contraception enjoys the sensual pleasure, while rejecting the ultimate purpose of the act.  


In Christianity, we see two Godly demonstrations of total, faithful, fruitful love.  The first is the Blessed Trinity.  God the Father loves the Son so totally, completely and personally that this Love itself IS a person: the Holy Spirit.  The Father holds NOTHING back from the Son, and the Son likewise holds NOTHING back from the Father.   Imagine, if you can, Christ thinking, "yes, Father, I love you- but let's just keep this between the two of us.  Who needs a third wheel?  I'm keeping a part of myself to myself."   No!  They hold nothing back and exist in an eternal exchange of love.  In an amazing way, we are allowed to participate in Trinity in the marriage act!  When a man and woman love each other totally, giving all that they have to one another, they have to give that love a name nine months later!  


Secondly, we see Christ's example on the cross.  Jesus loves His bride, the Church, so totally, faithfully and fruitfully, that He held NOTHING back.  He gave us His life.  He gives us His body.   He gives us His blood.  He went to the cross willing to die for His bride, that she might be sanctified and cleansed through His blood, so He would be able to present us to the Father. (Ephesians 5:26-27) "This is my body, which will be given up for you" (Luke 22:19).  At the Holy Mass, bread and wine become the actual, literal body and blood of Jesus Christ.  As we receive His body and become one with the Lord, He "impregnates" us with His divine life so that we can bare forth His love to the world.   Again we see this reflected in married love.  


But contraception nullifies the ultimate fruitful purpose of the sexual act.  It says, "I will give you myself- but not all of myself.  I'm holding something back.  I don't want all of you, either.  I'll take all of you except your fertility."    This is not total love.   Contraception and homosexual sex are both closed to life.  They render the act sterile and refuse the possibility of children.  


In 2004, Pastor Donald Sensing of Trinity United Methodist Church in Franklin, Tennessee, published an article in the Wall Street Journal, essentially saying, 'Want to save marriage?  YOU'RE TOO LATE!  You lost marriage when you accepted contraception fifty years ago.'  

Today, though, sexual intercourse is delinked from procreation. Since the invention of the Pill some 40 years ago, human beings have for the first time been able to control reproduction with a very high degree of assurance. That led to what our grandparents would have called rampant promiscuity. The causal relationships between sex, pregnancy and marriage were severed in a fundamental way. The impulse toward premarital chastity for women was always the fear of bearing a child alone. The Pill removed this fear. Along with it went the need of men to commit themselves exclusively to one woman in order to enjoy sexual relations at all. Over the past four decades, women have trained men that marriage is no longer necessary for sex. But women have also sadly discovered that they can't reliably gain men's sexual and emotional commitment to them by giving them sex before marriage.

Nationwide, the marriage rate has plunged 43% since 1960. Instead of getting married, men and women are just living together, cohabitation having increased tenfold in the same period. According to a University of Chicago study, cohabitation has become the norm. More than half the men and women who do get married have already lived together.

The widespread social acceptance of these changes is impelling the move toward homosexual marriage. Men and women living together and having sexual relations "without benefit of clergy," as the old phrasing goes, became not merely an accepted lifestyle, but the dominant lifestyle in the under-30 demographic within the past few years. Because they are able to control their reproductive abilities--that is, have sex without sex's results--the arguments against homosexual consanguinity began to wilt.

When society decided--and we have decided, this fight is over--that society would no longer decide the legitimacy of sexual relations between particular men and women, weddings became basically symbolic rather than substantive, and have come for most couples the shortcut way to make the legal compact regarding property rights, inheritance and certain other regulatory benefits. But what weddings do not do any longer is give to a man and a woman society's permission to have sex and procreate.

Sex, childbearing and marriage now have no necessary connection to one another, because the biological connection between sex and childbearing is controllable. The fundamental basis for marriage has thus been technologically obviated. Pair that development with rampant, easy divorce without social stigma, and talk in 2004 of "saving marriage" is pretty specious. There's little there left to save. Men and women today who have successful, enduring marriages till death do them part do so in spite of society, not because of it.

If society has abandoned regulating heterosexual conduct of men and women, what right does it have to regulate homosexual conduct, including the regulation of their legal and property relationship with one another to mirror exactly that of hetero, married couples?   

Sense of Events: Save Marriage? It's Too Late. (emphasis mine)  

Want to save marriage?  Consider the truth, beauty and glory of the Catholic Church on sex.  Society reduces sex to biology- you get an urge and relieve it- but our Church sees sex as a “profound mystery” that participates in the blessed Trinity!  The Church is accused of thinking sex is something "dirty".  Far from it!  The unity and pleasure of sex are but a foretaste of the ecstasy of complete union with God in Heaven!  The sexual relationship between a man and woman in marriage is one of the greatest witnesses to the Lord Himself.  One would never carelessly throw away a diamond ring or sling mud at a great painting.   In the same way, we are to recognize the marriage act for the great masterpiece that it is and therefore treasure and respect it.  To read more on the Church's teaching, consider:

• The Good News about Sex & Marriage by Christopher West
• Theology of the Body for Beginners by Christopher West
• Sex au Naturel by Patrick Coffin
• Holy Sex!  A Catholic Guide to Toe-Curling, Mind-Blowing Infallible Loving! by Gregory K. Popcak, PhD.  
• Various cds available at OneMoreSoul.com
• Contraception, Why Not? by Dr. Janet E. Smith

*The title of this blog post is quoted from the above article by Donald Sensing.   

Marriage Monday is BACK!

In my last post, "How will my marriage affect yours?" I had a few dissenting comments and questions.  I was unable to answer them at the time, because I was at the hospital with my beautiful baby girl!!!!  


Sigh...  It seems like yesterday!  :)


But I'm getting the hang of things and she's taking longer naps!  So Marriage Monday is back!  


First up: Answering questions and replying to comments!






Miss Gwen:
I'm just wondering though-wouldn't a no-fault divorce be a safety-net option for women (or men) trying to escape an abusive marriage? What if an abusing spouse refuses to grant a divorce? If you run away or leave the marriage, you can still run into all sorts of legal/financial problems is you're legally still married. I'm just saying...


The answer was in the original post!
"To be clear, previous to no-fault divorce you had "FAULT" divorce.  Every state had their own grounds for divorce, but virtually all of them included adultery, abuse, cruelty or desertion.  For any of these reasons, one could get divorced." 


P.S.  Thanks, Miss Gwen, for your sweet comments regarding Abigail and for wishing us a successful adoption!  :)




Anonymous:
Oh my gosh, women working outside the home and people marrying at an older age are bad things?!!!! 


Again, the answer is in the post:
It is clearly concluded, that changing the availability of divorce has affected the permanence of marriage and changed the behavior of millions. 


P.S.  Thank you for your prayers, Anonymous.  I am thankful for all prayers to our God of compassion and love for open hearts.  




Frank:
But I’m sure banning gay marriage would make the divorce rate go down, even there. Oh, wait: “Divorce rates higher in states with gay marriage bans”


Sarah answered this for me in a comment:
"not only are divorce rates lower in MA, so are marriage rates - lower than the US average. So if less people are getting married, period, then it isn't so surprising or impressive that less people are getting divorced."


P.S.  As always, thanks for your support in our adoption, Frank!  Congratulations on your new little baby girl!!  I'm so jealous that you get to post pictures!




NEXT UP: Contraception and Same-sex Marriage!

How will MY marriage affect YOURS?

Ahhh...the inevitable question. 

Funny, because a very similar question was asked when No-Fault Divorce was pushed on us.  How will your neighbor's divorce affect your marriage? 

Advocates of No-Fault Divorce argued

• Few people will be affected,
• Children will be better off it their parents are divorced and happy,
• We're lowering the cost of divorce for a handful of people,
• Studies show it will be "ok", and besides
• How can their divorce hurt you?

To be clear, previous to no-fault divorce you had "FAULT" divorce.  Every state had their own grounds for divorce, but virtually all of them included adultery, abuse, cruelty or desertion.  For any of these reasons, one could get divorced. 

But what we have now is UNILATERAL divorce.  In other words, one person wants a divorce and the other is forced to accept this decision.  As a result of no-fault divorce, the State expands it's power, authority, and cost. SEVENTY PERCENT of divorces are unilateral.  In these cases, the State must step in and enforce the wishes of the one spouse.  A Judge is forced to separate children from a parent and decide who gets what. 

Most unilateral divorces are initiated by women, and most of these women are not necessarily worse off economically for having divorced.  The Journal of Socio-Economics notes that child support serves as an "economic incentive for middle class women to seek divorce."  The majority of time, dads are told when, where and how much time they can spend with their children and how much money to send, and moms are told if and where they're allowed to move.  The State creates dead-beat dads, and as a result the State must create programs to help the children that suffer. 

As a general trend, children from disrupted homes do worse in every area than children from intact homes.  They have more physical and mental problems.  Fatherless boys are more likely to be aggressive and ultimately be incarcerated.  The Institute for American Values notes that the government's total annual cost of fatherlessness is $112 BILLION a YEAR. 

Since the inception of no-fault divorce, which was only supposed to affect a handful of people who would have gotten divorced anyway,

• marriage rates have fallen and cohabitation rates have increased.  People have lost confidence in the institution.
• Studies show that people are less likely to invest in their marriages.  Spouses are less likely to put their spouse through college.
• Spouses are less likely to have a child together. 
• The rate of divorce has increased by 10-20%, depending on the study. 
• More women work outside the home in order to self-insure against the probability of divorce. 
• People marry at a later age. 

It is clearly concluded, that changing the availability of divorce has affected the permanence of marriage and changed the behavior of millions.  And yet we are told that changing the definition of marriage will not affect anyone. 

And we naively believe it.

(Thanks to Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse at the Ruth Institute for this great information!  Click the button on my sidebar for more great information on marriage!)

The Myth of Church and State

You're in for a treat today!  My husband has written a guest-post on the the myth of Church and State.


Lauren's "Marriage Mondays" posts have done a great job of capturing the secular arguments for maintaining the societal standard of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Thanks Lauren! As I was reading through them, I couldn’t help but notice that several folks have posted comments to the effect that we need to maintain the “wall of separation between church and state” with regard to marriage. She has invited me to do a guest post to address this issue.

MYTH: Church (religion) and state must be kept completely separate. Anyone who holds to the traditional standard as a matter of religious conviction should not seek to impose the traditional standard on the rest of a society.

BUST: The Founding Fathers were not ignorant or simple men. They were geniuses, the most highly respected and innovative doctors, farmers, and lawyers of their time. They were steeped in philosophy, history, and natural law, and drew from this enormous perspective and wealth of knowledge in their drafting of the founding documents (Declaration of Independence and Constitution). Although they came from many different faith backgrounds, almost to a tee they acknowledged and revered the authority of the “Creator God” of the Judeo-Christian faith tradition and the fact that the entire system of Western legal and political thought rested firmly on the foundation of this faith tradition.

A few more details…

Alexis de Tocqueville, in his 1837 novel “Democracy in America,” noted that the strength and “verve” that pulsed so strong in the young country’s veins was due to its strong moral identity, based primary on the tenets of Christianity and Christian morality. He recognized that the churches played a critical role in informing American’s consciences, but also made an ominous prediction that, when the fervor faded with time, the strong and thriving society would descend into a relativistic, anti-religious (especially anti-Catholic and anti-Christian) state the likes of which had recently given rise to the Jacobin regime and the French Revolution.

While the First Amendment (wisely) forbade the establishment of any particular religion as the “official” religion of the new Republic, it also respected the right of citizens to live (not just to worship but to live) their faith, which includes the right to speak, act and vote—to carry out all aspects of living—according to their faith-informed consciences.

If we push the “Creator God” and the unchanging Natural Law that he has stamped as his sort of “fingerprint” on creation to the wayside, the only alternative is a descent into a state of being where fallen, sinful humanity attempts to make up or change the rules for itself, as popular opinion dictates. Man begins—as he has so many times in the past—to try to arbitrarily engineer the political and legal systems to codify his own happiness as an end in itself, rather than as paths to a just society as the Creator has defined it. He begins to “grasp” at happiness and a twisted sense of justice, rather than accepting the standard that has been laid down since the beginning of time. Isn’t that precisely the sin that the serpent tempted Adam and Eve to in the garden, that they did not need God and could make up the rules for themselves?

The Founding Fathers were well aware of this tendency, of its historical consequences (descent into tyranny with relativism as the societal standard). It is, in large part, why they went through such painful deliberations to carefully craft an intricate system of checks and balances.

So how does this all relate to marriage? Going a step beyond the secular arguments that Lauren has presented for preserving the traditional view of marriage, faithful Jews and Christians—anyone who reads Scripture without a personal agenda—cannot brush aside the role of God’s design for human freedom and justice in a thriving society. That includes his design for the relationship that is intended to be the foundation of society: marriage. He has laid out the standard in rather explicit terms, beginning with Genesis 2:24, “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.” From the very beginning, he has stressed the importance “one body” or “one flesh” union as the foundational relationship, while also carefully and several times condemning, under both the Old and New Covenants, what we might today describe as “alternatives” (Genesis 19:5-8, Leviticus 18:22-23 & 20:13, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, Romans 1:26-27). He was also very meticulous in providing us examples of what happens when we ignore him. Let’s just say they do not end well.

Lauren, thanks for inviting me to chime in on the debate, and thank you all for reading if you’ve made it this far. Lauren will go into some more detail next week about the Natural Law and what its implications are for we who are stewards of God’s creation, especially with regard to marriage. In the meantime, I’d greatly appreciate your thoughts and comments.

God Bless and Keep You,

J- One Man @ The Whole Armor




(Isn't he great?!  Thanks for your input, J!)

Tips: Arguing Prop 8's Reversal

Proposition 8 added an amendment to California's Constitution stating that only a marriage between a man and a woman was valid in the State of California.  Almost two weeks ago, this amendment was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court.  This means that the federal court now recognizes California's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. 

The fight for traditional marriage is not over, but it is rapidly approaching the end of the line.  The next step is to take the matter to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Whatever this court decides, it will likely be taken to the Supreme Court.  If the Supreme Court finds the ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, it essentially legalizes same-sex marriage IN EVERY STATE.  It doesn't matter if your state or local community have laws upholding traditional marriage.  If it is found to be unconstitutional according to the United States Constitution, then any attempt to uphold marriage will be null and void.

The popular opinion encouraged by the media is that anyone who promotes traditional marriage must be hateful and victimizers.  So how do we argue for marriage and not sound like bigots?  This is the purpose of my Marriage Monday segments- to inform readers as to the nature of marriage and how to defend traditional marriage. 

Thanks to Dr. J at the Ruth Institute, here's how I handle Prop 8's overturn:


Judge Walker wrote the following about the purpose of marriage: marriage is “a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another, and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another, and their agreement to join in an economic partnership and support one another in terms of the material needs of life.”

DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS? 

Assuming the person agrees, you can point out that ROOMMATES fit this definition. 

This definition says nothing of permanence or a sexual relationship- both of which are the foundation of marriage. 

If marriage is reduced to the above definition, then it will be nothing but a government registry of friendships. 

WHO NEEDS THAT???

In fact, I know a few married couples who do NOT fit this definition.  I know military couple that live separately- due to one spouse being deployed or relocated, while another finishes his/her education or continues a job.  I've known multiple couples in this category.  Would they not be considered married by Judge Walker?


Once again, I highly recommend signing up for email updates at the Ruth Institute, following her on facebook, and subscribing to her podcasts.  Dr. J gives excellent, objective arguments for marriage and shows fallacies on the other side. 

It's a Marriage Issue!

**Thanks to the Manhattan Declaration for being the source of information for this post!  All quotes are from this document, unless otherwise noted.  See last week's post for background information on the Manhattan Declaration.**

"The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple-partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture."

Did you catch that?  The desire to redefine marriage is not causing marriage to breakdown, it simply highlights the fact that marriage is breaking down.  We have lost the understanding of the meaning of marriage.  Marriage is not intrinsically about romance, but commitment and openness and protection of LIFE!  Yet, mentally many people have already redefined marriage.  They see it as an adult-centered union that exists to make you happy.  And if you're not happy?  Then leave!

We have already lost much ground.  We have the cultural use and acceptance of no-fault divorce, co-habitation, contraception, extra-marital sex and more all gives way to the belief that all sex-acts are equal.  But God's Word shows us differently:

"God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them." Genesis 1:27

"He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."   Matthew 19:5-6

"Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.  Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her."  Ephesians 5:21-25

We see that God's Word shows marriage to be created by the Lord for one man and one woman.  In fact, marriage seems to be the crown jewel of creation as He designs the union of one man and one woman to be life-giving.  In this sense we become co-creators with Him, opening our total, faithful, fruitful love to life itself.  This, marriage, is the first institution created.  Before any society, government, or state, we have marriage.  The Bible begins with the marriage of Adam and Eve, celebrates the marriage of Solomon, is the first miracle Christ performs at Cana, and ends with the wedding feast of the Lamb in the book of Revelations.  In fact, the imagery of husband and bride is used by Christ more than any other analogy.  Christ is the bridegroom; we are the bride.  Our earthly union of marriage reflects the greater reality of our union to Christ. 

And so we see that "it is critical that the impulse [to redefine marriage] be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture." 
 
Often when this subject arises, we are accused of bigotry or hatred.  Advocates of same-sex marriage frame the debate as a civil rights issue like racism and sexism, as if they are victims in search of fairness and equality.  Americans sympathize with that approach, but this is not accurate.  We must reframe the debate.  We're not victimizers! 

The central issues is that same-sex marriage is impossible.  The question is not should we redefine marriage, but can we?  NO!  Society doesn't have the ability to redefine marriage.  This is not bigotry or discrimination, but a lack of ability.

Stay tuned for more next week!  In the meantime, hop on over here and sign the Manhattan Declaration yourself!  Become a "fan" on facebook and tell everyone you know about this ground-breaking document!

The Manhattan Declaration

Before I go any further in developing the theological argument for traditional marriage, I want to introduce the Manhattan Declaration.  This short document written last year draws a line in the sand.  I will use a lot of information from this document, therefore this post is dedicated to introducing it!

The Manhattan Declaration is the work of one hundred fifty prominent Christian clergy, ministry leaders and scholars who had growing concerns regarding life, marriage, and freedom of religion.  It was released at a press conference in Washington, D.C. on November 20, 2009.  The signers include

• 15 Archbishops and 30 Bishops including Rodi of Mobile, Rigali of Philadelphia, Wuerl of D.C., Chaput of Denver and Dolan of New York
• Dr. Peter Kreeft
• Maggie Gallagher (president) and Brian Brown (director) of the National Organization of Marriage (NOM)
• Jim Daily (President and CEO) and Dr. James Dobson (founder) of Focus on the Family
• Chuck Colson and Kay Authur
• Father Fessio of Ignatius Press
• Thomas Gilson- director of Campus Crusades for Christ
• and more!

They write:

It is important to understand that the Manhattan Declaration is a call of Christian Conscience.  It speaks to the church just as much as it speaks to the larger culture.  In fact it is a clarion call to the church to take a stand on three vital issues: the sanctity of life, the dignity of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and religious liberty.  (Manhattan Declaration, emphasis mine)

Why must we take a stand? 

Psalm 78:1-8 speaks of the heritage we must leave our children.  We must keep the commandments of God so that we can teach them to our children so that they may know and worship the Lord.  We have been given a legacy, and we must protect it for future generations.

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God."  Hebrews 12:1-2

More next week from this amazing document! 

Secular Summary and Theological Introduction

As the defense of marriage continues, I'm now shifting to the theological side of the argument.  The previous weeks laid out the secular argument including

• the impact of marriage on the stability of society,
• This noted Zimmerman's study on the three types of family (trustee, domestic and atomistic) and his conclusion that the dominance of the atomistic family which exalts an individual's rights above the family's usually signifies a civilization in its ultimate decline.
• It also noted Unwin's study of eighty cultures trying to prove that you do not need monogamous, heterosexual marriage for society to thrive.  Instead he proved that without exception, unless a society embraces absolute monogamy between a man and a woman in marriage, the society would collapse. 
• marriage as necessary for children,
• Marriage ties parents- especially fathers- to their children, which is necessary and just for the child.
• A same-sex union cannot equal opposite-sex marriage because it requires a third party to have children.
• Biology is the primary way we determine parentage and children are ordinarily entitled to a relationship with their biological parents.
• The State currently and historically simply recognizes parenthood, it doesn't determine it.  This is giving a huge amount of power to the state.
• and the loss of civil liberties
• What the state recognizes as equal, it must protect as equal.
• Examples include Catholic Charities in Boston and DC.

Again, our Bishops understand this.  Pope Benedict said in regard to marriage, "What's at risk is the future of society." 

Cardinal Arinze noted, 'If we lose marriage, society will collapse." 

And Denver's own Archbishop Chaput stated, "Although abortion is the greatest evil or our time, the greatest and most eminent threat is same-sex marriage."

Our Bishops and Christian leadership have studied theology and understand God's great love.  Scripture says that "God is love."  Yes, this means that He loves us, but more importantly it describes the relationship within God.  God is not a singular, lonely figure in the Heavens, but an eternal exchange of love between the Father, Son and Spirit.  The Father and the Son love each other so much and so personally, holding nothing back but giving completely of themselves, that the love exchanged is another person- the person of the Holy Spirit.  In Marriage, we see this echoed in the love of a husband and a wife.  They love each other so deeply that nine months later, you have to give that love a name!  (Or as Christopher West says, "you have to change its diaper!)

Everything that is good and holy comes from the Lord.  His way is our only true hope for happiness.  Deviating from His will might bring a moment of pleasure, but will ultimately leave us unsatisfied and wounded.  Every desire for union and intimacy with another, is simply a shadow of the ultimate union with the Lord, for whom we all long. 

God created us with certain appetites for good.  We desire food, sex, companionship, sleep, free time and more.  Satan, who hates what God creates and desiring to destroy it, can create nothing new, all he can do is to twist these desires.  Original sin is displayed in our wounded nature.  Our will and appetites disordered.  We want what WE want, not what He wants and our priorities are out of order.  For example, we desire food, but too much and not the right kind.  We desire sex, but struggle to keep it inside of marriage and open to life.  Our relationships are disordered.  We desire intimacy and union, but (for example) are tempted to place the affirmation of friends and loved ones ahead of the Lord.  We are tempted to be popular rather than holy.

We have bought into the sexual revolution of lies.  Pope Paul VI warned us in Humanae Vitae that we were headed for heartache.  (Janet Smith has a great article on Pope Paul VI's predictions coming true HERE.)  We have been told that the counterfeit is the real thing and the real thing is the counterfeit.  Our society today cannot fathom the concept of life-long married love as a vehicle to know, love, and serve the Lord better.  And this is what we must correct.  This is what we must fight for.  This is what we must stand up for and defend. 

Our friends, neighbors, and leaders are wounded by these lies, and it is our duty and honor to share the GOOD NEWS of REDEMPTION!  In Christ these wounds are healed.  Grace helps us reorder these wounded appetites. 

Therefore, I hope you stick with me for the next several Marriage Mondays to discover the HOPE that God's Word offers in regards to the Sacrament of Marriage.  We will discover the true gift that it is and healing it offers society. 

Marriage: Unique for a Reason

The USCCB (United States Council of Catholic Bishops) published the first of four videos titled "Marriage: Unique for a Reason".  I was intrigued, but postponed watching it, expecting a dry presentation on the points of marriage. 

WAS I EVER WRONG!

Instead I discovered a thoughtful introduction to marriage featuring a charming couple, set to beautiful music, and showing images of a potter and his clay.  AND it hints that this sweet couple is suffering with infertility!  WOW!

Please, please, please check it out HERE!  I'll keep watch and let you know when the next one is available.  There's also a Study Guide available!

The Effect Redefining Marriage has on Civil Liberties

The last two weeks, we have studied the secular argument for protecting traditional marriage. The first week focused on the impact of marriage on society, noting that unless a marriage embraces absolute monogamy between a man and a woman in marriage, the society will not last. Last week showed that marriage is necessary for children, and redefining marriage will also redefine parents, shifting a huge amount of power to the state.


Today’s post examines the effect redefining marriage will have on civil liberties. What the state recognizes as equal, it must protect as equal. When Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, authorities notified Boston’s Catholic Charities that they could not discriminate between hetero- and homosexual couples regarding adoption policies. Catholic Charities argued that working with homosexual couples violated Catholic teaching and that homosexual couples could go to any other adoption agency in Massachusetts to adopt. But this was not adequate, because what the state recognizes as equal, it must protect as equal. Catholic Charities chose to close their doors, rather than violate their sacred teaching and conscience. Last year, Washington D.C.’s Catholic Charities also had to close their doors, due to legalized same-sex marriage.

Last week we saw a perfect example of this happening when the University of Chicago fired Dr. Ken Howell for explaining why homosexuality is wrong according to natural law in a class called INTRODUCTION TO CATHOLICISM.   He was accussed of hate speech and fired from the university.  Go HERE for more information. 
 Other examples of violated civil liberties:


• A Knights of Columbus chapter in Canada was sued for refusing to rent their hall for a same-sex reception.


• A private photographer in New Mexico was fired for refusing to film a lesbian commitment ceremony.


• In New Jersey, after the establishment of quasi-marital “civil unions”, a Methodist institution was stripped of their tax exempt status after declining to use their facility to bless homosexual unions.


• In Canada and other European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching against the practice of homosexuality. New hate-crime laws in America make this a possibility here, too.


• The Boston Globe wrote, “Governor Romney is denigrating gay families, practicing divisive, mean-spirited politics…by insisting that every child has the right to a mother and father.” Will this type of speech be prosecuted as hate speech later?


“Legal scholars warn that the tax exempt status and accreditation of Catholic organizations could be at risk.” (National Organization for Marriage at www.nationformarriage.org)


I welcome your comments and questions. Please keep them respectful! Come back next week for the Christian understanding of marriage!