A Rose by Any Other Name…or Something Like That
by Nathan A. Cherry, 02/10/2012
Martinsburg, WV – Is it the place of government to define – or redefine marriage? Perhaps a better question is, is it even possible to truly redefine marriage into some arbitrary grouping of random people? Or, is marriage, by its very essence and nature only a marriage if it is the union of one man and one woman?
These are the questions facing us as a society as 2012 moves fast paced into the future and the battle over marriage rages more today than it did yesterday. And while many, myself included, don’t believe it is possible for governments to redefine marriage into anything other than the essence of the word – a union of one man and one woman – others are bent on changing the prevailing opinion of what constitutes a marriage.
You can’t turn on a television or surf the Internet without running into a headline on the recent decision by the 9th circuit court of appeals overturning the Prop 8 decision in California. This is an unabashed trampling of democracy and the Constitutional rights of Californians to self-governance. But that is another story.
A recent article by McGill University professor Douglas Farrow on governmental attempts to redefine marriage presents an aspect that few have considered. Farrow says that to redefine marriage:
“is to de-naturalize the family by rendering familial relationships, in their entirety, expressions of law. But relationships of that sort—bled as they are of the stuff of social tradition and experience—are no longer family relationships at all. They are rather policy relationships, defined and imposed by the state…Here we have what is perhaps the most pressing reason why same-sex marriage should be fought, and fought vigorously. It is a reason that neither the proponents nor the opponents of same-sex marriage have properly debated or thought through. In attacking “heterosexual monogamy,” same-sex marriage does away with the very institution—the only institution we have—that exists precisely in order to support the natural family and to affirm its independence from the state. In doing so, it effectively makes every citizen a ward of the state, by turning his or her most fundamental human connections into legal constructs at the state’s gift and disposal.”
Does anyone want to see our government take more control of our lives? Are we ready for further government regulations on society as the outcome of redefining marriage? Such questions create a picture of less freedom and fewer liberties than we already have; an almost impossible image.
Are we as a people ready to relinquish an institution that has been the foundation for our society for centuries to an unbelievably small minority for the sake of not hurting anyone’s feelings? Don’t get me wrong, I am not in favor of bullying or uncivil behavior (though pro-homosexual advocates are some of the biggest bullies I know), but when do we stop giving ground? At what point in the redefinition process do we say “enough is enough?”
Will we be ready to accept polygamy in the same breath as homosexual “marriage?” Because you can be sure polygamy advocates are ready to fight for their rights under the same banner of “discrimination” and “civil rights” that homosexual advocates are using. And how about polyamorists? Are we ready to accept relationships that involve a woman and three men, or two women and one man, or three men and two women? After all, if we redefine marriage for homosexuals don’t we have to redefine it for any minority group that screams for “civil rights?”
Maybe we should heed the words of Dr. John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York:
“I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are… you’re trying to change the English language.
I agree. You can’t simply alter a definition because you want to. North will always be north no matter how desperately I want it to be south. Regardless of my sincere intentions, the color red will always be red no matter how badly I want it to be black. It’s not simply semantics, its literal definitions of the English language.
Marriage between one man and one woman was not created by any government or established by a ruler or dictator. No matter how much pro-homosexual advocates don’t like to hear it, marriage is an institution established by God at the birth of Creation. Try as anyone may this is a fact that cannot be erased or changed.
To attempt to change the definition and meaning of marriage is the same as trying to change the meaning of the color red. It would be useless, futile, and meaningless.
So there’s your definition of homosexual “marriage.”
Related posts:
