-
Putting on Ears
June 11, 2013 | 20 comments
-
My Grandfather, Aaron Homnick (1893-1969)
May 29, 2013 | 4 comments
-
That Is What We Do
May 14, 2013 | 108 comments
-
Shame Old Shame Old From Obama
April 19, 2013 | 101 comments
-
Cut Out the Chase
April 5, 2013 | 83 comments
A Further Perspective
Miss Matches
A lesson about marriage from the Bible — and from Hollywood.
Marriage is more than just beautiful. Marriage is more than just moral. Marriage is beautiful because it is moral. Indeed it sensitizes people to the beauty of morality, the symmetry and structure and form and nuance and grace of life lived rightly. It often inspires people to moral behavior in other aspects of their lives.
It was not the Bible that turned me on to marriage, but marriage that turned me on to the Bible. It offers an intuitive experience that confirms the truth of the odd narrative presented there as the basis for the connubial bond. The Bible makes the startling claim that man and woman were once part of a single organism that then subdivided, a claim echoed by the evolutionists. When you fall in love with a member of the opposite sex, you can actually sense yourself being drawn back into a primordial state of oneness.
Maimonides introduces his exposition of the Jewish laws of marriage with a preamble. “Before the Torah was given, a man met a woman in the marketplace, and if they decided to marry they could achieve that simply by moving in together. If one of them moved out, that constituted a divorce.” Later commentaries wonder why he thought this relevant to contemporary marital law as codified in the Bible and Talmud.
It seems clear that his goal is to clarify that the institution of marriage is not an invention of the Bible; rather, it is an essential component of the human condition. Man and woman discover each other and merge into their natural unit. They become “as one flesh” with the birth of a child, the fusion of their identities culminating in a new human life astonishingly incorporating the passion of each into an original life force.
As secularized as Hollywood has been from the first, marriage between a man and a woman is still its bread and butter. There may be a crude macho camaraderie in chuckling about sexuality, but the better angels in both men and women are touched by wedding scenes. Study Hollywood fare in any random year and you will be astonished to see how many films managed to work a full-dress wedding ceremony into the plot.
Producers know this to be a sure winner. The radiance, the innocence, the glow, the anticipation, the tenderness, the hopefulness, the sense of moment, the celebration of past and present and future, the opening of a door to unlimited possibility; all the noblest sentiments of humanity are gathered here in one place.
THIS IS A GREAT JUNCTURE in American history. Things have not been going well and we are being called to effect improvements. We have to make ourselves better to make our country better. A good place to start would be by rekindling our devotion to marriage.
The good people of North Carolina have heeded this call. They understood the crisis in their hearts and they came together to embrace this vision of beauty and symmetry. Marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman — a truly simple yet eloquent concept.
Now is the time to recommit to this vision. Sadly, the forces of destruction are heading in the exact opposite direction. They want to revive the primitive rite of homosexual “marriage” practiced in ancient times. In fact, the Midrash teaches that this type of nuptials was common before the Flood.
The Talmud famously ponders the morality of the countries of its time and finally manages to detect only three virtues they held universally. 1. They did not practice cannibalism. 2. They did not give marriage licenses to homosexuals. 3. They show respect for the Bible. Are we down to just the first of these three?
But this is not the time to focus on knocking the other guys, many of whom are gentle folks who are just trying to be nice. Instead let us take strength from the fortitude of North Carolina. We must celebrate the fine people of that State and the spark which ignites their hearts.
Marriage is perhaps the most beautiful asset of our culture and I cannot bear to see it squandered by a coalition of the self-indulgent and the indulgent, the political and the polite, the pushy and the pushover.
There is beauty here and it is in danger. Is there a prince in the house? A knight? We must be wishful.
About the Author
Jay D. Homnick, commentator and humorist, is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator. He also writes for Human Events. Here he speaks at the Rally for Religious Freedom in Miami on June 8, 2012.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (80) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jay D. Homnick
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/05/11/miss-matches
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
- Drink Earlier, Drink Less
- Screwtape Protests
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 5.11.12 @ 6:39AM
Marriage must be a wonderful institution. My four sisters have tried it eight times so far, and one is about to add Number 9.
Personally, I have not been married, so I can only observe from the sidelines that people seem to spend large fortunes on huge weddings that they're still paying for when the Bloom goes Off the Rose...and that here in We're Not America, except for Gay Pride Week there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in gay marriages now that it's legal. Apparently the whole thing was to kick and scream until we got that ice cream cone, and then we promptly dropped it in the dirt and started screaming for something else. Isn't that always the way?
TrueBlue | 5.11.12 @ 5:41PM
Many of the marriages that end in divorce seem to be based off of the idea of happiness, without the people involved really knowing the other person. Many times they'll think they can change certain aspects of the other after they get married, and that usually causes massive conflict as well. You might be surprised (or maybe not) at the number of people that had issue with a particular "problem" they saw in their partner and never mentioned until it finally drove them to explode.
Then of course you have those people who get married and have no idea how to communicate and work things out without going into shouting matches and saying things they later regret. They get divorced, because the vows didn't really mean anything (at least according to all the Hollywood stars/starlets that so many seem to worship), and they move on. Just like all those people that feel the need to sleep around while they're supposedly going steady with someone.
It goes back to a lack of values instilled by parents, and that lack gets reinforced in schools with teachers telling people to do whatever they feel like, and TV programs and movies showing kids how great that lifestyle is.
Brian Mc| 5.11.12 @ 6:12PM
Might I add, "Love does not make a marriage work; a marriage makes a love work."
A vow or, your 'word' stood for something in the moral lessons taught to us all. Let your word stand...do not swear it, for, there is no need. It is your word and this should be enough.
When I took my vows to my wife it changed my life in that very instant because, no matter what I had been before that moment, (and I'm ashamed to say it wan't much) I took that vow to heart and knew I was now in a situation that demanded I roll up my sleeves and make it work. After all, I'd given my word.
I love my wife more at this writing than I did the moment I made that commitment to her so many years ago. Our love will fail the instant we decide that it alone is what makes our marriage work.
Don| 5.14.12 @ 11:23AM
I think you summed it up Brian. Marriage is difficult and very challenging. The EASY thing to do is walk away...But we pledged our faith and word before men, a woman, and before God. And our word we shall keep. It's that simple.
boogalie| 5.12.12 @ 9:31AM
No, its' not always the way. I read a 'nugget' of truth recently, it said: "Love is paying attention." While not profound in and of itself, it is a start and implies (to me) that paying attention to your partner if nothing or no one else is part of the formula for success. The other basic ingredient is: It's not all about you. Very difficult concept for such a self aborbed civil society as ours. Both of these disciplines must be mastered if one is to have a shot at honoring their partner. Semper Fi.
gearjammer| 5.11.12 @ 7:10AM
Been married 42 years, and we had little money and thus a very modest wedding, my wife did have a beautiful dress and was breathtaking. I wish we had the ability to have made it a more lavish affair, a little more thought out and with a band, and a better reception. Oh, the bloom is not off the rose. Their are seasons in marriage and life. Millions and millions know this. You are not among that group.
WRTolkas| 5.11.12 @ 8:44AM
Dear gearjammer,
Thirty years here in Michigan.
Everyone have a safe weekend and remember Mother's Day. Interesting, we have this topic and Mother's Day is this Sunday. Coincidence? I think not.
PolishKnight| 5.11.12 @ 10:16AM
Ok, I'm going to throw the grenade in the room and observe that a former girlfriend I know who worked as an attorney joked about a different definition of "mother's day", it was the first monday of the month when welfare checks came in for many of her clients.
We live in a hyperchivalrous culture which regards men as superfluous and disposable and therefore heterosexual marriage as irrelevant. Keep in mind, it was NIXON that signed off on the marriage penalty while simultaneously giving unwed mothers "head of household" status.
Marriage was killed by hyperchivalry and elitist republican sellouts a LONG time ago folks!
Jack in Wi.| 5.11.12 @ 10:43AM
Polish Knight good comment. Sadly marriage in this country has gone down hill in the last 50 years. I say it started with the pill and the collapse of moral standards in the media. The sixties was the downward turning point in this culture.
Gary B| 5.11.12 @ 11:08AM
Sounds about right. I'd add to that the government's relentless campaign against marriage.
THKrupp| 5.11.12 @ 11:32AM
You could probably trace it further back to the prohibition movements which started in the 1800s
PolishKnight| 5.11.12 @ 11:57AM
Folks, thanks but you still haven't been fully hit by the shrapnel yet. This isn't just a problem of limited government, the 60's, or even the pill which I regard as irrelevant. The pill has largely not worked based upon the millions of babies supposedly "accidentally" conceived and then born. The pill and abortion rights, along with women's equal workplace rights has not produced so-called independent women whom are either still demanding breadwinner men via marriage, "child" support, welfare, or affirmative action. Women's equality is a government propped up fiction but keep in mind, ladies and gentlemen, that it's a absurd paradigm that has existed since the gals in Seneca falls spent their husband's and father's money to hang out and gripe about how oppressed they are.
The question, moving forward, will be how much longer everyone, including conservatives, can treat women as entitled princesses and men as disposable while expecting men to foot the bill for the whole thing. It's the foundation of the welfare state that regards producers, and not necessarily the wealthy but rather anyone who pays taxes including working men, as oppressors and "entitled" while the consumers (largely housewives in one form or another) as getting rights and entitlements while regarded as eternal victims.
Since this has all been going on for a LONG white (even back to the days of the founders) simply bashing big government will not address the problem. It's a social, cultural, and even religious issue (I think that the worship of motherhood and femininity here was based upon idealization of the Virgin Mary but some say it goes back to certain Northern European pagan thinking). In any case, it transcends politics except that welfare mothers in one form or another make ideal democrat voters, for now.
At least until they, like the working men the Democrats threw under the bus, are no longer needed to win elections. Once Uncle Joe can dictate election results like Putin does in Russia, then the ladies are going to be in a similar state as women in China but without the western media looking on (since the leftist media always follows in lockstep to the leftist political elites). That's the end of it and these women will be drowning their daughters in stream beds for both government economical reasons along with environmentalist concerns (and perhaps they have a point. Do we really need 7 billion people?)
In the past, people limited the number of children they had based upon social responsibility of the male breadwinner to provide for them. With no specific male breadwinner to take that role, and the rest locked up in prison or smartly avoiding marriage, that's the end of the whole game.
Al Adab| 5.11.12 @ 11:27AM
PK:
You got a goos part of it right here. Social engineering whether from the left, right or center is a bad idea. The legitimacy of the administrative, social-welfare state is the underlying issue. We will not solve our national problems to say nothing of our social ones until someone, somewhere questions that governing hypothesis and returns us to the path of limited government.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 5.11.12 @ 8:46AM
Upon reading this article waxing rhapsodic on the virtue of wedded bliss, I can't help but think that perhaps Mrs. Homnick persuaded Jay to write it, after last week's defense of John Edward's adultery.
W| 5.11.12 @ 11:35AM
Client: Why is the divorce so expensive?
Divorce Attorney: Because it is worth it.
Oldefarte| 5.11.12 @ 1:41PM
Q. How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?
A. When his lips are moving!
Skippy| 5.14.12 @ 4:49PM
Q. Are you married?
A. No, I'm happy.
Layne S| 5.11.12 @ 9:05AM
In the Bible we are told that marriage is a reflection of the committment and love of God for Israel and of Jesus for His church. What a beautiful picture it is! His love is there even though we are unfaithful and in spite of the fact we don't deserve it. And when a man and a woman can do the same for one another (love each other in spite of ALL our faults), isn't that beautiful as well? It's a noble, beautiful institution that points people to Jesus.
BTW, the author says, "A good place to start would be by rekindling our..." Our what? Sentence was not finished.
bill carson| 5.11.12 @ 9:39AM
Wonderful piece. A delight to read.
Bob Sherrill| 5.11.12 @ 9:50AM
Is part of paragraph 7 missing?
Vern Crisler| 5.11.12 @ 10:28AM
I don't get the reference to evolution.....
WeeWillie| 5.11.12 @ 10:28AM
Observation: Same sex marriage is like Kosher pork.
Question: How do same sex "married" consummate their marriage?
THKrupp| 5.11.12 @ 11:24AM
Letting the Government define what your marriage is or isnt doesnt make much sense. There is a big difference between the religious ceremony and the signing of a beaurocratic piece of paper. The religious ceremony takes place in front of a person's friends, family and God. It includes promises between the betrothed to each other, to their families and to their God. The "official" marriage certificate issued by the state is nothing more than a legal contract. People should not make the mistake that the certificate holds any meaning whatsoever other than the joining of two people's assests and debts. Perhaps people who dont want their marriage to be defined by the State should just forgo all the legal benefits and have a religious ceremoney. You would be no less married in the eyes of God and your friends and family. The State issued certificate is really no different than the merger of two corporations. It has no real meaning outside the legal relm. If you really mean what you say up there on the Altar then the legal shouldnt matter.
THKrupp| 5.11.12 @ 11:29AM
Should be spelled: Bureaucratic
THKrupp| 5.11.12 @ 11:29AM
Sorry for all the spelling errors
Renaissance Nerd | 5.11.12 @ 12:55PM
I think you have an excellent point. I personally don't care if the state recognizes same sex unions as marriage. But then that's beside the point. What the gay marriage jihad is all about is subjugating religions; there are already many cases where homosexuals have sued to force churches to marry them. That is what they want--to force their religion on all of us, and build a theocracy based on their own personal lusts. I think this is the problem with the wording of all the state amendments so far. This is an issue of religious liberty, plain and simple. It should be addressed as such, rather than allowing the LGBT jihad the pretense of it being about equal rights.
THKrupp| 5.11.12 @ 1:22PM
Personally I think they should just do away completely with the term Marriage Certificate. Call them all civil unions, heck you could set up an S Corp or partnership that would give you the same benefits. Leave the secular to the government and the spiritual to the church's. The whole legal issue boils down to the benefits that married people get from the law that arent available to same sex couples. You take that away and it all becomes a moot point.
I dont believe any church has been forced by the government to marry homosexual couples. Theres still some church's that refuse to marry hetero's that are living together.
c matt| 5.11.12 @ 4:49PM
The whole legal issue boils down to the benefits that married people get from the law that arent available to same sex couples.
But the whole point of the government giving benefits to one particular arrangement over another is that the one arrangement provides a corresponding benefit to the government. In the words of the immortal JFK, it's not what government can do for marriage, but what can marriage do for government that drives the so-called benefits. A heterosexual marriage provides the government with the best possibility of procreating and rearing the next generation of citizens. SSM cannot do that. Thus, it does nothing for the government, and the government need not do anything for it.
It is one thing for the government to decriminalize SSM (if it is even criminalized, I don't know). But it is another thing entirely to require the government to bestow recognition and benefits on an arrangement that furthers no purpose for the government, or at least does not further a purpose that a different arrangement can and does much better.
THKrupp| 5.11.12 @ 5:54PM
Thats a good point and Im not saying that we should punish families or take away those rights. If that is the reason we do it then why are those same rights given to childless couples and couples that get married when they are well past their child bearing years?
You are right its not criminalized but its about people getting the stamp of approval from society. I guess.
darcy| 5.11.12 @ 1:45PM
Absolutely right, RN. Homosexual (and counterfeit) marriage cannot co-exist with our First Amendment Rights of free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. Beneath all the quaint talk about just wanting a home with a white picket fence and the same dignity to their "unions" that traditional marriage affords to male/female couples is the subversive drive to undo the First Amendment, to "remake" America while codifying liberalism and DISCRIMINATING against people of faith.
In all their talk of discrimination, you NEVER hear the homosexual lobby lament the discrimination that must ensue against traditionalists, parents, churches, and the average Joe, once the "gay" agenda becomes the law of the land. And it's already happening, as others here have noted.
And why is it that atheistic darwinists (they must be evolutionists, right?) don't get the incongruity of homosexual "unions"? One has to see that they're lobbying for extinction of the species and seeking to foist on society a practice that undercuts their darwinism, but maybe they're earth-worhsippers, too, and believe mankind is a plague to the health of the planet.
Al Adab| 5.11.12 @ 4:20PM
Saw your namesake on Stossel last night. As always she did a great job. Your posts are always good which is why I once asked if you were she. Keep it up Darcy.
Brian Mc| 5.11.12 @ 6:23PM
second
darcy| 5.13.12 @ 6:44PM
Roger that. And thank you both.
JACK| 5.12.12 @ 8:27AM
"Lobbying for the extinction of the species ...?"
Government should be less invasive in your life.
Government should not be telling you what you can and cannot do. If you want to carry a gun, you should carry a gun.
but you want government to dictate who can be married and who cannot ... talk about hypocritical behavior!
Conservatives have lost their way with this. This doesn't promote smaller government and less regulation and fewer statutes impacting freedom. This neo-conservative stance is driving more regulation and more government control.
Let's get back to being conservatives and not being manipulated by religious zealots who are homophobic.
Vic| 5.14.12 @ 11:11AM
Being repulsed by deviant behavior is not a fear. It is time thinking people notice the difference.
Skippy| 5.14.12 @ 5:54PM
Words mean things. Like the word marriage.
When we dilute or eliminate the meanings of such important words we diminish their importance to a civil society.
Islamic Sharia allows for lots of wives at once.
If I’m being intolerant and bigoted by opposing SSM, what are you being by opposing this other alternative lifestyle?
When will proponents boycott your business or home to protest your haremophobia?
The scalpel that dismembers a culture cuts both ways “whether you like it or not”.
If you don’t stand for something you’ll stand for anything.
Occam's Tool| 5.11.12 @ 11:27AM
Gary B.: absolutely correct, and THE major reason for the hyperabundance of Black males in US jails and prisons---no daddies to lick the young cubs into line.
THKrupp| 5.11.12 @ 11:28AM
Should be spelled : Bureaucratic
Alan Reader| 5.11.12 @ 11:31AM
Mr. Homnick wrote:
"There may be a crude macho camaraderie in chuckling about sexuality, but the better angels in both men and women are touched by wedding scenes. "
In the Twin Cities, at least, jewelers advertise diamond engagement rings most heavily on the two radio stations that specialize in heavy metal and classic rock, and have unusually raunchy. sophomoric morning shows. The jewelers are on to something...
THKrupp| 5.11.12 @ 11:36AM
Of course who listens to unusually raunchy sophmoric radio shows? Single young men...who does all the buying of wedding rings? Single young men.
Mark MacInnis| 5.11.12 @ 1:30PM
The reason there is so much divorce is that there are so many marriages in which Faith does not play a part. Faith is a hope for a future better than today. When you marry someone, you quickly realize that YOU are wholly inadequate to meet the needs/wants/desires of your spouse....disallusion sets in. Without God, the disallusion quickly turns to disappointment and eventually dissolution. The existence of divorce in marriage is no reason for the extention of the term marriage to include gay couples. That is faulty, fuzzy thinking at its illogical worst.
When God is involved in your marriage, both partners learn the meaning of the words forgiveness and grace.
And for the record, I am a Christian who believes we ought to "love the sinner while despising the sin." And, I make no apologies for calling homosexuality a sin. As in the Latin meaning for 'sin'..."without". "Without" God.
People are free to choose how and with whom they want to live. But don't expect me, my church, my community and my country to "bless" and reward your choice....
JACK| 5.12.12 @ 8:28AM
As a true conservative, I don't want my country "blessing" anyone's choice.
Occam's Tool| 5.13.12 @ 1:47AM
The State has a genuine and legitimate interest in setting up cultural institutions that perpetuate a safe and decent society, such as courts to try murders, for example. Marriage is one of those institutions that perpetuates the best environment for raising children, ON THE WHOLE.
Oldefarte| 5.11.12 @ 1:48PM
Homosexuality is a vile, disgusting, immoral and putrid activity; and it borders upon PAGANISM. It has been fostered by Hollywood and liberals in order to destroy Christianity and religion, and apparently it is working. When our society becomes involved as to whether or not to sanction marriage upon this animalistic activity, instead of charitably counseling homosexuals to KEEP IT IN THEIR CLOSET, we have reached to edge of the cliff of depravity. Hetersexuality, when practiced according to the NATURAL LAW, is a thing of beauty and goodness and its successful conclusion results in a state described by the following a woman who should be seen as a hero to most roghteous human beings:
http://youtu.be/mV6Dn8qMzig
Seek| 5.11.12 @ 2:10PM
Homosexuality also been around a long time. Not that I am a practitioner, but realism requires we take the long view (so to speak): It's not going away anytime soon. And a big reason is that many conservatives and libertarians -- more than you might think -- do practice it. As for being a plot to "destroy" Christianity, gimme a break: Do you have any idea how many clergy, never mind laymen, who are homos? All the Bible-thumping in the world can't make facts go away.
PolishKnight| 5.11.12 @ 3:39PM
Guys (and gals) (and everyone and everything else!) Let's put this into perspective:
During the early 90's, an affirmative action recipient, Anita Hill, raised a ruckus because she claimed a supreme court nominee, gasp, propositioned her! And made dirty jokes!
So now all American men are on notice that if they try to ask out a straight heterosexual woman or even say something slightly offensive in front of her, he can lose his job.
Now think about that for a moment. Why is such behavior punished so harshly? The leftists who preach tolerance and a need to be accepting of homosexual lifestyles and marriages simultaneously say that a man should be fired for the slightly offense to a woman? In other words, it's a double standard: heterosexuality is currently being discriminated against in two ways: traditional male behavior, or even straight heterosexual men, are effectively on probation and have to watch their every move while heterosexual women are provided with every means to either not get married (welfare, etc.) or to get divorced (lots of support/alimony).
So gay marriage is a final nail in the coffin for the "hets", as they call them, to back off while they recruit confused, lonely "fresh meat" on college campuses openly. If a straight man goes up and touches a woman, he's in jail but if a bull lesbian does it, she'll get cheered on at the womyn's centre.
Another thing to consider is that gay marriage is probably far more unstable than heterosexual marriage. Despite being the same gender, they are attracted to STRAIGHT members of the same sex. Just as I might find Katy Perry attractive while she wouldn't want to give me the time of day, most lesbians are also attracted to such women rather than bull lesbians. Gay men say they're the same way and would prefer to go after straight men than each other if given the choice. So it's weird they would want to marry except, perhaps, to just do an "in your face" gesture.
THKrupp| 5.11.12 @ 4:18PM
Thats not quite the case. I have seen a person fired for sexual harresment (a woman) for making suggestive remarks to another woman.
Im not so sure about being able to "recruit" anyone into changing their sexual orientation either. Now this is purely annectodal (sp?) but I know quite a few homosexuals both male and female. They all have said that they always knew that they were different from everyone else. The older ones in my family tried very hard to change but ultimately failed and could not deny that they were what they were. Several were very active in church and had a very difficult time coming to grips with who they were. One of them remains celebate the others are in long term relationships that have lasted over 20 years. These personal experiences with homosexuals have definately changed the way I have thought about the subject. As a dedicated single person I dont really have a dog in this fight. Marriage and families are financially out of reach for me at this point in my life.
Darryl Propes| 5.12.12 @ 10:42AM
Wow, you really have a twisted mind.your hole analogy of gay women & men is so off . Thats just the way U see it.
Oldefarte| 5.12.12 @ 12:03PM
You're correct in that it has existed since the world was created, and the reason why is that man was created with what's known as FREE WILL, in that he chooses his own path in life. As to your false argument regarding homosexuality destroying Christianity, duh yeah perhaps I'm [and every other seimi-intelligent human is] aware of the homosexuals invasion of the Catholic Church and monetarily destroying its structure. And why is that ? Simple because homosexuals males know that the Church requires a vow of Chastity for priests, meaning only single males can become priests, and that same are more suceptible to homosexual advances/activity than are married males [this is why homosexuality activity is rampant within prisons, as there is no females available for the sexual release of males]. Homosexuals purposely choose the Catholic Church to become priests due to their access to their singular male-priests within same!!!!!!!!!
Biblios| 5.13.12 @ 10:37AM
"Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth." 1 Tim. 4:1-3.
Seek = Stupid Liberal| 5.12.12 @ 3:37PM
PhDs held by idiots also been around a long time. Not that I am a practitioner, but realism requires we take the long view (so to speak): It's not going away anytime soon.
Child molestation also been around a long time. Not that I am a practitioner, but realism requires we take the long view (so to speak): It's not going away anytime soon.
Rape also been around a long time. Not that I am a practitioner, but realism requires we take the long view (so to speak): It's not going away anytime soon.
Beastiality also been around a long time. Not that I am a practitioner, but realism requires we take the long view (so to speak): It's not going away anytime soon.
Necrophilia also been around a long time. Not that I am a practitioner, but realism requires we take the long view (so to speak): It's not going away anytime soon.
Murder also been around a long time. Not that I am a practitioner, but realism requires we take the long view (so to speak): It's not going away anytime soon.
Adultery also been around a long time. Not that I am a practitioner, but realism requires we take the long view (so to speak): It's not going away anytime soon.
Stealing also been around a long time. Not that I am a practitioner, but realism requires we take the long view (so to speak): It's not going away anytime soon.
Lying about others also been around a long time. Not that I am a practitioner, but realism requires we take the long view (so to speak): It's not going away anytime soon.
Coveting others also been around a long time. Not that I am a practitioner, but realism requires we take the long view (so to speak): It's not going away anytime soon.
Laziness also been around a long time. Not that I am a practitioner, but realism requires we take the long view (so to speak): It's not going away anytime soon.
Ignorance also been around a long time. Not that I am a practitioner, but realism requires we take the long view (so to speak): It's not going away anytime soon.
Tyranny also been around a long time. Not that I am a practitioner, but realism requires we take the long view (so to speak): It's not going away anytime soon.
THKrupp| 5.11.12 @ 2:21PM
I think of it another way. Homosexuality is nothing new. At least by letting them practice it openly and letting them have some sort of "union" it keeps them from marrying unsuspecting heterosexual women. I have seen the problems this can lead to in my extended family. Its better to let them live how they want, than to have society forcing them into living some kind of double life or lie. It protects innocent people and personal freedom.
markenoff| 5.11.12 @ 2:37PM
From a Constitutional conservative point of view it has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with the limits of government. No government at any level has the power to redefine a social institution that predates the existence of governement. That should be the argument conservatives make.
THKrupp| 5.11.12 @ 3:15PM
You are right but the issue is that the government has co-opted the social institution by giving extra rights to the holders of the certificate and by basically deciding who and who cannot get married.
AVCurmudgeon| 5.11.12 @ 11:35PM
It is not "extra rights", but rights that are accorded to those who are in the position of being married as society recognizes it. And yes, society has the right to make the decision; minors cannot marry, and states like California do not recognize common-law marriage. Is that unconstitutional as well? Society by definition has the right to define its institutions. If not society, then who?
THKrupp| 5.12.12 @ 12:31AM
Yes this is a very good point and thats what is happening.
Keith| 5.11.12 @ 3:58PM
God created Adam from earth, breathed into him the breath of life, performed perfect surgery on him under anesthesia, and created Eve to complete Adam, all in the very image of God. Although at his very pinnacle, the refusal by Adam to believe the Word of God was the inception of the depravity of the human race we are trapped in to this very day. Escape to freedom is found in Christ alone, offered as a free gift for all eternity. Evolution is a lie from Hell.
Tony | 5.11.12 @ 7:40PM
Good article. For another intelligent point of view see:
http://www.setourchildrenfree......riage.html
Thorvald| 5.11.12 @ 10:08PM
Great piece Homnick! Marriage is what it is, and before The State was marriage. Let me make a modest proposal. If we all don't want to wait until the question goes away on its own (as it must), let us institute these two simple measures: one, a woman's first abortion must be free and legal, all subsequent ones must be free, legal, and mandatory; two, if you practice homosexuality, you must enter a homosexual marriage.
JACK| 5.12.12 @ 8:33AM
... absurd.
AVCurmudgeon| 5.11.12 @ 11:32PM
Jay, I share your perspective. I was not born in the church; my Christianity was the product of my life as lived, with all its flaws, failings, mistakes and disappointments, including failed marriages.
And I do believe that above all else, marriage is about continuity of stable family units and is therefore about the blood. A gay couple that adopts a child is doing a good thing; what that couple is not doing is developing new blood ties. It is giving a child a name, a part in some vaguely-defined group of friends, but not a family.
No society does well for long when the basic concept of family breaks down. The Bible brings us fundamental lessons about family but is not responsible for the institution of the family itself. Bible or not, church or none, the family as such must survive.
POST American| 5.12.12 @ 1:25AM
---FORGET Hollywood!!!!
For --the-- KEY info re marriage,
nothing beats the Gospel of Matthew
AND for some more 'current' insights,
DO check out the Babylonian Talmud
-----and that 'KNOW---UH' thing way
back when. It will back-engineer even
some of the most hardened agenda chumps.
FINALLY, ----RED ALERT!----
The Bilderberg World USURY and
'CULL--chore--ALL' takedown cabal
is set to meet at the Westfield Marriot,
near Dulles airport, Washington D.C..
---------DROP everything!
--------------------BEEEEEE THERE!
This is the 11th hour of the CFR--RED
China handover, takedown, USURPATION
and OCCUPATION op..
----TIME for Americans to OCCUPY
---------------------------------------------America!
"Let's ALLLL DIE --or LET'S DO IT!"
-Thomas Carlysle
AS we take in the figure of RUSSIAN
TROOPS training jointly with Americans
---to 'take on American citizens -er' -we
meant 'terrorists' --
AS we monitor the status of FUKISHIMA
reactor #4's condition
---WHAT have we got to lose?
And ---YESSSS!--- that's US with the
Davy Crockett hat and Jeff 'I--Melt--down'
wrap around shades.
JACK| 5.12.12 @ 8:43AM
When did being a conservative become so confused?
What are the priorities of being a conservative?
1) Smaller overall government
2) Greater local government control, less central government control
3) Smaller taxes and fewer government services ie; capitalism - you want it, you buy it
4) Less regulation and more freedom
The neo-cons are taking over and making religious ideals as the standard of conservatism. Freedom of religion is the cornerstone of our country's freedoms but you want that to be a Christian only standard!
Conservatives need to wake up and get back to basics ... gay marriage is a red herring designed to distract us from the core conservative mission - smaller federal government, fewer regulations, and a return to capitalism (not religion) as our guiding principle.
WHO'S CONFUSED?| 5.12.12 @ 3:58PM
"Conservatives need to wake up and get back to basics..."
The no confusion basics of our first president:
"Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle"
The no confusion basics of our first chief justice:
"Providence has given our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers"
Biblios| 5.13.12 @ 10:47AM
"The wicked shall depart to Sheol, all the nations that forget God." Ps. 9:17.
Occam's Tool| 5.14.12 @ 8:51PM
Jack: I'm sorry, but Ronald Reagan was also a bit of a Social Conservative, as are the majority of people in the Southern States.
I'm a Jew, not a Christian, but morality matters as much as money. The description you have is of Libertarianism, NOT Conservatism.
Tim| 5.12.12 @ 9:06AM
Voters should not have the right to legislate morality. There is no logical argument against gay marriage, which is why it continues to be defended in U.S. courts. The tyranny of the majority is at work here, in order to single out and discriminate against a minority of the American population. They base this on religious motives, which is unconstitutional and goes against the very reason for America's founding. This article can preach about the beauty of heterosexual marriage and disparage gays as"self-indulgent", but law will overturn this, as law should do when an injustice is being done to a minority of Americans by a majority of Americans. See women's rights and interracial marriage as examples of this.
john white | 5.12.12 @ 10:03PM
Tim, you're just wrong. There are plenty of logical arguments against gay marriage and to state there are none doesn't change the facts. Additionally, every law is a legislation of someone's morality. A law is a judgement of right or wrong behavior, whether they're laws against spitting on the sidewalk, jaywalking, speeding, murder, robbery or marriage of homosexuals. Laws are inherently moral. Would it be "tyranny of the majority" for the good people of a state to convict a drunk driver of manslaughter for killing a person while driving impaired? If one adapts your mindset then it would be.
Marriage defined between one man and one woman protects the most basic institution of culture from many perversions including polygamy, group marriage, bestiality and even paedophilia. You think I jest, but did you read about the various groups waiting in the wings, watching the NC marriage amendment case, advocating just these sorts of things. Yes, it is self indulgent to for homosexuals to think this is just about them.
There are many assaults on marriage these days and the people of NC and other states have decided to codify a definition of marriage so some activist judge or advocacy group couldn't redefine marriage according to their personal tastes. It's really quite simple.
As for the founding fathers, the made it perfectly clear in the first amendment that the government was not to make any law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibit the free practice thereof. If gay marriage becomes law then the state could force religious organizations and individuals with religious convictions to marry, hire, or keep on staff homosexuals against their religious convictions. That would violate the "free practice" part of the first amendment. Then it becomes tyranny for the state to force a person to violate his person, religious convictions
Darryl Propes| 5.12.12 @ 10:33AM
Marriage is not just for hetrosexuals. It is a constitutional right and the Gov will have to enforce it . It's already on it's way to the Supreme Court. Finally,
Biblios| 5.13.12 @ 10:52AM
"The wicked shall depart to Sheol, all the nations that forget God. '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.
What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." Mk. 10:6-9.
Biblios| 5.13.12 @ 10:55AM
Omit above. Corrected as:
"But from the beginning of Creation, 'God made them male and female.'
'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.
What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." Mk. 10:6-9.
Al Adab| 5.13.12 @ 3:21PM
Darryl,
Please my poor misguided, benighted friend cite the Article and Section of the Constitution where it mentions marriage. I must have missed it.
BTW, in the American theory of government, rights are inate and government exists to protect them. It does not grant them for what government gives, government can take away.
Occam's Tool| 5.14.12 @ 8:54PM
Preamble, in the "Blessings to our posterity" part.
Might I note that this argument on the legitimacy of gay marriage is what one of the founders, Haym Solomon, would have described as "pilpul." I don't think Washington, Jefferson, etc. would have recognized this discussion as being legitimate, just as the Constitution does not mention whether murder is legal, either. Some things are obvious.
John H. White, III | 5.12.12 @ 9:34PM
Marriage in not just a beautiful just because it is moral. It is that. But it is also a creation ordinance. God gave Eve to Adam and performed the first marriage. He then commanded them to be fruitful and multiple, fill the earth and subdue it. It was and is a covenant between one man and one woman for life. Only death can separate. Jesus himself, commenting on the ease of divorce in his time said, "It was not so in the beginning. Fore have you not read that he who created them from the beginning created them male and female and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh.' "
It's bond of mind, body and spirit that is inseparable. A man and a woman become bonded together through sex and life's experiences. That bond is reserved for one man and one woman, not two men or two women. God would not and never will consecrate a union of two same-sex people. Just the opposite. He condemns it.
BEWAREFALSEGODS| 5.13.12 @ 10:15PM
Marriage usually means having children that -You- will protect with your life. What happens when -Gay- fathers adopt minority children that are used for their pleasure like, molesting and sodomizing and raping them. What happens when nobody will believe them that they are being molested and raped every day, day after day. Penn State is a perfect example of minority children being molested and raped every day for over twenty years and the liberal white staff knew and did nothing. -YOUR- children and grandchildren are next for these Homosexual Pedophilas to play with....Fighting -Evil-....
somnolence| 5.14.12 @ 5:17PM
This coming November my wife and I will have been married 31 years. We did not live together before marriage, and we also decided against having children. It has been a growing experience over time, consistent with much love, give and take, but no tumultuous or threatening circumstances have occurred to distract us.
Occam's Tool| 5.14.12 @ 8:58PM
Somnolence: My wife and I have been married, this September, 17 years. I was not keen on adopting children; I did so to pacify my wife. As so often in the marriage, she was right and I was wrong. Isaac and Rebekah are, along with my wife, the best people in my life, and my son is my best little buddy imaginable. Some people choose to remain childless, and I respect them for that (although children could benefit from your wisdom), but marriage is first and foremost a timebinding institution connecting generations together.
Claudia Monteverdi| 5.16.12 @ 3:49PM
My Dear Jay,
I intend to shred my Elizabeth Barret Browning crap and replace it with a morocco bound, gold embossed copy of your beautiful column. It brought tears to my jaded eyes..One teeny exception..you say ".......They did not practice cannibalism......and you add that this is the only precept to which they adhere: May I remind you that one rather prominent S.O.B. admits to have eaten dogs in his childhood?
Yours forever,
Claudia
Amy| 5.17.12 @ 12:05AM
http://www.religiondispatches......me_slaves/