Jennifer Turley writes to the editor in
the Akron Beacon Journal Tuesday May 29th edition that she is
interested in truth. I am glad. I hope she takes this analysis of her letter
in that same vein.
Take this sentence from
her letter; “How much longer must we endure the ‘traditional’ concept of
marriage that’s being sullied by every celebrity on the planet (Kardashians
anyone?) while those in loving, faithful, and devoted relationships are being
denied the opportunity to solidify their commitment with a vow or ceremony?”
One might argue that not
everybody who is in a “traditional concept of marriage” is trashing it nor are
those not in “traditional” marriages honoring it. And there certainly isn’t anybody preventing
anyone from exchanging a vow or having a ceremony. But I am fairly confident that is not what she
means. She wants these nontraditional marriages
to be officially recognized by the government all of which sounds innocent
enough. I would also imagine that she
realizes just because a same sex couple moved in next door to her that
civilization would not come to a screeching halt, planes will not fall out of
the sky, and the parousea will not begin.
She requests that nobody
“thump a Bible” at her and I quite agree.
It will do little good. To begin,
not everyone in the United States believes in the Bible. Further, not everybody believes that the
Bible says the same thing. As one
Episcopal bishop put it about 10 years ago, “Don’t go quoting the Bible to me
about this. You can make the Bible say
just about anything you want to.” And he
is correct. That is what happens when
there is no authority or tradition.
It is better to respond
logically. If I were a bettin' man I would wager that Turley did not
write the title to her letter but that it was given by the paper. It states, “Allowing Marriage for All Loving
Couples.” This title is rather short
sighted and I would suppose that Turley would find it offensive and narrow
minded.
Whereas the Church (and by that I mean the Catholic Church) cannot change its teaching on marriage because it would have to change the very definition of marriage thereby throwing most of its theology and tradition into chaos, the state is not thusly encumbered. It can break with precedent (which in this case does go back to the Bible) and simply change its definition.
But if this is done it
spits amounts of toothpaste out of a tube most never imagine. Once precedent is done away with, the
definition of marriage can be whatever we want it to be. (That doesn’t sound so bad does it?) Here Turley states very well that marriage
should be for those in, “loving, faithful, and devoted relationships.” But who is to say that this should be between
just two people? Precedent is now done
away with and the idea that having children (naturally) is done away with and eligibility
for marriage is simply based on persons in a committed relationship, what is to
prevent us from having three people married even if they be of the same or
mixed sexes? Why not 5 of various sexes
and preferences? Why not 20? How can we possibly limit it to 2
people? What is to prevent us? What of those in truly committed
relationships that are not in the “traditional” limit of 2?
I contend that once
“tradition” is breached then there are no safe guards, nothing to which we
might refer that could morally or legally keep marriage to two
individuals. As long as there is a
strong enough backing, marriage can come to mean just about anything.
It is not about hating anybody or depriving a good thing grom anyone. It is about recognizing that when marriage can mean just about anything – it ceases to mean anything.
4 comments:
The words "loving" and "committed relationship" are becoming to same-sex marriage what "choice" has become to abortion.
You're right, Father. People don't think beyond the sound bite.
is the photo of a thousand wedding couples for real? . . . or is it faked?
The photo looks like the mass marriage that Rev. Sun Myung Moon conducted in the 80s.
The argument that keeps cropping up in my neck of the woods is that the State is denying same sex couples a family. I have pointed out, and will keep doing so, that natural law did that, not the State. Many unmarried people go on to have families, children, without a license. Their decisions were not forced by the State. The State recognizes, or used to, common goods - children being one of them. MrsO
Post a Comment