Kevin O’Brien wrote a decent article in the Plain Dealer during Holy Week concerning the state of marriage. He definitely spoke against the political correct position. In part he said:
“Marriage is the fundamental basis of civilization and the smallest functional molecule of the organism that we call society. One may reject the idea that God ordained heterosexual marriage as part of his plant for humanity, but one cannot reject the argument that nature ordained it as a matter of practical necessity. Only heterosexual relationships can perpetuate the species. There simply is no other way of going about it.”
That’s called Natural Law.
He goes on further (and this is where I think he really makes his case) “If we put the law at odds with the order established and replicated though out nature, then how can anyone ever justify drawing a new legal boundary line?” In other words, if we redefine marriage to be any two people who want to commit themselves to each other for life, why stop there? What about polygamy? Why should such people be denied the right to marry? What about the case of the mother and daughter who want to be recognized as married, not for any indecent purpose, but because they want to team up to raise the daughter’s child and want legal protections and benefits? Why shouldn’t the men of Saint Andrew’s Abby (who take a vow of stability) be recognized as all married so that they may be protected and receive benefits? The harm? Once marriage can mean anything, it ceases to mean anything.
I’ve hear people say that it wouldn’t go any further than same sex marriage. That the idea of it going any further than that is just silly. But nobody can say why or what there would be to put such a boundary up to stop it there – a boundary that would now be clearly imaginary.
Unfortunately I think he hurts his case by saying people could start marrying across species and with inanimate objects. Other species and such objects cannot give their consent.
After finishing the article we said, “Man, is he going to get crucified tomorrow” and he was. But if there is going to be any meeting ground on this issue, it will be with points such as this. “God ordained it” as much as I may believe it is not going to wash with those who don’t believe that.