Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

Essential thinking for reading Catholics.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

This is not what you think it is, but it is, in fact, related thereto.

Over at the lovely and gracious Karen's blog, there is much tumult, wailing and gnashing of teeth over the issue of same-sex marriage given the California Supreme Court's decision thereon.

My gripe with those on the opposite side of the issue -- those who espouse the rather jejune "fairness" argument -- is that in order to satisfy their thirst for fairness as they see it (which, intriguingly, is not the same things as righteousness) they are willing to redefine and bend things to coincide with their views while chanting the twin slogans of "It's only fair!" and "What slippery slope?"

The more adept of the benighted proponents of this new social order will point out things such as laws that at some point and in some places outlawed the marriage between people of different races. Where they fail to convince is in noting that striking down those laws (vestiges of a ruling class that was "pro-choice" on slavery) the definition of marriage was unaltered. Striking down those laws, actually, upheld the simple definition of marriage. One man, one woman, bound to each other sacramentally and legally. Ta-da. The moment this definition is subject to addition or subtraction, you start strapping on Teflon skis and heading for the double-black-diamond slippery slope.

Why?

Because the picosecond one decides that any universally held social institution (even the most wildly pro-homosexual societies in history never had marriage defined as anything other than a man-woman arrangement) is malleable to the whims of the zeitgeist then that institution is forever up for grabs. If any two people can be married to each other then why not any three people? Because the law is so writ? Wait...didn't we just reach the point along the arc of societal evolution where we just dispensed with the tyranny of the law as writ? Haven't we just said that things only mean what we say they mean? So how does this work? What is there to prevent some Supreme Court somewhere, generously endowed with Advanced People, from saying that marriage can only be a same-sex thing?

A: Once this happens, there isn't jack to prevent it.

All of the strictures that can prevent these things have now been tossed as so much mediƦval ballast preventing us from being Advanced People ourselves.

Stop and ponder that one for a moment.

But that's not what I came to write about today. Those of us on the side of the angels on this issue contend -- and, sadly, history will bear us out -- that this new social order is detrimental to the institution of marriage properly understood, and the nuclear family. But here's the thing I hear nobody saying: How did marriage and the nuclear family get into such a Hell of a bad way that same-sex unions can damage it so? Same-sex unions shouldn't have that kind of power, but yet they do; and marriages shouldn't be so fragile, but they are. So what gives?

You see, darlings, the problem is that traditional marriage and families have been steadily corroded from within for the last 50 years and have turned marriage from a house of brick, to a house of sticks, to a house of straw. And what nobody has mentioned, thus far, is the catalyst for this devolution.

Divorce.

Marriage in Western society is in such disarray because divorce is rampant. we don't even bat an eye. (When was the last time anyone was surprised when a celebrity marriage broke up?)

Before marriage, like Troy, can be taken from without, it must be weakened and rendered unable to defend itself from within. Divorce is that Trojan horse. Once the bond that unites a man and a woman for life is soluble* due to any number of reasons (some, admittedly, serious) then all is lost. Once we say that bond may be severed (without major consequences) but "only for some very serious reasons," the high ground has been ceded and society can now move down one circle and start squabbling over what those "very serious reasons" ought be...and so the long day wears on, until we get to the rock bottom of drivel such as "incompatible differences."

This means, in legal jargon "because we feel like it."

Which is pretty neat because in every marriage there will be many, many (AMHIK) points when you will feel like leaving so fast you might lay down skidmarks on the driveway. If you have somehow been made comfortable (or comfortable enough) with whatever you believe will be the consequences of doing so, you will leave. Always. It is the path of least resistance.

And so we have a culture of divorce, which is self-perpetuating. Which has left permanent creases, weak points and faultlines in the foundation of society that is the nuclear family. No society is long for this world where the nuclear family, for whatever reason is weakened and/or unstable.

Even if the whole California thing is eventually defeated, like a shark bopped on the pressure point of its snout, that still leaves us with a whole lot of work still to be done, because right now we're just a swimmer bleeding in shark-infested waters.

And another shark will come by soon enough.

AMDG,

-J.

* Not talking about "annulled" marriages. So don't go there.

2 Comments:

  • At 6:42 PM, May 24, 2008 , Blogger Joseph Fromm said...

    In five thousand years of human history has any of the great religions ever advocated same sex marriage? No. Five un-elected judges just over turned five thousand years of Judeo-Christianity.

     
  • At 8:26 PM, May 26, 2008 , Blogger Joe said...

    It goes well beyond that. Prior to (and afield of) Judeo-Christian thought there has not been any civilization in human history that has allowed same-sex marriage.

    Oy.

    -J.

     

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home