We are engaged in a debate over homosexual "marriage". The protagonists have framed the issue as one of human rights and desire. What people desire to do they have an implicit right to. But there is another necessary but eclipsed issue that trundles along in behind. The protagonists necessarily demand our acceptance of another principle: the prior authority and rights of the State to define and constitute marriage itself.
We acknowledge freely that most Pagans in New Zealand would not consider this an issue at all. Who would ever dispute anything so self-evident? Of course the State has rights--pre-emptive rights, prior rights, higher rights. Thus, naturally the protagonists of homosexual "marriage" look to the State as their protector and vindicator and great redeemer in the matter. For the modern Pagan, there is no other entity that can fill this void or perform this role.
The shift has tectonic dimensions.
Previously, in the West the State recognised what God had ordained, and legislated accordingly. Marriage law reflected the Divine revelation and law. Now, since God is no longer anything more than the superstitions of a minority cultural tradition, the State arrogates to itself the role of ultimate lawgiver, ultimate definer of life and being. It elides into the vacuum left by the banishing of God.
The quisling liberatians and social liberals clap and cheer. Of course long ago they decided that the answer to all ultimate things lay with the secular state. To the State they look for their liberties and their rights. To the State they look for health, wealth, and happiness--as the defender and definer of their health, wealth, and happiness. In the State they live, move, and have their being. The only arguments in the public square are over tactics and the best modus operandi for the State. Whilst libertarians and social liberals purport to believe in a limited State, in fact they have already conceded there is no higher authority in human existence than the State. They are all statists in drag--which an apt metaphor, given their ardent support for homosexual "marriage".
Bill Muehlenberg at the blog CultureWatch demonstrates how conservatives and libertarians are ignorantly inviting a vast expansion of state power and control over human beings when they support homosexual "marriage". Our view is that this is inevitable for the secular conservatives and libertarians, for scratch their skin and underneath you will find that for them, too, the State is their god.
Marriage: The Battle of Our TimeThere are key battles which define a generation. Back in the 60s the counter culture unleashed a torrent of radical liberation movements, which included the horrific abortion onslaught. It became one of the key fights for the past half century. It still continues of course, but other major battlefronts have appeared since then.
The most obvious example today is the war being fought over marriage. This is just as significant and monumental a battle as is the battle for life. It is a defining moment for the entire Western world, and it will have repercussions for the entire world.
To destroy the institution of marriage by redefining it out of existence is a social upheaval so momentous and so far-reaching that we cannot even clearly predict just how much damage will ensue. Everything will change when we gut the institution of marriage of its core components. The Pandora’s Box opened will surely not easily be shut.
A new piece by Jennifer Thieme on this very issue is well worth highlighting here. Entitled “The Roe v. Wade of Our Time: The Battle Over Marriage,” she rightly argues about the fundamental importance of this battle. She begins:
“Traditional marriage really means gendered marriage. It means that marriage, as a public policy, has a gender requirement – each gender must be present. This is why we see terms like ‘bride’ and ‘groom’ on marriage licenses. We have historically recognized this gender diversity as a fundamental feature of marriage due to the procreation that can happen between the couple.
“‘Gay marriage’ is a change in policy from gendered marriage to genderless marriage. Marriage licenses and other areas of law surrounding marriage and children will be forced to remove references to gender such as ‘bride,’ ‘groom,’ ‘husband,’ ‘wife,’ ‘mother,’ ‘father.’ These terms will be replaced with gender neutral terms such as ‘spouse,’ ‘partner,’ ‘parent,’ etc. This is why the accommodation of gay people into the institution of marriage changes marriage from gendered to genderless. Now you can understand why this change is not simply allowing gay couples ‘equal rights,’ and why it is not analogous to the ban on interracial marriage that was overturned in 1967.”
Indeed, so far-reaching are these changes that everyone will be adversely affected. And it will of necessity mean the increased power and control of the state over every one of us. So the push by the secular lefties for homosexual marriage is just as much about the push for more coercive government control and dominance over everything. She continues:
“Unfortunately, the change from gendered marriage to genderless marriage will bring about the most sweeping and uncompassionate power grab of the State into family life we have ever witnessed. It’s because we will be replacing an objective, pre-political reason for marriage (procreation of children, and public recognition of parents’ attachment to them) with a subjective, state-defined one (love, equality, time spent with the child, etc). Gendered marriage is the only institution we have that publicly recognizes and affirms the biological connection children have with their parents. Genderless marriage removes this. Thus, gendered marriage is far more compassionate than genderless marriage.
“Conservatives, and libertarians for that matter, should be extremely alarmed at the change from gendered marriage to genderless marriage. How many have heard the story of Lisa Miller, the bio mom who lost custody of her bio daughter to her former lesbian lover due to their civil union? The lover is not related to the child by blood or adoption, and this did not matter to the judge who made the ruling. Lisa escaped with her daughter to Central America. Her name appears on the FBI and INTERPOL Wanted Lists for parental kidnapping, and the Amish pastor who helped her escape has been convicted of ‘aiding an international parental kidnapping of a minor.’ He might be looking at three years jail time.
“Lisa’s biological connection to her own daughter was disregarded in favor of a public policy aimed at promoting equality. The objective, natural, and pre-political reality lost, and the subjective, artificial, and state defined reality won.
“Imagine the precedence this case sets for all families. Imagine the sorts of incentives that will be institutionalized and promoted once genderless marriage becomes the norm. Where is the compassion here? Is this really the world we want, one where biological connections no longer have priority in the eyes of the law?”
She concludes: “As far as social issues go, the battle over marriage is the Roe v. Wade of our time. In 1973 most conservatives (or liberals for that matter) would never have dreamed we’d be looking at 50 million abortions by this time. We’re at a similar point now with the battle between gendered marriage and genderless marriage. Genderless marriage will be the most sweeping power grab over families and children ever witnessed in our country, and we won’t be able to get our freedoms back once it’s in place. Liberals probably do not care about replacing a natural and pre-political institution with an artificial and state defined one … but conservatives and libertarians should be up in arms over it.
“We must be willing to safeguard our natural and pre-political liberties at whatever cost to us personally, or else we will lose them. I am sincerely afraid that good people are backing away from the support of gendered marriage due to fear and ignorance, not because they proactively understand the consequences of genderless marriage. We must take courage and do what is right, because the change we’re debating will impact our posterity far more than it will impact us. After all, most of us had a mom and a dad, but we’re telling future generations to be happy with ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2.’
“Remember: gendered marriage is the compassionate choice.”
Yes quite so. This is the defining battle of our time. If we lose marriage and family, we will eventually lose Western civilisation. But of course that is just what the radicals want.