by Gunnery Sergeant John McClain, USMC, Retired
Marriage, and the process of coming to it, is not heaven! It is the bonding together of two needy sinners in order to make a partnership which is substantially greater than either of them alone. - Sinclair Ferguson
Much has been made of the many acts defining marriage as the bonds between a man and a woman, which, as instituted by God, was described as the binding of two into one, and remaining one for life.
For thousands of years, this institution has remained that of religion, in particular our common form of marriage being of Christian descent, and in keeping with the principles first set forth by God in the Garden of Eden, between Adam and Eve.
It has only been in recent decades that this long established institution has been attacked as something evil, as an act of society deliberately discriminating against certain individuals and specific beliefs which are not in keeping with our form of civil society, established upon Christian principles, directly derived from Judaic principles, the foundation of Christianity.
I have long argued, the very idea of discrimination is a false argument, because no man, nor woman is deprived of the exact same right of marriage I and my wife enjoyed when we chose to join, but the issue which is falsely asserted is that it is possible for a man and a man to be joined, but refused, or that a woman and woman may be joined, but again, discriminated against.
This argument is a false one, because it completely ignores what a “marriage” is, and has been since its inception as an institution, and puts forth a semi-parallel arrangement as being the equal to “marriage”, and charges society with failing to establish this new arrangement “as marriage”, and our failure to do so willingly, as deliberate and hatred personified.
No where does any proponent of same sex marriage acknowledge the source of the institution of “marriage”. No attempt is ever made to deal with the facts which demonstrate the actual purpose of “marriage” which we know from the writings of our ancestors as history and from our personal life-long experience. The entire issue is made on the mere officiating of the joining of two people, as if the “joining” stands alone as an act, as an object in and of its self, and an abject denial of any further and important purpose for marriage.
Throughout history, governments have taxed people in many ways, and it should not be surprising that taxation in this Nation has been directed with marriage as a part of the equation, and having determining influence on taxes. Our proclivity for beer is specifically taxed, our desire for tobacco is taxed perhaps ten times the value of the product its self, yet these are not raised as issues of genuine hatred and devaluing people, it is only the sustaining of principle which is raised as an issue of discrimination and the idea of actual hatred raised. It is only in this bulwark of society it is suggested good cause exists to alter our principles, change our path of thousands of years, and charge us to take and alter this institution which obviously has far reaching consequences, and is perhaps the most important institution for providing for a moral and principled society.
It is quite true the government has chosen to tax married couples differently than un-married couples, but this is a choice we have made, with our own will, and has nothing to do with the institution of marriage except to take notice of its real value, and its true and proper purpose.
Even if we were foolish enough to deny God in the equation, what good purpose could come out of redefining an institution established by our Creator? How would doing so sustain our founding principles, and keep them for future generations? How could making this demanded alteration possibly allow our civil society to continue, much less actually enhance it?
Only a fool takes something which works, has a fixed purpose and provides a deliberate, intentional outcome, and twists it, tortures it, turning it into a travesty of what it once was, with any expectation other than the destruction of that working thing.
Either all who support this demanded change are fools, or they have intent to destroy what true marriage has provided us, as societies, for all the time it has been established. If they are fools, we are fools to even countenance their cries. If they do have the intent to undo what marriage un-arguably has done throughout history, we must consider them enemies of society, and deliberately destructive. Is it possible to consider this issue in any other way and be true to logic, reason, and the nature of Man?
Copyright May 17, 2012 by Gulf1