By Sam Sorbo
The Left’s indignant insistence on separation of church and state seems only to apply when convenient. They want a picture of Jesus removed from a school, but are forcing the state to redefine what has traditionally, for the past several thousand years, been a religious institution. What interest has the state with two loving people getting hitched before God and creating a family? Bureaucrats have no place all up in people’s personal business. For this reason, Obamacare is anathema. Once the government controls health care, bureaucrats not only can but must tell us all what and what not to eat, how much to exercise, and how much to sleep. At that point it is their responsibility, if only from a fiscal standpoint. If that sounds ridiculous, just look at Mayor Boomberg’s power grab on soda sizes and cigarettes, to know it isn’t beyond them at all.
Back to marriage, the basis for any stable society, and traditionally the structure best suited for child-rearing. Obviously, as both sexes together are the only way to create a child, a two parent, heterosexual marriage would be the optimum equation for raising that child, if there is any credence to intelligent design. We can call it nature’s design if God makes you uncomfortable, (though it’s quite ironic that the Left shouts so loudly for disregarding the natural order of the sexes, but demands we kowtow to mother nature in all other instances, to the point of standing in the way of “survival of the fittest” and preventing extinction, which is, after all, also a natural law – Gaia’s way of weeding out the weak.) To go against the natural law and redefine marriage to encompass unions that are, by virtue of their not being the natural order, different than, or counterfeit, well, that indisputably lowers the value of marriage. Think of traditional marriage as a $100 bill, and other interpretations of marriage as counterfeit. Now, let’s flood the market with fake bills, and what do you get? A currency without value – and that’s the death of marriage.
The equality-for-sexual-persuasion advocates argue “fairness,” but fairness for whom? Not for the children, who are intentionally deprived of a parent of one gender or the other. What a conceit! Recently, eleven-year-old Grace Evans was permitted to ask the Minnesota House Civil Law Committee “Which parent don’t I need, my mom or my dad?” She asked three times and received a predictable answer: silence.
This is eerily similar to the fish-mouthed response a representative of Planned Parenthood had recently when questioned whether a baby, accidentally born alive during a botched abortion, crying and struggling for breath on the table, would then be considered “the patient,” or if, as she argued, the mother and physician could still choose death for that innocent. The Left’s hubris, it seems, knows no bounds. Which is why they are now screaming for marriage to be redefined. And lest you naively believe it will end there, with gay marriage, there is already a bill to normalize pedophilia in California. Is necrophilia next?
The Defense of Marriage Act is a poor attempt to create a bond between the church and the word, like weekend visitation, used by the estranged husband, to form some sort of meaningful relationship with an angry child. Even it’s name, “Defense” sounds lame and dead-beat.
Which brings me to my point: the original divorce. The word marriage was co-opted by the state as a ‘status’ for taxes and insurance. Typical of power grabs (and selfish human nature), society went for the carrot – the marriage deduction – and the church relinquished custody. The church regrettably allowed their word for the union between a man and woman to be “recognized” and adopted, but now the state wants to pimp the word out to lascivious factions who will abuse, distort and dilute it. The state can do anything it wants with it’s step-child, because in our society, ‘separation of church and state’ is currently interpreted to mean state trumps church! (That’s an incredibly biased interpretation, by the way. The church was always meant to be equal to or greater than the government founded by our forbears.)
The church, rather than defend its child, marriage, like a father meekly protesting the step-father’s treatment, must return and reclaim its progeny; fight for that relationship. Declare to the state and to the world that the religiosity of marriage is inviolable, off-limits, sacrosanct. Relinquish the marriage deduction and renounce all other bureaucratic implementations of marital status. That is the only way for this poor orphaned word to regain a meaningful existence, and for the bond between church and marriage to be made whole again (and for the separation of church and state to actually be maintained), and for the church to preserve some semblance of sovereignty.