Counting the Cost

Homosexuals who are engaging in what they call "marriage" in California are eager to have all the same trappings as the "traditional wedding" according to an article on MSNBC. Of course, it doesn't work. There are things predicated on "man and woman", "husband and wife", that make the "traditional wedding" impossible. The title of the article is telling: "If there are two grooms, who kisses the bride?" As for me, I was stunned by the concept. "We've decided to strip away the longstanding and traditional definition of marriage ... but we want the traditions that were included."

Maybe it's that I'm too close to the question. My son and his wife spent months and months planning this wedding of theirs. They went through the proper books that told the proper traditions for the proper wedding and they did it properly. (Well, there was that point where the pastor quoted from The Princess Bride -- slightly outside of tradition -- but you get the idea.) They wanted the traditional wedding because they wanted a traditional marriage. Now, my marriage is founded on the traditional "'til death do us part" "I'll stand by you and love you without conditions" kind of approach, but as the longstanding and traditional definition of marriage is obliterated and removed, what does this next generation of marriages have to go on? Traditional marriage is a monogamous relationship (in both the dictionary use of the term -- "married to one" -- and the more popularized version -- "sex with only one"). Homosexual relationships often practice what has become known as "negotiated non-monogamy". They call it "monogamy" and they say "we're an exclusive couple", but what they mean is "... as long as my partner is around. You have to be realistic. When he or she isn't around, we understand I can go elsewhere to get sex." And traditional marriage takes another hit. As the meanings erode and the understanding of the concept decays, how high can I set my hopes for my son and his new bride ... or their children?

Maybe it's that I read things like this in the article: "How will same-sex marriages change the landscape for heterosexual couples?" This isn't from me, one opposed to changing the meaning of the term or, more importantly, the very concept. This is from an article sympathetic to the union of same-sex couples and, more ominous, a quote from the president of GayWeddings.com. While the California Supreme Court and the gay rights advocates shout, "It won't change anything for you heterosexuals!" it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it cannot avoid changing the minds of heterosexuals in the traditions of weddings and the traditions of marriage.

There is one other aspect that is disturbing to me, but this isn't a personal aspect. It is on behalf of those who are standing defiantly in the face of God and saying, "I don't care what You think it means; we're doing it our way!" In Num. 20, Moses loses his cool with the children of Israel. He is instructed by God to speak to the rock at Meribah, the very same rock that he had struck the last time around to bring forth water for the people. God told him this time just to speak to the rock. You see, the rock was a fine picture of Christ. He was struck once for us, and now, to obtain His living water, we need only speak to Him. But Moses was fed up and struck the rock. That little piece of misdirection -- that destruction of an image that God had in mind -- cost Moses his ticket to the Promised Land. He didn't get in because he blotted out a key image that God had in mind. Marriage is one of those images. Paul says that marriage is an image of the relationship of Christ with the Church. It is an image of oneness, an image of Bride and Groom where the Groom is to lay down His life for the Bride. It is, in Paul's words, "a mystery" where two people become one (Eph. 5:25-32). That image is now being trampled on, trod down, and intentionally wiped away. If Moses suffered the loss of admittance to the Promised Land for his less obvious blunder, what will be the price now for the willful obliteration of God's stated imagery? And what will be the cost when that obliteration carries over to future generations of heterosexuals? Jesus said plainly, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks should come, but woe to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble" (Luke 17:1-2).

I am saddened by the assault on a key function in society that used to be known as "marriage". Sure, it has been decaying for decades, but there were still remnants. The more radical the assault, the less those remnants remain. I am concerned for future marriages and the effects this will have on them. You can't assault traditional marriage in mainstream society and argue "It won't affect traditional marriage." And I fear for those who are climbing on the bandwagon and assaulting marriage to satisfy their libido. The costs of all of this will be high ... higher than we currently imagine. The idea that "I've got mine" is all fine and good -- I have a great marriage and no amount of misdirection elsewhere is going to shake that -- but I'm not the only one about whom I'm concerned.