Mawage

Thanks to the ruling the other day, there are those who are afraid that the gays have stolen marriage. They've taken what has always been defined as "between a man and a woman" and twisted it to mean something different. I am here to calm your fears. The gays haven't stolen marriage; we gave it away.

No, that's not even accurate. It wasn't given away. It was tossed out, surrendered, discarded. It was abandoned by society in general and even by Christians in particular. I base this, first, on the ruling of the court. The judge outlined most of these changes. But it's not just his ruling. Consider the facts.

Marriage has been defined for all time in pretty simple terms. It is the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of forming the basic societal structure, the family, which includes at its core, children. Not complicated. Not intricate. Not hard to understand. And no longer applicable.

It used to be that when a man and a woman married, the union was marked by the taking of names. That is, in the words of the ruling, marriage "traditionally required that a woman’s legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband’s." This wasn't a hardship; it was a given. It was, you see, a union. The income earned wasn't "my money", it was "our money". There was one bank account, one income, one economic unity. She was no longer "miss", but "missus" (Mrs.), and he was no longer "master", but "mister" (Mr.). It was a fundamental change to their identity that united them ... because it was a union. Of course, we've thrown that out these days. We threw it out when the households went from "stay-at-home moms" to "two-income family". We threw it out when separate bank accounts became not only normal, but preferable. We threw it out when we shifted away from taking the family name and going first to a hyphenated version followed today, in some realms, in a version where she doesn't take his name at all.

It used to be that sex was recognized as the physical union of man and woman. It was reserved for that process. The "honeymoon", everyone knew, would be the first time that sexual relations would be part of their relationship. Sex was, in the sense of "special and set apart", sacred. It was understood that, while there were those who ignored this sacred union, they were "bad", not "normative". But we threw that out when the "free love" society got its hooks into us. Sex became recreational, a thing done for fun. It was a gradual process. It went from "only in marriage" to "only in love" to "only if we want to". Today there is "friendship with benefits", where no one even hints at commitment, love, or any such thing. It's entertainment.

It used to be that wives were expected to submit to their husbands. This wasn't intended nor required to be demeaning or devaluing. (Think about it, folks. Jesus submitted to the Father. Did that require that He was of less value? Not at all!) "Fortunately", women's lib came along and put an end to that "monstrosity". Women were no longer to be subject to their husbands! And the world bought it. Even the Christians! Never mind that the Bible says it should be so. Feminism was much wiser than any silly Bible verse could be. And we threw away that union of relationship which made for a uniform hierarchy and created a new one that made two, individual leaders.

It used to be that marriage was expected to be "for life". You know, all that painfully silly stuff like "'til death do us part" and all. Honor, integrity, self-sacrifice, all that nonsense. But it made for a particularly strong cohesive unit when two people, faced with no other options, decided that they would learn to be honorable, have integrity, and actually sacrifice their own preferences for the benefit of the family (the children and each other) because that was what they had to do. The bonds of love that were forged through that furnace were typically much more enduring than the "love" we see today that changes on a whim. But we tossed that one out when we decided that it was much more "reasonable" to allow for "no fault" divorce. Now it's a divorce on a whim, and the backlash from that ongoing disaster has actually scared many young people away from marriage at all.

It used to be that children were a given. If you didn't have kids, it was a sad thing, not a matter of wise thinking and careful planning. Some may argue that this isn't true, but doesn't nature itself prove that it is? Even the most hard-core feminists seem to have unexplainable inner urges to have a child. Every woman knows the phrase, "My biological clock is ticking." No matter how much modern women wish to decry any need for children, it appears to be a fundamental part of their nature. Science has gone to great efforts to be able to produce children for infertile couples. And, of course, it was the very first command from God: "Go forth and multiply." So there is that. Historically, women without children were pitied, not applauded. But the judge has ruled "Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license." True. We threw out procreation as a fundamental component of marriage when we decided that it was probably a good idea not to have kids sometimes. We threw it away when we -- even Christians -- agreed that it was wise to incorporate contraception into our daily lives. (Are you aware of how recent that decision is? For instance, in France, birth control was banned until 1965. That's how new this idea is.) When we made children first optional and then a disadvantage, we threw out that aspect of marriage.

This didn't happen "just the other day", folks. And it wasn't "the gays" that did it. Marriage has long been defined as "the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of forming the basic societal structure, the family, which includes at its core, children". We dismantled that. We dismantled "children" as a core value when we embraced "family planning". We jettisoned "union" as a core component when we incorporated "gender equality", separate bank accounts, "equal rights", the "two-income family", "no fault" divorce, and sex for fun. So there we stood, all of our definitions dismantled, with only "between a man and a woman" remaining, and wondered how in the world "the gays" could steal marriage from us. They didn't. We -- the world, our society, even Christendom -- threw it out so long ago that many don't even have a clue what I'm talking about. "What? When did marriage mean that?" Marriage, to many today, is something of the humorous lines from The Princess Bride: "Mawage. Mawage is wot bwings us togeder tooday. Mawage, that bwessed awangement, that dweam wifin a dweam ... And wuv, twu wuv, will fowow you foweva ... So tweasure your wuv." Yeah ... that's not it.

I have seen the enemy ... and it was us.