The Better Course

The Supreme Court is supposed to rule sometime in the late spring or early summer on whether or not we are going, as a nation, to eliminate all vestiges of what has been known for so long as "marriage" and replace it with something else. What else is not clear, but something else. No, no, not something more inclusive. Just something that meets the demands of an extreme minority.

Someone told me recently that whoever controls the language wins the debate. Welcome to the lost debate. Because they control the language, not us. Consider. There are two sides in this debate. We think that marriage is important, ought to be defended, ought to be respected. It is the cornerstone of society without which freedom and all society will collapse. Very noble sounding indeed. They, however, are opposed to that. Oh, no, wait, that's not the language they're using. No, they're in favor of "marriage equity". They're campaigning for "love". They are only seeking "freedom". And, look, they have the "force of public opinion" behind them. Equity, love, freedom, what is more virtuous than that?

Examining their terminology and pointing out that it isn't accurate is all well and good, but it falls on deaf ears. If you're opposed to "marriage equity" because marriage has a definite meaning and a definite purpose and is equitably applied to any man and woman that wishes to marry (genuine "marriage equity"), it doesn't matter. (If you have any doubts about what they mean by "marriage equity", ask if they're in favor of legalizing polygamy, polyamory, or incestual marriages, because currently the folks on that side of the ledger have not "marriage equity" available.) You're opposed to equity. If you argue that "love" and "who you're having sex with" are not equivalent terms, it doesn't matter. You're opposed to love. If you call for the protection of the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman as it has ever been on the face of the earth, it doesn't matter. You're obviously opposed to freedom simply by taking that position. You see, given the control of the language, you either support this new definition or you are a bigot and a hater. No other options, despite the claim that theirs is a position of tolerance and inclusion.

This is a no-win situation. The Supreme Court may choose not to rule. How, exactly, it's a constitutional issue is not clear, but when it is stretched out to "equal protection" (because the proponents have twisted the language to get it there), they may very well choose to rule. If they rule, anticipate the end of marriage as we know it by judicial fiat. If they choose not to rule anticipate years of longer obfuscation Like Paul, "I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way" (1 Tim 2:1-2). That would include Supreme Court judges ("all who are in high positions"). You know, that would also include your neighbor ("all people"). Yes, that would be a very good thing to do.