Thinking about Marriage

On thinking about marriage, specifically the idea that sex is a sacrament, the question of why that is arose. It has been said for centuries that sex is a sacrament of marriage, but how often does one stop to actually think about what that means and why it might be so?

Sacrament, according to dictionary.com, has several meanings. 

"noun

1. Ecclesiastical. a visible sign of an inward grace, especially one of the solemn Christian rites considered to have been instituted by Jesus Christ to symbolize or confer grace: the sacraments of the Protestant churches are baptism and the Lord's Supper; the sacraments of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches are baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, matrimony, penance, holy orders, and extreme unction.

2. (often initial capital letter). Also called Holy Sacrament. the Eucharist or Lord's Supper.

3. the consecrated elements of the Eucharist, especially the bread.

4. something regarded as possessing a sacred character or mysterious significance.

5. a sign, token, or symbol.

6. an oath; solemn pledge." 

The meaning most likely to apply to the monogamus sex in a marriage would be numbers 4-6.

 Marriage is defined by monogamy. Mostly because the birth control options available today were not available throughout most of recorded history but also because the family unit consisting of a married father and mother and children turns out to be the most successful.

 The contract of marriage - and marriage IS a contract - is one regarding the production of children. It is a contract whose terms state that the utilization of one's bodily resources for the production of children will only be used with the other party to the contract.

Meaning number 6 is obvious enough, the usual oath or pledge of marriage is "forsaking all others" . 

Meaning number 5  refers to sexual monogamy as a sign, token or symbol that the contract is between only the two people making it. It is a sign to the rest of the world that you are no longer available as a spouse.  It is a token to each other of the dedication necessary to maintain a marriage for life and possibly raise a family. It is a symbol of the bonds that the two parties to the contract agree to in order to have a successful marriage. 

And meaning number 4 is the act of sex itself. It is a sacred act of mysterious (as well as obvious) significance because sex is the act by which new people are brought into the world. 

Isn't that a marvelous thing? Bringing a new person into the world is not always just bringing that person into the world, but all of the potential offspring of that new person as well. How could there be anything more holy, more sacred than that? 

The Jewish culture regards saving a life as saving a whole world because you may not be saving just the life of that one person, but the lives of all their potential offspring and generations beyond that as well. If that is the case for saving someone's life, then how could starting someone's life be less wonderful and holy? 

Our current culture has become so obsessed with avoiding having children (tragically to the point of actually killing them in the womb) that many young people seem to regard having a family as a disaster. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes it is difficult,  which is an excellent reason to marry - so that you have a partner in the adventure as well as a greater chance of success - but so is almost anything that is really worth doing.  

Children are the hardest, best and most rewarding adventure in this lifetime. You can climb Everest as many times as your wallet lets you, but can it compare to the depths of sheer endurance of forever letting your heart go walking around outside your body, as Author Elizabeth Stone once put it?

Motherhood in particular has been so thoroughly demeaned and ridiculed by those with an agenda to push, that it is become altogether unfashionable. This is not only wrong, but dangerous to the nation as a whole. A nation needs children, and more, it needs children who have been trained by loving parents to be good people as well as good, informed citizens. Stay-at -home parents do yeoman's work in shaping the next generation. 

Life is precious and sex is and should be a sacrament of marriage because it brings new life into the world. The agenda pushers seem to have forgotten how valuable that is on all levels. Parenthood is and should be a badge of honor and perhaps it is time to remind the culture of that fact. 

"16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her." ~ Gen 17:16

A Matter of Convenience

Because I seem to end up having this conversation very often of late, I am posting here the last reply I have made on it because It will be easier for me to simply come here and copy it and paste it into those conversations where it has become necessary to make the points therein or to grab the url and paste that. My apologies to those looking for something more substantive.

 As far as the government is concerned,(at least, when you strip away all the nonsense, it should be thus) the word "marriage" is a term that defines a specific legal contract. That contract, at it's most basic level, says:"The two parties to the contract agree that, if the resources of their bodies are to be used to produce children, they will be used in that manner only with the other party to the contract."

 It has the three required elements necessary to make a contract; an offer, an acceptance and a consideration.(The consideration being that they give up the right to produce children with the resources of their bodies with any  person aside from the other party to the contract.)

This contract neither requires the production of children, nor does it prohibit adoption. A same sex couple must go outside of that contract to produce offspring, therefore they may not make that contract - and, indeed, I should think that any court would void such a contract between same sex couples because it would deny them their self-evident and unalienable right to procreate. (This is not a problem for couples who are infertile or damaged in some way that would ordinarily preclude the production of offspring because, between a man and a woman it is always theoretically possible for them to produce a child.)

I am shocked that the members of the highest court in America decided to exercise WILL rather than JUDGEMENT(in the sense outlined in Federalist paper #78) in a matter so basic to the health and well being of society. They did the same thing a few days before this ruling, when they exercised WILL rather than JUDGEMENT to rule by the corruption of the dictionary, in the health care subsidies case. 

You (the individual to whom this was a reply said this)say that no individual has a "right" to the definition of a word - but societies, and particularly societies governed by the rule of law, do. A word in the law, MUST mean what it meant when it was first written, else the law becomes of none effect. A mere thing of clay in the hands of the judiciary. And, if you want to live in a society where the definition of words in the law is constantly changing to suit the whims of those in power, I suggest you move someplace where the rule of law is not respected. A communist nation perhaps. 

May the definition of a word be changed from time to time? Yes, but only with the gravest consideration and proper notice that from this time forward this word now means something other than what it has meant heretofore and even then, if one has a proper respect for history, there must be a new term created to describe what that term meant before it was changed, and all the laws containing the original term must be changed to the new term. Indeed, the whole process would be so cumbersome that I cannot imagine - especially with a term that has had such usage since the very foundation of this nation, a term such as "marriage" - that anyone would see it as the viable alternative to doing what should have been done in this case. 

To wit: find a term that describes the contract same sex couples could make and let them go through the same legislative process that married people went through to get the same benefits. To do otherwise is to essentially destroy the rule of law by creating a precedent that says an individual or group may gain a legislative shortcut to their desired goals by having the courts legislate through redefinition as has happened here. And, since the courts are prohibited from creating law by the Constitution, whether through outright declaration or through jiggery-pokery, the SCOTUS ruling is not law and should result in every member of that court who voted for it to be removed from the bench for bad behavior.  

Hebrews 13:4

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

"Marriage"?

From the standpoint of our government,(not God), the word "marriage" refers to a very specific contract. [i.e. a contract between two parties wherein the offer, acceptance and consideration is that the parties to the contract are agreeing that if the resources of their bodies are to be used to create children they will only be used with the other party to the contract.]

The term "marriage" has, from the founding of this nation, referred to only a man and a woman. [And in, truth it can only refer to a man and a woman because same sex couples would be required to go outside of that contract to produce children. This would deny them their self evident and unalienable right to reproduce and therefore would not be a lawful contract for them.] In fact, in many states homosexuality was a capital offence.

What the SCOTUS has done, is to give a specific group a legislative shortcut to benefits by redefining the term marriage. This has, at it's essence, destroyed the rule of law. Because if words in the law do not mean what they meant when they were written, then the law is of no effect, because who knows what words may have their meanings changed tomorrow by such a capricious court? "Child", "Adult", "color", "speed" "limit"? Imagine the chaos that will ensue.

The proper course of action would have been for the SCOTUS to advise the homosexual community to get their own term to describe their contract and go through the legislative process just like married people did while leaving the decisions of whether or not to grant benefits of that nature to this new contract to the individual states. This is not what the SCOTUS did and for their destruction of the rule of law,(along with their usurpation of the powers of Congress to legislate and to "control the purse strings" in the deathcare ruling the day before the "marriage" ruling, they should be removed from the bench. Is it possible to remove a justice from the bench? Yes, and it starts in the House. Call your Rep.

"18 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;
2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: 3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. 4 And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; 5 Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. 6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith. 7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? 8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" ~Luke 18:1-8

Because Marriage is Necessary

My son actually discovered this and said "Mom, you should have this guy on your show" and because choosing a spouse is an important part of marriage, I am posting this here even though I do not generally use this blog for charity or revenue generating stuff. (Although there is a donate button, on the sidebar, no one has actually donated, so my poor sweetie remains somewhat disgruntled with this use of my time. :( ) I will try to get this guy for an interview, but, sadly, his kickstarter campaign will be over by next Wednesday.



24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Gen 2:24

"Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord." Proverbs 18:22

"10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.
11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.
12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.
14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.
15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.
16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.
17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.
18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.
19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.
20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.
21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.
22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.
24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.
25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.
26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.
27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.
28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.
29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.
30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.
31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates" Prov 31:10-31

The Land of Nuts and Flakes strikes again

The state of California is getting ready to vote on this change to their state constitution:
"Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"

First a suit was filed to prevent this amendment from coming to the ballot. It failed. Now the Attorney General has changed the wording of this amendment to read:
"Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments."

It seems to me that the AG is just setting the state up so that the amendment can be challenged in court and thrown out, but I notice that he doesn't include the fiscal impact of that. He is playing with the people of California and wasting their money to boot. He obviously believes their morals are for sale to the highest bidder. How much more insulting does he have to be before the people of the state wake up and oust him?

Aside from the AG's shenanigans though, I have a problem with the whole idea of indicating that a marriage could occur between two people who are anything but a man and a woman.

Now, I know that some people will find this confusing, but please bear with me. I think that same sex couples cannot be married, because they cannot, by definition, perform the contract of marriage. One cannot make a legal contract to perform an action which one is physically unable to perform and neither can one make a contract not to perform that which one is unable to perform. As I understand it, it must be possible for the terms of a contract to be performed for the contract to be valid. Therefore, same sex couples cannot be married because marriage is a contract which in essence states that both partners will only perform those acts necessary for the creation of children with the other partner in the marriage. That any children they produce will be the children of themselves and the other party to the contract. It does not require the production of children, nor does it prohibit adoption. It simply states that all children produced within the marriage will be the children of the parties to the contract. Since same sex couples cannot produce children with their partner, they do not need, nor can they legally make, a contract that says they will only do so with said partner.

(Before Mr. Morris says so, yes I believe that a marriage is much more than that on a spiritual, mental, emotional and physical level-but those things are hard to define and show evidence of in a courtroom, so for the sake of this post, I restrict myself.)

I think it is also questionable to encourage people to enter into agreements which prevent them from reproducing as a contract of marriage would for same sex couples.

While I recognize that there are moral benefits to being able to say one is married, those benefits are available to anyone who wants to get married. I would love to be able to say I'm a brain surgeon, but it wouldn't be the truth. If I wanted to, I could certainly do that which is necessary to earn that title. Changing the definition of brain surgeon so that it includes me would not give me the skills and knowledge of a brain surgeon. It would simply make it more difficult for people to know who is qualified to operate on brains. I can whine all I want about how brain surgeons have people's respect and that makes their lives better and why shouldn't I be able to do that too?, but that isn't a good enough reason to change the definition. And it's not a good enough reason to change the definition of marriage either.
Some may argue that there are legislative benefits to being married. Yes there are. Married people went through the legislative process to get them. If same sex couples want those benefits, they too are free to avail themselves of the legislative process.

It is a dangerous practice to legislate by redefinition. While I applaud the people of those states who have made the effort to legally define marriage in their states, I am appalled by the very idea that it should be necessary. Do we need to put the dictionary into legislation as well so that this sort of thing can be avoided in the future? Aren't we, as a people, better than that?

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
~Gen 2:24