Yesterday, a spectacular day weatherwise, my family attended a wonderful Christian celebration of marriage, held on the Diocese of Providence grounds overlooking beautiful Narragansett Bay. Hundreds of wonderfully diverse families attended (est. 500-600 people) and the highlight of the day was a renewal of vows, with a specific Catholic renewal ceremony, followed by another ceremony for other Christian denominations.

Outside the gate of the Aldrich Mansion were protestors who were looking for attention. So where do you think every major media reporter focused? That’s right – the protestors.

One could talk about the many positive reasons to celebrate marriage and families, particularly nowadays when divorce rates are high, marriage rates decreasing and out of wedlock births are rampant (more than 40% in some areas).

No – all major stories were about marriage “equality”. In other words, the focus wasn’t really about those married families attending, but mostly about the ones outside the gate. You can tell from the news headlines:

• Same-sex marriage supporters protest vow renewals
• Rhode Islanders Debate Definition of “Marriage”
• Protesting for same sex marriage
• Celebrate Marriage and Family Day in Warwick draws protests

So was this all just political theater?

The event was put on by National Organization for Marriage – Rhode Island, which is politically opposed to same-sex marriage efforts. With Rhode Island as the only New England state that does not legally recognize same-sex unions, this event declares a political message. However, it seems to me that drawing attention to heterosexual marriage and expecting the media to be friendly to the cornerstone of our culture is downright suicidal.

So the coverage was political, but the young, progressive news reporters all missed (showed disdain for?) the real major story – our families. Instead, most irresponsibly conveyed shallow, incendiary stories, with quotes like this one from the Associated Press:

“We’re not going to let them have events that exclude LGBT people,“ said Brian Chidester of the Providence Equality Action Committee, referring to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

I’m sure Mr. Chidester has more substantial material, but given that at least one TV station actually lead their video with a photo of one same-sex couple renewing their vows outside a restricted area, it’s apparent LGBT’s were not excluded from the event, and as far as I know, the couple wasn’t harassed for being there.

Still, my question for Mr. Chidester, and those who think like him: Why do people need your approval to hold events that might exclude LGBT people? This particular event was heavily Christian in nature throughout the celebration. Shall we lay aside our moral, religious convictions as you demand?

Who, then, is advocating controlling the choices, beliefs and activities of others? Isn’t this the very charge which you accuse us of holding?

The sole basis for your committee’s approval is gender orientation. Do you grasp the full role marriage plays in our culture?

Should the majority heterosexual population define marriage around the idea of marriage as a binding of affection between partners?

Do you fail to see that legal recognition of marriage is not about recognizing partnerships of affection, but encouraging promising, procreative partnerships which tremendously impact the public and are essential to us all?

Here’s the ideal of Christian marriage upon which Western civilization was primarily built :

---

Childbearing is a natural process requiring the successive overlapping of morally pure environments from one generation to another. The union of one virgin chaste man and one virgin chaste woman is the ideal for childbearing. To avoid harmful diseases mothers and fathers must remain morally pure and physically virgin until married, then, for the success of subsequent generations, they must remain morally pure until physical death.

Joined at the altar, those chaste virgin couples demonstrate with their very lives, through a whole-hearted commitment to their posterity, that they hold society’s successful natural long term propagation in the highest esteem. Society approves of this serious, on-going commitment by calling pure marriage between one chaste man and one chaste woman greatly unique, beneficial and thus ‘very good’. This is the core of the marriage covenant, showing approval of this union to everyone to ensure the ‘life’ of society. The chaste couple is esteemed as a model to follow. As it naturally stems from our two sexes for procreation, the marriage relationship cannot be arbitrarily redefined, because no other model provides this unique, natural family.

With marriage, society rewards the overwhelming sacrifice on the part of the chaste heterosexual couple who prepared for childbearing and childrearing with unique rights and benefits. At the same time, and with the same ideal relationship, society shames individuals who do not enter into the pure marriage covenant which holds the potential for producing new generations. Valid exceptions to this shame are made, but they must always be due to mercy or great personal sacrifice, which maintains social moral integrity.

The consummation of the marriage covenant promises, but doesn’t always produce, society’s greatest joy – children, and society awards more benefits to the growing family. like a cell dividing, with every new generation, society grows.

Society’s concern regarding marriage then, is to secure it for this public effect. So the state, while not hampering the affections of individuals, must always guard against an immorality that would substitute non-ideal models of marriage that fail to produce or even promise, the continuity of society.

- from “The Kids are Watching”

---

And that’s the real story that was missed.

It’s about something unimaginably greater than our unions – it’s about something so pure and wonderful, so natural, and yet beyond any affection we might show to the other. It’s something only God, in His divine grace, bestows.

It’s about a certain transcendent commitment – a covenant: a promise of life.

During the Catholic vow renewal, my wife and I noticed 2 small children scurrying about their parents legs as the couple looked deeply into each other’s eyes, with occasional glances down, followed by short bursts of laughter, and angelic, divine beaming faces shining up at them.

The pure joy that comes from two becoming one flesh.

We weren’t debating anything.

We came to declare in a single unified voice, that promise of Life: To our pro-created families, to the generations who would look back upon their ancestors and say – they loved each other by their marriage commitment, and in so doing, they loved us, unconditionally.

Morality, Relationships same-sex-marriage

UPDATE
It seems the Miss USA Pageant judges hold a complete disdain for anyone who holds a view contrary to their idea of what marriage should be, because those who have that view should keep it to themselves. Read Alicia Jacobs, a judge, in her own words.

More questions – why is a former Playboy model, Shanna Moakler running the Miss California USA Pageant, along with an openly gay man – Keith Lewis? Are nudes only bad if you’re losing money and need an additional controversial publicity stunt to boost ratings for the Miss USA Pageant? Is diversity only good if you’re part of those who consider themselves diverse?

My other question is: Did Moakler and/or Lewis suggest Prejean be photographed with the newly installed implants? And if so, who leaked the pictures? According to Alicia Jacobs, the Miss USA Pageant should be above reproach, but apparently they don’t think stints as Playboy pinups turned Directors is all that big of a deal. Why should conservative America be shocked? We have no problem admitting we are sinners, unlike others whose pride keeps roaring back as hubris.

---

If you can’t remember the name of who actually won the pageant, it’s because Perez Hilton made Carrie Prejean (Miss California) the star of the show, and the object of his wrath:

Let’s ask some questions:

1. Why were contestants picking judges and not questions from the container? This allows questions to be tailored to the contestant by the judge, which is precisely what happened. Any judge Prejean picked might have questioned her to the same result. While it appears impartial, this episode seems to have been constructed for 2 purposes: publicity of the pageant and publicity of the gay marriage cause. Why? That’s the next question.

2. Why is a homosexual blogger prone to outrageous militant exploitation sitting on a panel judging female beauty contestants? His aesthetic would be discriminatory against women given his sexual orientation and attitude. That makes his placement purely politically motivated. His venomous hate-filled words show a distinct misogynistic disdain. Was it about her opinion? Or is it her sex?

3. Why was candidate Obama, who provided precisely the same marriage answer as Prejean, not attacked? It’s not her opinion, but as a target of gay pride (mock offense), homosexuals are exploiting this to build hatred against those who defend traditional marriage.

3. Why is this still an issue, particularly with Keith Olberman on MSNBC? Publicity for gay marriage seems to be the primary motivator at this point, because Prejean lost the contest, and the alleged offense doesn’t match the backlash she received.

Technically, Carrie Prejean didn’t answer Hilton’s question, which called for a yes or no answer, and she failed to explain why like this:

“Legalizing same-sex marriage is inherently unfair to traditional married couples and in the long run is potentially harmful to the USA. Traditional marriage encourages procreation, and is best for children who are vital to our nation. Without children to replace the couple in a marriage (2.1 kids actually), a nation’s population diminishes, killing the nation.

Roughly 50% of us were conceived accidently and same-sex couples cannot accidently become pregnant. Given this self-selected sterility and the cost for IVF, it’s unlikely same-sex couples will pay to reproduce. So traditional married couples carry the greater economic and social burden of reproducing the posterity of the nation, while their marriage is deemed legally equal to sterile marriages. That’s direct discrimination against traditional marriage families.

That’s why I believe same-sex marriage is not in the long term interests of any state or the United States.

Frankly, Carrie Prejean should sue the Miss USA pageant to obtain the financing for her defense of marriage foundation. She has a great case for discrimination against her due to her sexual orientation, as well as solid grounds for public defamation of her character. She should include Perez Hilton in the lawsuit and sit him down and deposition him directly about his motives and obtain substantial damages.

In the meantime she’s gathering more potential litigants for libel and defamation.

And if I agree with her opinion, then I guess I’m hated too.

A same-sex marriage culture is not self-sustaining and must rely upon heterosexual culture to continue. If businesses that cannot sustain themselves aren’t desirable, why would same-sex culture be desirable for a nation?

Perspective homosexuality, marriage, misogyny, same-sex-marriage

The cultural understanding of the purpose of marriage has been destroyed over the last 40 years because almost all sense, reason and respect has disappeared in public discourse.

Serious discourse on weighty culture-altering matters is practically non-existent, beaten down by drumbeats of obnoxious self-centered demands. For many, debate over the deep issues of life counts simply as a sideshow distraction from other forms of amusement. Most simply argue with a great unwillingness to get past their own ignorance and educate themselves, choosing instead to accept the shallow and trivial moment and every position that supports their own desires.

As a nation, we suffer terribly from a lack of rational imagination to foresee long-term consequences.

The California judicial fiat is only a spasm in the death throes of the Republic of the United States. The Cold-War era idea that relaxing laws on contraception could eventually lead to a devaluation by society in the sanctity and purpose of marriage seemed so incomprehensible as to be laughable. Yet we see the destruction all around us, some more aware of the source than others.

We try to interpret specific court rulings as though spotting a bullet in mid-flight without trying to understand the trajectory; without comprehending the pattern and result. You never see the one that hits you.

Those who believe that this ruling has few long term consequences upon families completely overlook the power exerted by a particular lobby towards manipulating judicial and public opinion in complete disregard for the natural order of things. To say that this particular power will not be exploited shows an ignorance of the degenerate state of man.

Forty years from now, the unexpected consequences will be known.

Those consequences simply won’t be a joyous matter, any more than people take joy in divorce, having an abortion, fearing for their lives or struggling with an incurable or life-altering disease contracted through promiscuous relations.

As we descend into darkness, it’s inevitable that the Lord shines brighter. So it must be.

Morality same-sex-marriage