Border Patrols for Marriage?

With all the coverage of illegal immigration and border security in the news, another boundary that is getting some attention, but maybe not enough, is that of the definition of marriage. Definitions are not always arbitrary, and one cannot change all words and their meanings without changing other realities on the ground.

Chuck Colson's column at Town Hall sums up some of Maggie Gallagher's recent Weekly Standard article: "gay marriage" is going to erode religious liberties, folks.

I have argued elsewhere that Christian citizens need to pay attention to "first things first," above everything else, when it comes to the public square. The man and the wife together, from the beginning, have been foundational, as has the sanctity of human life, made in the image of God. Indeed, even the sanctity of life in God's image and the sanctity of marriage are closely related: The family itself--not just the individual human being--is, in the words of St. Paul, a "patria" [family] named after the Father in heaven (Eph. 3:14). It's not just a convenient association.

Christians in this country at this time in history need to defend marriage against those intent on destroying its boundaries. As for those coming over our geographical borders, I would wager most of them still know what marriage is for, even if we don't, or don't care enough to take a stand. The future belongs to those who do.

Comments

[Judy Warner]

I am sorry to report that, according to a Heritage Foundation report by Robert Rector, there is a "decline of marriage among Hispanics in the U.S. Within this group, 45 percent of children are born out of wedlock....The birth rate for Hispanic teens is higher than for black teens." Perhaps Mexicans come over the border valuing marriage -- I don't know -- but if so, they quickly surpass the native population here in not respecting marriage.

[GL]

Chuck Colson's column at Town Hall sums up some of Maggie Gallagher's recent Weekly Standard article: "gay marriage" is going to erode religious liberties, folks.

Amen, brother. So has contraception and abortion. You need look no further than efforts in Illinois and other states to deny pharmacists their licenses to make a living if they refuse to fill Plan-B prescriptions. But what the secularists through the state intend for evil, God will use for good:

You have dealt well with your servant,
O LORD, according to your word.
Teach me good judgment and knowledge,
for I believe in your commandments.
Before I was afflicted I went astray,
but now I keep your word.
You are good and do good;
teach me your statutes.
The insolent smear me with lies,
but with my whole heart I keep your precepts;
their heart is unfeeling like fat,
but I delight in your law.
It is good for me that I was afflicted,
that I might learn your statutes.

Psalm 119:65-71 (ESV)

Praise God that our generation may have the opportunity to be oppressed for our Faith! It is a gift. The martyrs found and find much worse persecution to be a blessing for which they gave and give thanks.

[DWS]

So many words, so little action. The refusal of so many in the Church to do anything at all to promote anything better makes this sound rather like the usual baloney from conservatives. It's all someone else's problem, not ours.

Does one's church have any official program to do better, by actively promoting chastity? Do they have an active ministry for any single adults who may be inspired to darken their doors? In the past thirty-odd years of attending conservative Episcopal/Anglican churches in several dioceses (i. e., Mass., Albany, Mich.) I have yet to encounter anything of this sort. From what I have seen it isn't just the Piskies with this attitude.

If a church doesn't have such a program, it's the problem, not the solution. Christ comments on this sort of negligence in general (Mat. 23:3-4), and He isn't very complimentary. So before anyone goes making noise about national problems of unchastity, maybe they should try doing something a bit closer to home. It might save them from some severe judgement later.

[GL]

DWS,

I agree that orthodox Christians must first conform their own lives to the teachings of the Church before calling on others to do likewise and should then be helping others to do likewise. My church does in fact support ministries to homosexuals designed to help them live chaste lives and to repent of their homosexual behavior, which I assume is the point of your post.

Local, one-on-one and small group ministries replicated across the country are more likely to impact lives than national programs. Nonetheless, opposing the spread of "gay marriages," reversing the legality of abortion-on-demand, and ending the government support of contraception are also legitimate goals of Christians. To follow another admonishing of our Lord on another subject: "These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others." Cf. Luke 11:42.

[Clark Coleman]

I wonder what special programs or ministries the church of the first two centuries had for helping people be chaste? Did they hire a Singles Minister? Or a Youth Minister? Or a Family and Singles Minister?

If not, they were obviously part of the problem, right?

[Patrick]

Clark, the records are exactly complete, however I do get the suspicion that churches did more than have people stand in line and anonymously participate in Mass once a week.

Singles ministers were around... they were called Abbas. And the early church writings, especially the monastic stuff, is filled with copious instructions on the daily importance of community life for those trying to live chastely.

And they didn't hire youth ministers... but they did have them. St. John being one.

When he had come to one of the cities not far away (the name of which is given by some ), and had consoled the brethren in other matters, he finally turned to the bishop that had been appointed, and seeing a youth of powerful physique, of pleasing appearance, and of ardent temperament, he said, `This one I commit to you in all earnestness in the presence of the Church and with Christ as witness.' And when the bishop had accepted the Charge and had promised all, he repeated the same injunction with an appeal to the same witnesses, and then departed for Ephesus.

But the presbyter taking home the youth committed to him, reared, kept, cherished, and finally baptized him. After this he relaxed his stricter care and watchfulness, with the idea that in putting upon him the seal of the Lord he had given him a perfect protection.

But some youths of his own age, idle and dissolute, and accustomed to evil practices, corrupted him when he was thus prematurely freed from restraint. At first they enticed him by costly entertainments; then, when they went forth at night for robbery, they took him with them, and finally they demanded that he should unite with them in some greater crime.

He gradually became accustomed to such practices, and on account of the positiveness of his character, leaving the right path, and taking the bit in his teeth like a hard-mouthed and powerful horse, he rushed the more violently down into the depths.

And finally despairing of salvation in God, he no longer meditated what was insignificant, but having committed some great crime, since he was now lost once for all, he expected to suffer a like fate with the rest. Taking them, therefore, and forming a band of robbers, he became a bold bandit-chief, the most violent, most bloody, most cruel of them all.

Time passed, and some necessity having arisen, they sent for John. But he, when he had set in order the other matters on account of which he had come, said, `Come, O bishop, restore us the deposit which both I and Christ committed to you, the church, over which you preside, being witness.'

But the bishop was at first confounded, thinking that he was falsely charged in regard to money which he had not received, and he could neither believe the accusation respecting what he had not, nor could he disbelieve John. But when he said, `I demand the young man and the soul of the brother,' the old man, groaning deeply and at the same time bursting into tears, said, `He is dead.' `How and what kind of death?' `He is dead to God,' he said; `for he turned wicked and abandoned, and at last a robber. And now, instead of the church, he haunts the mountain with a band like himself.'

But the Apostle rent his clothes, and beating his head with great lamentation, he said, `A fine guard I left for a brother's soul! But let a horse be brought me, and let some one show me the way.' He rode away from the church just as he was, and coming to the place, he was taken prisoner by the robbers' outpost.

He, however, neither fled nor made entreaty, but cried out, `For this did I come; lead me to your captain.'

The latter, meanwhile, was waiting, armed as he was. But when he recognized John approaching, he turned in shame to flee.

But John, forgetting his age, pursued him with all his might, crying out, `Why, my son, do you flee from me, your own father, unarmed, aged? Pity me, my son; fear not; you still have hope of life. I will give account to Christ for you. If need be, I will willingly endure your death as the Lord suffered death for us. For you will I give up my life. Stand, believe; Christ has sent me.'

And he, when he heard, first stopped and looked down; then he threw away his arms, and then trembled and wept bitterly. And when the old man approached, he embraced him, making confession with lamentations as he was able, baptizing himself a second time with tears, and concealing only his right hand.

But John, pledging himself, and assuring him on oath that he would find forgiveness with the Savior, besought him, fell upon his knees, kissed his right hand itself as if now purified by repentance, and led him back to the church. And making intercession for him with copious prayers, and struggling together with him in continual fastings, and subduing his mind by various utterances, he did not depart, as they say, until he had restored him to the church, furnishing a great example of true repentance and a great proof of regeneration, a trophy of a visible resurrection.

[Ethan Cordray]

Patrick, from whence does that amazing story come?

[luthien]

"I am sorry to report that, according to a Heritage Foundation report by Robert Rector, there is a "decline of marriage among Hispanics in the U.S. Within this group, 45 percent of children are born out of wedlock....The birth rate for Hispanic teens is higher than for black teens."'
Thanks, Judy! I live in an area with an enormous illegal immigrant population, and that fits them pretty precisely. You also have to consider the other social problems they bring in, like gang wars, fights, stabbings, and increased drung problems, all of which are pretty darn anti-social. The town I live outside used to be a nice, quiet, peaceful place where you'd want to live...no more. We now have enormous problems with drugs, gangs, and violence, a lot more single motherhood, the town, which used to be a nice place for middle class families is now polarized between the slums and the wealthy parts, and our school taxes keep going up because not only have we got the people with bad affluenza demanding the best for the schools,we have to fund a ridiculous a nmount of ESL and bilingual education. Illegal immigrants are making society far, far worse, not better.

[Patrick]

Ethan, it's from Clement of Alexandria, "Who is the Rich Man that Shall be Saved", ch. 42. Also quoted in Eusebius, but from the Clement passage.

[GL]

See Polysexual and Heteroflexible in a New York High School for a disturbing account of teenage girls experimentation with lesbianism.

[Jeff Sawtelle]

To get back to the Colsen piece:

The "irrational animus" language of the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court apparently comes from Romer v. Evans,(1996?) where the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an amendment to the Colorado State Constitution barring special treatment for homosexuals. This case didn't get the attention it deserved at the time.

The Supreme Court has taken to striking down laws because of the imputed motives of the law's backers. This kind of imputation is necessarily speculative. If the Court decides that nothing but an "irrational animus" (as distinct from the Court's own animuses, which are presumably rational) could account for the law, then the people are restricted in their sovereignty by the Court's inability to understand.

In another case, the Court struck down a "moment of silence" statute because it decided that Alabama legislature intended to establish religion. Thus, they weren't forced to show exactly how such a law does in fact establish religion.

Essentially, the Court seems to be saying that some of us are bad people and will not be allowed to prevail in the political process. Isn't this a repudiation of the "equal justice under law" motto on the lintel of the Supreme Court building?

There is also a line of cases that holds that the Constitutional guarantee of "liberty" is intended to keep us free of arbitrary government actions. In practice, this seems to mean that a judge can strike down a law because (s)he doesn't think that it isn't a very good one. This, it seems, makes the Courts a third chamber of the legislature, with a veto power.

(As the Liberal party in the U.S., the "Democratic" party's name is becoming increasingly ironic.)

Also, with regard to the "Plan B" laws mentioned above, I saw a picture in a recent issue of Time magazine, where a "pro-choice" demonstrator was waving a sign saying "My Choice, Not Yours." But, didn't we already know that?