Robert Meyer
Same-sex marrige: How it came to this
By Robert Meyer
The state of Wisconsin is moving closer to a public referendum this fall, which could result in an amendment to the State Constitution forbidding same-sex unions. This is a procedure already undertaken by several states to protect the exclusive definition of traditional marriage. It is easy to get sidetracked by the arguments for and against this proposal. Maybe we should first think about how we got to this precipice of cultural ambiguity in the first place.
So how did we get to this point? I believe there are some basic social changes that prompted a movement along a continuum toward this culminating end. There may be some intermediate steps in between, but I think the following points are the largest leaps.
Some of us are old enough to remember a time when it was assumed that sexual relations were appropriate exclusively inside of traditional marriage. It didn't matter that a few people were promiscuous, because most of the society held to this standard. For many of us, the taboos by and large, created enough social pressure to offset the temptations to indulge in capricious sexual behavior. By the end of the 1960's, such thinking became quaint and repressive. Since sex was readily accepted outside the marital covenant, it robbed traditional marriage of a portion of its exalted status. Cohabitation among opposite sex adults became a popular living arrangement in order to enjoy the "benefits" without the commitment.
Roe versus Wade became another giant step. This decision championed the cause of "women's rights," and gave women an option for birth control after the fact. In some cases, it released women from any obligation to inform their husbands about a pregnancy. Again, another way of undermining marital cohesion, cooperation and trust. It also created the contradictory dichotomy, whereby men are financially responsible if women give birth to their babies, yet have no say in the decision to abort them.
So much of the women's rights movement smacked of a rebellion of anger and hostility, rather than a reformation toward social justice. Women were expected to act and think in ways that denied the created order, thus placing them on the cruel proving grounds of internal conflict.
Thirdly, and perhaps most vital, is the popularity of "no-fault" divorce. At one time, it was necessary to show that a spouse had broken the covenant in some grievous way, before one could petition for divorce. Today, couples who lose interest in each other, simple claim "irreconcilable differences," then go on their merry way(no pun intended). The "no-fault" divorce made it easy to get out of marriage. If people can get out easy, it also seems predictable that couples would be less circumspect about entering into a marriage. One can only anticipate higher divorce rates with a lower degree of thoughtful consideration. The corresponding high divorce rates have provided an opportunity for same-sex advocates to suggest that heterosexuals haven't done a good job handling the institution of marriage. And how do we answer that charge?
There has been a dramatic paradigm shift in the area of epistemology(loosely translated, a study of how we know ultimate truth). We have moved from a predominantly biblical foundation undergirding our law and ethic, and moved to a "different strokes for different folks" mentality. Thus, our contemporary focus of justice has been fixated with the advocacy of the individual's "right" to indulge the whims of personal autonomy and imagination. This is contrary to a social conscience that reflects on what duties and obligations must be undertaken to preserve a social order established by God himself. We have seen a complete decoupling of the social order with the biblical mandate.
As a youth, I remember laughing and mocking at the caricature of old "grannies" in their front porch rocking chairs, asking "What is the world coming to." Now I understand that sentiment.
While this is cause for celebration among secularists and "progressives," there is nothing progressive about the direction we have gone. Look at the increases in violent crimes, divorce, children born out of wedlock, and the lowering of scores in college entrance exams that have followed since the early 1960's. Many will scream that correlation does not prove causation, then run a fool's errand in giving more complex and convoluted explanations that cloak the truth.
We have come to believe that the primary reason for "couplehood" is merely to celebrate an amorous affection held between two persons, or the mutual consent to enter into a legal union to receive benefit rights from the state or an employer.
When we have placed the spiritual implications of marriage out of sight and out of mind, we distort God's intent for the smallest unit of civil government: the family itself. This didn't happen overnight, we allowed it gradually without considering the long-term consequences. In a very real sense we have met the enemy when we look into the mirror.
© Robert Meyer
The state of Wisconsin is moving closer to a public referendum this fall, which could result in an amendment to the State Constitution forbidding same-sex unions. This is a procedure already undertaken by several states to protect the exclusive definition of traditional marriage. It is easy to get sidetracked by the arguments for and against this proposal. Maybe we should first think about how we got to this precipice of cultural ambiguity in the first place.
So how did we get to this point? I believe there are some basic social changes that prompted a movement along a continuum toward this culminating end. There may be some intermediate steps in between, but I think the following points are the largest leaps.
Some of us are old enough to remember a time when it was assumed that sexual relations were appropriate exclusively inside of traditional marriage. It didn't matter that a few people were promiscuous, because most of the society held to this standard. For many of us, the taboos by and large, created enough social pressure to offset the temptations to indulge in capricious sexual behavior. By the end of the 1960's, such thinking became quaint and repressive. Since sex was readily accepted outside the marital covenant, it robbed traditional marriage of a portion of its exalted status. Cohabitation among opposite sex adults became a popular living arrangement in order to enjoy the "benefits" without the commitment.
Roe versus Wade became another giant step. This decision championed the cause of "women's rights," and gave women an option for birth control after the fact. In some cases, it released women from any obligation to inform their husbands about a pregnancy. Again, another way of undermining marital cohesion, cooperation and trust. It also created the contradictory dichotomy, whereby men are financially responsible if women give birth to their babies, yet have no say in the decision to abort them.
So much of the women's rights movement smacked of a rebellion of anger and hostility, rather than a reformation toward social justice. Women were expected to act and think in ways that denied the created order, thus placing them on the cruel proving grounds of internal conflict.
Thirdly, and perhaps most vital, is the popularity of "no-fault" divorce. At one time, it was necessary to show that a spouse had broken the covenant in some grievous way, before one could petition for divorce. Today, couples who lose interest in each other, simple claim "irreconcilable differences," then go on their merry way(no pun intended). The "no-fault" divorce made it easy to get out of marriage. If people can get out easy, it also seems predictable that couples would be less circumspect about entering into a marriage. One can only anticipate higher divorce rates with a lower degree of thoughtful consideration. The corresponding high divorce rates have provided an opportunity for same-sex advocates to suggest that heterosexuals haven't done a good job handling the institution of marriage. And how do we answer that charge?
There has been a dramatic paradigm shift in the area of epistemology(loosely translated, a study of how we know ultimate truth). We have moved from a predominantly biblical foundation undergirding our law and ethic, and moved to a "different strokes for different folks" mentality. Thus, our contemporary focus of justice has been fixated with the advocacy of the individual's "right" to indulge the whims of personal autonomy and imagination. This is contrary to a social conscience that reflects on what duties and obligations must be undertaken to preserve a social order established by God himself. We have seen a complete decoupling of the social order with the biblical mandate.
As a youth, I remember laughing and mocking at the caricature of old "grannies" in their front porch rocking chairs, asking "What is the world coming to." Now I understand that sentiment.
While this is cause for celebration among secularists and "progressives," there is nothing progressive about the direction we have gone. Look at the increases in violent crimes, divorce, children born out of wedlock, and the lowering of scores in college entrance exams that have followed since the early 1960's. Many will scream that correlation does not prove causation, then run a fool's errand in giving more complex and convoluted explanations that cloak the truth.
We have come to believe that the primary reason for "couplehood" is merely to celebrate an amorous affection held between two persons, or the mutual consent to enter into a legal union to receive benefit rights from the state or an employer.
When we have placed the spiritual implications of marriage out of sight and out of mind, we distort God's intent for the smallest unit of civil government: the family itself. This didn't happen overnight, we allowed it gradually without considering the long-term consequences. In a very real sense we have met the enemy when we look into the mirror.
© Robert Meyer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
