creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
William Murchison
William Murchison
22 May 2012
Do You Care? I Don't

All the Facebook tabulation of recent days — whatever it may have meant to Mark Zuckerberg and his … Read More.

15 May 2012
Same-Sex Politics

So how did "same-sex marriage" get to be a political issue in the first place — the kind of … Read More.

8 May 2012
The Truth When It Hurts

What Barack Obama has going for him in 2012 is, well, put it this way: human nature. Witness the French. … Read More.

The ‘Gay Marriage' Fantasy

Share Comment

With the economy twitching around on the ground, unable to rise, shine and party like old times, "gay marriage," as per last week's Proposition 8 decision in California, must seem to some a secondary matter.

That would be a sloppily modern way of looking at things. Not that economic conditions don't matter; it's rather that rationality matters at least as much as money.

The Proposition 8 decision — in which a federal judge overturned a state constitutional provision restricting matrimonial union in California to one man and one woman — reflects the modern aptitude for twisting reality to fit personal viewpoint. Reality, to many of our contemporaries, is anything we say it is, instead of That Which Just Plain Is, friend; external to us, beyond human control.

What about marriage? Why not as the federal judge says, two men together or two women? Can't we just say we've had a better idea than civilization's teachers have had up to now — namely, that anything goes, provided it's "loving," "committed," "respectful of diversity"?

Nope. Large realities dwarf and overshadow the tiny human figures reacting to them. You can say up is down if you want, or hot is cold, or far is near. It's your democratic right. Saying doesn't make it so, nonetheless, except to activists with a personal agenda. In which case, let fantasy reign.

I'm sorry, there's no such thing as gay "marriage" — as distinguished from gay "relationships" — because marriage as understood by the whole of humanity for the whole of human time, normally under religious auspices, exists for purposes no gay relationship can satisfy.

What might those purposes be? One is the blending of the relationship between the only two human types there are — male and female. The man and the woman go together: physically, emotionally, intellectually. I mean, I'm sorry if that hurts anyone's feelings, but Reality does get in the way sometimes when we set out to change it or make it dance to a merry new tune.

A second, genuinely urgent thing that marriage does — and no gay relationship possibly can — is project the human race into the future.

We read of gay couples raising children, but not their own: I mean, not as unified couples. Someone outside the relationship had to do the heavy biological lifting one partner or the other couldn't do. The point is suggestive of the need for the two formally conjoined birth forces, Mom and Dad, to carry on what they began: not, as it were, harvesting children but loving what they have brought into the world together; training these new creatures, instructing them, fitting them for the future.

This is what we call Reality. Alternative visions, like that of the California court, are what you call Fantasy: matters of mere opinion.

True, the state of California can be and may one day be browbeaten politically or juridically into issuing marriage licenses to two men or two women. A clergyman or judge can in such cases be recruited to perform, in behalf of such couples, a ceremony officially called marriage. Which would be "marriage" only in the political or juridical sense, nothing more; certainly nothing conforming to the historic understandings that "gay marriage" promoters think it unnecessary to refute, likely because they can't.

We have the oddest debates in the 21st century — debates our forebears couldn't have envisioned, persuaded as they were of truths either formulated and delivered by God through revelation or deducible from the order of things — from natural law, as we still know it sometimes.

Fantasy is first the act of abjuring or circumventing God for being so stuffy and mean, then undertaking to act outside universally understood norms so as to advance personal pleasure or satisfaction, all the while wondering why anyone else should care.

A secularized, or secularizing, society, increasingly turned off by Bibles and those who quote them, is especially open to the terrifying temptation. Think ours isn't that kind? Turn on the television.

William Murchison is the author of "Mortal Follies: Episcopalians and the Crisis of Mainline Christianity." To find out more about William Murchison and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM


Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
What you are saying in this article is that because 2 men or 2 women are not creating a child together that its not really their child?? If that's the case then I'm not my parent's child because I'm adopted. If that is the case, then adoption should not be legal because men and women who adopt did not create that child together. They received that child from another couple, or young mother. 2 men or 2 women can raise a child just as well as a man and woman, in fact sometimes better. It just so happens that for 2 men to have a child, they have to have a sergeant mother, and the 2 women, one has to be AFI, so what. 2 men or 2 women can still love, teach, and raise that child as if they created that child together instead of have someone outside the relationship be a part of it. 2 men or 2 women can enjoy what they have created, they can enjoy bringing that child into the world, just like anyone else. I do not agree with "REALITY". We are run by a Bible belt government that doesn't think that 2 men or 2 women should be allowed to get married. Are we not a FREE country??? Are people not allowed to be with who they love??? If that is true, then everyone should be assigned who they have to marry, but since we are allowed to be with the one we love, then why take the rights away for gays and lesbians to get married? The government has taken away the freedom to be with our true love, just because they do not agree with it.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Mary Grace Rodgers
Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:09 AM
You disgust me. That's really all there is to be said.
Comment: #2
Posted by: cynder
Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:31 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
William Murchison
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

30 Jan 2007 Businessmen And Bureaucrats

28 Dec 2010 Elections Have Consequences

1 Jun 2010 The Sound and the Fury