Marines.Together We Served

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Marriage Matters

Have you been paying attention to the ongoing debate over the Federal Marriage Amendment? If not, you need to become knowledgeable prior to Election Day, Tuesday, November 2nd.

Admittedly, I grow weary of the campaign banter each election year because it’s the sort of rhetoric offered to the body politic (that’s us) in hopes that in our gullibility we will endorse with our ballots policy that continues to erode our nation’s moral fiber. This year we are faced with a very important decision. Let me explain.

The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) H.J. Res 56 is an attempt to return a sense of sanity to our national psyche. The amendment reads, “SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”

This “congressional resolution proposes an
amendment to the Constitution that would legally define marriage as the union between a man and a woman only”
(http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/usconstitution/a/marriage.htm).

To those of us coming from a traditional background this is a no-brainer. But don’t be fooled! There are plenty of folks in our society who want to change the way the family is viewed. Consider all the attempts to perform same-sex marriages in the past year.

How have we as a nation managed to find ourselves in this position? Why is there a need to define marriage anyway?

Allow me to propose that our current need to define marriage with precise language stems from a gradual slide down the slippery slope of moral decay. I watch very little television, and for good reason. I am sickened by Hollywood’s portrayal of what is normal. It began with the criticism of the traditional family. Programs such as, “Ozzie and Harriet,” and “Leave it to Beaver,” were maligned and castigated for being unrealistic. Let me tell you that I enjoyed these programs as a kid because of the way these family members cared for each other and treated each other with respect. What’s wrong with that? Compare that with, “The Simpson’s,” “The Osbourne’s,” and their ilk.

In particular, the male figure is typically cast in a most unflattering manner. No, that’s too kind. Let me rephrase that. Men, especially the husband/father figure, are portrayed as buffoons, dolts, sexually inept, bores, spineless, and in general, having no sense of personal identity or any grasp on what it means to be a man in society. We have been fed this image of men now for forty years.

Due to the growing concern over political correctness, we have become fearful of expressing our thoughts because of the ridicule we might receive from certain quarters. No one wants to be labeled as a homophobe, or gay-basher, or whatever other term might be used. That’s the problem faced in open and serious debate – it descends into name-calling, using libelous terms.

The need to define marriage is so that our society won’t fall into total abject immorality. By making it a Constitutional amendment, it makes it law. It’s a sad day when we need to make such a law, but if that’s what it takes to protect our culture, then so be it.

God did not make a mistake when he created a man and a woman. His design and purpose was for the opposite sexes to be attracted to each other. Read about it. It’s in His book.

No comments:

Psalm for the Day