Pro-Life // Pro-Marriage is Extreme -- Why? (And What to do about it)

Today, to define marriage as one man and one woman – that is an extreme position. “Since when should marriage be limited to one man and one woman?” Critics argue.

To recognize life at conception and defend life as much as resources permit – that is also an extreme position. How has this transformation in values about life and marriage taken place, and so quickly? We can start with the faux-libertarian (in reality, narcissistic and self-righteous) argument, the craze from political activists these days: “It’s my body, and I can do what I want with it.”

---

From the most vocal of activists come the most venal of politicians, leaders in Washington fear losing the majority power or long-term influence in Washington if they do not accede to the limited demands of this childish generation, who want their financial future secure, yet at the same time want to do as they please with their bodies and minds. This myopic morality has bred the pro-choice (or rather “pro-abortion”) movement. “It’s my body” has given birth to the gay marriage debate, too. Yet should we blame exclusively the youth culture, or the cowardice of the political establishment, for this “Me first” moral miasma? In terms of marriage, the transformative Obama Administration has hastened the demise of the institution, pressing on every organization of the federal government acceptance of homosexuality and the “rights” of gay couples to marry. Looking further back, the judicial fiat of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2004 opened the pandemic of undoing marriage as one man and one woman. At least marriage supporters can point out that the arrogance of judges, not the will of individuals or communities, pushed the perversion of the marital sacrament on this country. What about abortion? Unlike the argument about marriage, the definition of life (its beginnings, values, and implications) has endured longer, also from judicial interventionism (Roe v. Wade). Proponents of life and marriage should take heart, since only a court could force the devolution of these values, and only in law (not in spirit). To this day in Massachusetts, there are many who do not recognize nor respect gay marriage as an accomplished fact. The same holds true for abortion. Unlike the marriage argument, the pro-life Movement is growing stronger. From Roe v. Wade in 1973, millions of babies have been aborted, yet the voices to protect those children has grown louder, too. Private interests, including churches, have rallied year after year to speak for those who cannot, the unborn. Laws have changed in locales as distinct as North Dakota and Texas to define the legal time limit for seeking an abortion. The latest US Supreme Court ruling, McCullen v. Coakley, struck down the 35-ft barrier which prevented pro-life protestors from denouncing abortion clinics. The ruling had been upheld by the Massachusetts State Supreme Court (the same body which arbitrarily redefine marriage). Could SCOTUS undo their undue ruling redefining marriage, too? Following the disturbing revelations of the Gosnell trial and the inner city abortion clinics (where babies born alive were murdered), the “pro-choice” mantra has been exposed as a pro-murder agenda. Pro-life is alive and well in the United States, even in ultra-liberal New England. Even pro-gay marriage politicians like former US Senate candidate Gabriel Gomez (R-Massachusetts) proudly announce their pro-life views. Still, the sanctity of marriage is giving way, however, to the insanity of group-think, and the voices speaking out for one man and one woman are not as strong. Why? The problem of marriage goes deeper than two men or two women masquerading as a married couple. The lack of respect for the institution began much earlier, when men and women decided, and local mores acquiesced, that sex before marriage, that parenthood before matrimony, was acceptable. Perhaps instead of focusing on perversion of the institution, our society must also investigate why so many choose cohabitation instead of marriage, or why adultery has become standard. Casual sex has created a casual attitude about marriage, as the rates of intended pregnancies have increased in key urban areas (New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles) The consequences of casual and pre-marital sex are getting more attention than before, but the consequences of such loose and unaccountable conduct resists easy documentation. The death of a baby is an immediate and outrageous tragedy. The break-down of restraint before sex and commitment before consummation escapes our notice. Is there any way to present (and thus prevent) of the diminution (or destruction?) of marriage? Studies showing increased depression and suicide following casual sex suggest that the concrete dangers of immoral conduct or prevalent and relevant. The individual accounts of young people (and the crushing fallout) from casual encounters will awaken a new respect for marital love as opposed to “easy sex”. Medical studies documenting the disease, dysfunction, and death associated with homosexuality (and revelations debunking the “born gay” myth) will cause individuals to rethink homosexual conduct. Legal rulings are supporting life once again. Judges may rule right and strike down mandated gay marriage in the future, too. As Pro-Life goes mainstream, marriage as one man and one woman may return, too.