Once upon a time, “the right side of history” was the side where marriage was defined as a man and a woman committed to one another for life. Marriage was not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Whatever we wanted to call those alternative lifestyles, they were just that – alternatives.
But then came loud calls for affirmation and legitimizing of everything which is not marriage. The folks who were not in a faithful, monogamous marriage wanted all the honor and recognition that comes with marriage for themselves, but without putting in the actual work to deserve it.
Defenders of traditional marriage said that redefining marriage more broadly would not expand marriage, but would rather undermine and destroy the institution. And like the prostitute who stole the baby of another prostitute after her own baby died (probably due to neglect or contempt), wise King Solomon’s command that a sword be brought to split the live baby in two so each could have half was just fine to the so-called “marriage equality” crowd.
In other words, the “love is love” folks showed themselves content to have half of someone else’s now-dead baby rather than the other harlot getting a whole live baby all to herself. And so the powers that be in the United States of America redefined marriage to include other relationships besides a man and a woman committed publicly for life to one another.
Right around the time when all of this was decided, Sherif Girgis, Ryan T Anderson, and Robert P George wrote ‘What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense.’
Reason and Reasons
Published at the tail-end of 2012, reading this book is like stepping into a time machine. Remember the bygone days when we were arguing about the traditional definition of marriage? Those were the days indeed.
Plenty of arguments can be made from a legal, philosophical, sociological, historical, cultural, and practical standpoint without bringing religion into the equation. And these three men brought those arguments here. But by the time they had published their work, the matter had already been decided. And now we reap the whirlwind.
What will future generations say of us? Likely, we will spend the next few decades at least reaping what wind was sown in the form of broken children growing up to be broken adults who beget still more broken children, and so-on and so-forth, until either the second coming or else mass repentance and revival.
All the same, I am reminded in reading this book that the first thing God is recorded as having said was not good was that the man should be alone.
Furthermore, I am still old enough to remember when God making a help-meet suitable for Adam was interpreted without controversy as Eve, a woman.
What is more, I am still stubborn enough to agree with God that this arrangement as a means to fulfilling the Dominion Mandate was looked on by God and not just called “good,” but “very good.” It is very good that God made a help-meet suitable for me. But it is not very good that rebellious others are still trying to destroy the institution of help-meetery.
This episode is sponsored by
· Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app
Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/garrett-ashley-mullet/message
Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/garrett-ashley-mullet/support