Beyond the Cusp

November 27, 2012

Can Marriage be Retrieved Once Voters Change the Legal Definition?

There is one thing that crusaders for causes rarely worry about, future generations and how they might reflect upon changes these crusaders transform. They do not worry about what the lasting effects of any revolutionary redefinition of once stable essential structures that have been basic building-blocks for our society since we first formed clans and tribes. This is likely one of the missing considerations which are finally being broken down as the crusaders for a progressive society have apparently reached the critical tipping point in the campaign to transform the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. After thirty-two states had voted their refusal in past referendum to redefine marriage, this past election may be the initial indication that the change has begun as four states voted to redefine marriage from one man to one woman to the “enlightened” two people with no gender restrictions which were so stringently restrictive. Now that the initial eggs have been broken, we can expect over the next few election cycles for sufficient eggs to break to make a few omelets and before a decade has passed we will witness soufflés being made with so many eggs breaking. As the Dylan refrain goes, the times they are a changin’.

Future generations will have a new definition provided from birth where the normative definition of a marriage will be between two people who desire to enter a contractual relationship to face the future together hopefully in some form of nurturing environment. They will have a second definition provided in some religious publications, especially traditional editions and literal translations. There will be some more progressive, liberal, new-age translations where marriage will match the new legal definition at some time in the future, but in the near time there will be two very different definitions in much of society. This will lead to some degrees of discomfort, confusion and discord within the different factions in our society. This will work itself out with time and within a short period the new legal definition for what constitutes a marriage will become dominant and those who hold opinions counter to the new definition will take a more subdued position in expressing their views publically. There will always be a hardcore group which will take an active approach to their expressing the then dated view of marriage being between a man and a woman and they will then receive treatment similar to the treatment of those who first presented the more universal and less restrictive definition of marriage being between two people regardless of genders. The next question is obviously the one where we want to know where this change will lead.

With time will there be a call for marriage to be redefined even further? If so, what other traditional restrictions will be challenged? The first and most obvious restriction that might be challenged is the age of consent for marriage. There have already been studies which have shown that children are sexually maturing at a younger age. Should this biological change also force a change in our laws to allow marriage to reflect the change in the age of sexual maturity? Then there is the obvious number restriction on marriage. If we no longer restrict marriage to gender, then why restrict the number of people who can be held within a single marriage? This might begin with allowing marriage to include a third individual or we may simply jump all the way to a universal community marriage allowance where as many people as wish can be included in what we would likely today call a commune but in the future allow such entities to declare they are unilaterally married as a whole. I doubt that the term marriage would ever go to the more ridiculous extremes some people have claimed would result from allowing a more universal definition such as allowing people to marry an animal.

The only item that has not been addressed is what will happen should in the future a majority desire to return to the current traditional definition of a marriage. Once the laws have been changed they will be the ones who will be forced to accept the more open definition of marriage. They will join the religious conservatives who will likely still be resisting the new definition and only surrender to the extent that the law requires of them. Will those who wish to return to marriage being defined once again as between a man and a woman face the initial scorn and rejections that those proposing gay marriage initially faced? The reality is they very likely will be placed in a very similar position facing similar treatment. The whole argument will have been turned upside-down and those who claim now to be the tolerant ones pushing the borders of society further will be the ones defending the normative status-quo and being defined as the conservative ones refusing to change with the times. Once again marriage will be a topic of debate with the tables turned and all the definitions switched. I guess the more things change the more the opportunity for a future campaign to restore and unchange. The only question is will we go so far in our current changes that no return can ever be attained no matter how much we try to unchange.

Beyond the Cusp

February 21, 2012

A Question for the Catholic Hierarchy

The idea that the Catholic Church in particular and religious people and institutions in general have come under direct assault by institutions within and outside governments by Secular Humanists throughout the public sphere is not an illusion but a truism. There have been those, including Glenn Beck, who have claimed that we all need to back the Catholic Church in this fight as this assault needs to be halted before it spreads on to the religious generally. I agree with the urgency to stand against threats to religious freedoms especially in the relatively few countries where it exists as a universal and guaranteed governing principle, as they are in truth a small minority. Where I stand in support of religious freedoms and will oppose any and all attempts to squelch the vitality and lifeblood of freedoms for religious observances and practices, I do have one simple question, or is it a request, to ask of the Catholic Church which I would like to announce and share on this space.

 

I will begin by offering thanks to the Catholic Church for their liberalization and reset of their relationship with the Jewish people. In an edict issued from the Vatican during the Second Vatican Council, which met from 1962 through 1965, the Catholic Church changed its definitions of relations and definition of Judaism from Replacement Theology to a friendlier acceptance along with forgiveness of what had been defined as cultural and actual guilt and sins for endless centuries. There have been claims of backsliding on this decision, especially when it comes to matters concerning Israel. My challenge to the Catholic Church is whether they will support Israel in their struggle for survival against the forces which aim to erase Judaism, not only from the face of the Earth, but from all of history as well. One would expect the Catholic Church to have stood with Israel and the Jewish People against those forces who have declared war against all religions other than their own which eventually will include the Catholic Church. These forces include the Islamists and the Secular Humanists which have formed an informal alliance, each intending to discard the other when they are no longer useful or necessary. One of these two is grossly underestimating the power of the other and it really does not matter for Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Mormon or other religious groups who will all have been marginalized or destroyed by that time. Will the Catholic Church recognize their need to ally with the Jewish People and with Israel or will they continue to be lukewarm fair-weather-friends picking and choosing when to smile and when to cast aspersions when the mood and subject suits their ends.

 

I fully understand the Catholic Church is in an unenviable position when it comes to the Islam-Israel conflict as many Catholics live within the Muslim World and the Catholic Church believes supporting Israel will cause great harms to befall their members living within the influences of Islam. I have a little piece of news for the Catholic Church, if the Muslims and Islamic forces which make up the radical Islamist forces win out, after they rid themselves of Israel the Catholics are very likely next on their target list. Feeding this alligator the Jews will serve only to whet its appetite for a continued feeding frenzy feasting upon the World’s Christians. If you have doubts about this, remember Spain from the period of the early 700s until 1492 when King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella initiated the Spanish Inquisition after the war to liberate Spain from Islam to rid themselves of the Islamic Moorish remnants, oh, and of their Jewish population as well. Ask those who have studied the history of Vienna which was twice barely saved from the relentless spread of Islam. Search your modern World map and find Constantinople, a once great Christian city which is now named Istanbul and once held a grand monument called the Hagia Sophia which was transformed into a Mosque and all of the beautiful mosaics were plastered over as their subject was an insult to Allah and his Prophet. Do you really need prompting to remember your own early history of the last two times Islam turned to their goal of World conquest, the same style of conquest that many feel they have rediscovered with their third attempt is currently beginning.

 

We are on the cusp of two World movements which are both making their push for dominance. As mentioned earlier in this article, one is Islam and the other is State promoting and deifying Secular Humanism. Both of these forces are antithetical to Catholics just as much as they abhor Judaism. Both influences will spell the end for all Catholics just as they will Jews and those of many other religions as well. Plain and simple, putting this in the most basic terms I am able, both of these ideologies detest Catholicism almost equally as they do Judaism and the difference will not matter if in the end either one is allowed to become dominant. This is a war of civilizations and of ideologies. Trust when I say that Catholics and Jews have more in common with each other than with either of these destructive forces which are now ascendant. Christians and Jews will be stronger together than separate, let alone in opposition. So, I ask the Catholic Church, where do you stand in this critical time and day, with the Jews and Israel or on the sidelines or with those who wish the end of the Jews and Israel, and do not pretend there is a difference. Should Israel fall and half of the World’s Jews face extinction, rest assured the rest will wither and die the slow death of assimilation. Israel and the Jewish faith are one and the same for all intents and purposes. Choose carefully, our Father watches.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

The Rubric Theme Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: