Marriage: The More the Merrier?
It comes as no surprise that a lawyer has filed a lawsuit in the USA challenging the prohibition of polygamy. Those of us involved in the “same-sex marriage cases” said this is where it would lead.
It seems hard to disagree with the lawyer’s claims. As my old girlfriend and dear friend until she died at age 39, Joey Haynes (nee Turner), used to say: “it is just a question of Tab A into Slot B.”
She died some years ago, before the current challenges to the definition of marriage made Tabs and Slots more or less irrelevant. Now those who say Tabs and Slots are irrelevant do not go so far as to say that it is a question of “One” Tab or “One” Slot. For them, as for the traditionalists they seek to replace (those who believe marriage is about “male” and “female”, and one of each) it is still a question of “one” of each. How silly.
The new challengers, those who want group marriages or polygamous marriages, seek to use the same kind of arguments as those same-sex activists who wished to abolish the relevance of (and you’ll excuse the terms) “tabs” and “slots.” The homogenizers won and now the debate is about numbers though why this should be the case nobody will say.
Those who embrace “same-sex marriage” but reject polygamy or group marriage would seem to have a hard case against which to argue. Why, we might ask, are numbers important when the capacity to procreate (have children), the very essence of the "maleness" and "femaleness" requirement, is deemed irrelevant? Same-sex marriage activists say that procreation is irrelevant to marriage but deem that the fact of two persons is somehow critical. But they cannot give a single category that distinguishes "same-sex marriages" from any new claim category.
The gay activists, like the polygamists, are just pulling on opposite ends of the rope that has strangled traditional marriage. Having separated “marriage” from the idea of “maleness” and “femaleness” and those in relation to procreation, the new theorists have unleashed a confused mess upon our societies.
Did the many gay activists who sought access to marriage mean to destroy the traditional concept entirely? Some say “yes” and others, believing the same-sex claims to be a genuine attempt to get inclusion to a meaningful category, said “no.” Time will show, however, that the same-sex claims for access to “marriage” made the category incoherent. Those who want to understand the philosophy of what is going on with claims for "same-sex marriage" must read Dr. Daniel Cere’s affidavit from the marriage challenge case in British Columbia, Canada. It is a superb view of the philosophy and theology underlying the deconstructionist aspects of the current situation: http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/affidavit.pdf
In such a setting it is not surprising that a single person (in the Nutty lands, of course), and now polygamists, seeks access to the category of marriage.
What man has joined together no logic can split asunder.
CENTREBLOG Volume 8
Iain T. Benson©