From the Associated Press yesterday, telling how California is changing their marriage application to meet their new acceptance of gay marriage:
"The guidelines from Janet McKee, chief of California's office of vital records, contained copies of new marriage forms that include lines for "Party A" and "Party B" instead of bride and groom. The gender-neutral nomenclature was developed in consultation with county clerks, according to the letter."
Reading this caused such a dark, surreal moment for me. Who would have thought that it took just changing a few print characters on a government form to cause one of the oldest, most sacred institutions in society to crumble? It’s mind-blowing how easy it was. Really, mind-blowing...
Here is one of the problems with this “progression:”
First, let’s take a look at the some most compelling reasons why society says we should permit gay marriage:
1) It is better for society to have committed, documented relationships, than not.
2) It permits health care plans to be extended to significant others.
3) It permits the easy transferring of assets to the other person upon death.
4) People should be permitted to live the way they want.
5) People should be able to love whom they want.
6) People shouldn't be discriminated against.
7) In the case of a hospital emergency, significant others should have the same visitation rights as heterosexual spouses.
8) They should be able to experience parenthood and raise children the same as anyone else.
Here's the problem:
Every justification above, EVERY ONE, can without a doubt also be used to justify the distortion of the definition of marriage even further to extend to beyond just limiting marriage to between two people. Read the reasons again with an understanding that it is referencing a marriage with three people. You will see that everyone of these reasons, validated by a minority in society, that got us to this crazy point can easily take us further into the abyss. What is to stop this? Can adding “Party C” to the form as well be far behind?
I say this to make a point. Once the institution of marriage is destroyed by altering it to the point where is does not match the essence of its definition anymore, it is no longer marriage and anything goes.
The only true way to protect this institution, and society, is to define marriage in a way that assures that the validity of both the term and institution come together - - by giving it a definition that "pseudo-marriages" can never live up to and get it back to its essence: Marriage is between a man and a woman, committed to each other, who have the potential to procreate children whom have the best chance to be stable, contributing and beneficial members of society because they were brought up in a secure environment that was framed by a true marriage.
Unfortunately, the genie is already half way out of the bottle. It’s a very slippery slope.