Category Archives: Gay Marriage

What Does Chastisement Look Like?


From Romans:

chastisement18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; 21 for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. 29 They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters,[f] insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.


Reading this gives an interesting view of Chastisement.

I think our tendency in reading this is to focus on verses 26-32 and think about these things in terms of the target of God’s unhappiness with us – as the source of God’s wrath.   And certainly, these actions are noted as sinful and depraved so there is some element of truth to that.

Often enough, we see lamentations of the world around us – its immodesty and impurity, the continued degradation of social norms that were previously founded on Christian principles, but are now redefined by secular humanism, relativism, and liberal progressivism.   We view all these things and think that, surely, chastisement cannot be far behind.

What we are missing, I think, is that these things are chastisement.

Reading above, the real sin that brought on chastisement is:

  • those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
  • for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him
  • they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.
  • Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.


OK, so the last bullet point is a bit archaic, but the modern equivalence of it is money, self, and power.    It is also anything we spend our time on that detracts us from God and the responsibilities He has given us.   To some extent, we are all likely guilty of that.

A spiritual social decay does not start with sexual perversion or confusion.   It starts with a much more subtle turning from God.   It first starts by moving God out of the public square.   By discouraging prayer.   By being ungrateful.   By considering your own personal needs before the needs of others.   By greed.   By turning Sunday into a day spent on yourself with maybe some little sliver of time for God, or maybe not.

At some point, the relationship with God changes, but this change is a disaffection of the real valid relationship that we should have and becomes something of a fantasy.   When this becomes our own pervasive reality, we’ve lost our way.

Pretty soon, this whole thing morphs into either an unbelief, or some weird belief that what we do doesn’t really matter because God loves us and that’s that.   Our own “wisdom” in assessing our relationship with God is borne of just that – our own wisdom – and is not a reflection of the reality of what Scripture has to say, what the Church teaches is true, or from any study of the wisest of Saints that went before us.   We decide that God is Who we want Him to be.

This is the real sin that separates us and invites chastisement.   The question is, what does chastisement look like?

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

Notice that in Romans 1, we don’t get into the sins of impurity until after the “Therefore.”    The chastisement God sends us is not typically fire and brimstone.   It is ourselves apart from God.   Until this time, Paul seems to be saying that God recognizes that we are weak and protects us against ourselves.   He knows what brings us emptiness, heartbreak, desolation, and loneliness.   He doesn’t want that for us.   So He helps us, blesses us, gives us the grace to deal with many of life’s temptations and disorders.   He loves us.

But when we do not recognize any of this, and we are ungrateful for it, this is a sin against the very goodness of God Himself.   When we decide that God can be secondary in our lives, we are not loving God back.   The more and more we send God the message that we really don’t care that He is an instrumental part of our lives and culture, the more likely He will be to eventually give us what we desire – as stupid as that desire may be.

Paul writes that “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts.”   Paul does not say that God imposed those lusts.   God basically said – OK, you want to do things without me, then go ahead.

One of the first evidences of this abandonment of God to ourselves is homosexual activity.   We too often fall into the trap of judging those who are imposing the acceptance of the homosexual agenda as a major root of the problem in this country.    In reality, this is a fruit of the problems that led God to removing His blessings from us in the first place.  But accepting sexual impurity outside of marriage became the norm well before homosexuality became the social revolution of our time.   The latter does not happen without the former preceding it, so it’s hardly the case that we can start hurling stones only with the advent of the gay marriage agenda.   No, the sexual revolution led to weaker families, fewer children, abortion on demand, and the beginning of the end of a healthy and functioning society.  Having made that bed, God turned us over and gave us the direct evidence of His handing us over to ourselves with the acceptance and celebration of homosexuality.   To blame gays for chastisement without recognizing the sinfulness that brought is to the point of accepting it is like blaming the sinking of the boat on the last gallon of water that bubbled up through the hole in the side.

But it doesn’t end there.

They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters,[f] insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.

The push for acceptance of the gay lifestyle started in earnest less than two decades ago.   We went from most people believing that marriage should be between a man and a woman to the Supreme Court signing off on it as law of the land.   We put our stamp of approval on this “progress” when we voted for Barack Obama the second time after this agenda became perfectly clear.    Shortly thereafter, the rest of society followed with basically that entire list.

And note the last line:  “they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.”   Think of the way Christians are now considered bigoted for their beliefs, and how “courageous” the practitioners of different sins are.   We openly encourage gay marriage as a good thing, and even a Godly thing.   Those who are against abortion are labeled as haters of women, while those who support abortion are considered to be on the higher moral plane.  Having only one or two children is considered more moral than welcoming a larger family – I’ve actually been called “selfish” for daring to have nine children.

No, I hate to say it, but Chastisement is not on its way.  It’s been unfolding before us for some time.   And the unfortunate result is that God will not step in and save us until we ask Him to do it.    And while it may be true that many among us are asking, if the country as a whole continues to act in defiance of Him by the way we act and the people we elect to serve as the example of what we stand for, then God will continue to allow us to live under our own “wisdom.”  And do any of us see a sudden welcoming of God back into our lives on a collective basis?   We can pray and hope for a miracle, but as of this point there is no such indication.

How bad will things need to get before we come to our collective senses?   Unfortunately, there is every likelihood that we are about to find out.



Male and Female He Created Them


It’s one of the most fundamental aspects of creation.   Aside from all the theology of it all, God created us to procreate.   The mechanism by which He did this was to create man and woman.   This is not just true of the human race, but of all living creation, save certain exceptions that are either single-cell organisms or random things God seems to have created just because He can and enjoys messing with us a little bit.

Yes, it’s true that certain elements of creation are either non-gender (bacteria, for example) and propagate through cell division, or are hermaphrodites (both male and female) and reproduce all by themselves through some sort of kinky process I don’t really care to dwell on.   But there is one common characteristic that every aspect of reproducing creation shares:  the way you reproduce is the way you’re designed, and the way it’s meant to be.

Man, of course, is our focus here.   We are made in the image and likeness of God.   It may seem strange that God the Father, a Spirit and neither solely masculine nor feminine, created us as male and female.   But we need to keep in mind that our image and likeness is our spiritual nature.  God has no body, so there can be no physical form at all that would be a perfect reflection of God.    Further, God is not just the Father, but the Son and the Holy Spirit.

It has long been theologically accepted that the family is a reflection of the Trinity.  While the Trinity’s oneness is spiritual and not physical, our humanity requires a way to commune with each other physically in order to physically propagate.  The Holy Spirit is the result of the love between Father and Son, while our children are the result of the love between mother and father.

One thing that has been apparent from the beginning of the first moment of man’s existence is that the devil realizes that the best way to undermine God, to mock God, to pull people away from God, is to attack humanity precisely where we most reflect God’s design for us, and most reflect His very essence.

People have often pointed to “End Times” study – such as in Revelation – and noted that there seems to be a false prophet (mockery of John the Baptist) who precedes the Antichrist (mockery of Christ).   The Family is, of course, attacked continuously throughout all of salvation history.

One thing that has also been easy to see throughout all of history is the attack on the procreative aspect of sexuality.   Whether we are talking about sex outside of marriage, or sex for pure pleasure, or contraception, or homosexuality – when the procreative act takes place without the procreative aspect of it willfully and purposefully in play, then this is an attack and a mockery of the very love between Father and Son that produces the third Person of the Trinity eternally.   It’s a mockery, then, of the Trinity itself.

This has always been a human struggle, and in different times these things ebb and flow and rise and fall.   It is probably worse in our time than it has ever been, but it is not a new attack.   The attack just seems to be more successful in its acceptance and effectiveness in drawing people into error and away from God.

However, we are now seeing an attack that I believe is unprecedented in all of world history.   It is an attack on the very existence of human being being male or female.    It is so absurd on its surface that it is easy to not take it seriously.   And quite frankly, we shouldn’t even be having a debate about it.   It’s is self-evident that we are male and female.   But it shows how easily duped we humans are, particularly among the supposed intellectual elite – that this is even something we are now discussing.

The deception is insanely diabolical.   Homosexuality is problematic, but it does not by its nature deny the gender of the person, whether male or female.    Even someone who feels like they are a man trapped in a woman’s body or vice-versa is recognizing that there is such a distinction – male and female.

I am talking about people who are now believing, and convincing others to believe, that they are neither male nor are they female.   They dismiss gender as “binary.”

This may at first be viewed with a bit of eye-rolling and easy to dismiss.  Quite honestly, I am not sure I even heard of the concept as non-binary genderism until a year or two ago. But we ignore this heresy at our peril.   This is more than an attack on family, it is more than a mockery of the Trinity, it is more than any of the previous confusions in the realm of human sexuality and family.  This is new, and it is an attack on the very nature of humanity itself.   It is the utmost mockery of the human person, and of God’s design, and of God.

It is already the case that Canada is considering the passage of – and very well may pass – a bill that will make it a criminal offense to address a person by the pronouns “he” or “she” in lieu of “they.”    I’m not making this up.     Within the last year or two – really as soon as the Supreme Court OK’d same-sex marriage – the entire issue of transgenderism reached a fever pitch, and transgenderism evolved in meaning from a man feeling like he needs to become a woman and going through some action or process to make that happen, to now being able to just say he’s a woman because he feels that way regardless of his biological design, to being no such thing as a man or a woman.   We are all just non-binary creatures who have no business calling ourselves one thing or another because it offends the sensibilities of those around us who don’t accept that we are one thing or another.

This is such a devious attack on human nature by the devil that I don’t think any one at any time ever saw it coming.    I have read countless accounts – fictional and predictive – of what the world would become as we near the End Times or Chastisement or whatever.    Most of those accounts properly foresaw a world falling away from God, becoming more selfish and violent, increases in sexual perversions, and so on.    I never recall seeing anyone accurately forecast that a good chunk of humanity would devolve to a state where we utterly ignore our physical attributes and refuse to recognize our gender, and further that this group would gain acceptance and relevance to the point where governments would promote this idea, outlaw opposing views, and completely turn the argument around and call all those who oppose it from the very simple arguments of observation, reason, and logic immoral bigots.

It’s quite mad, and it’s the world we live in.

We all know, in the end, that God has His ultimate victory over the Devil.   We may or may not see that in our lifetime, but one wonders how long we can sustain such a path of utter disregard for humanity.   The one remaining step to absolute perdition seems to be laws that criminalize the belief that humans are any different than plants or animals.   We’ve seen people argue this in the past, and they’ve been dismissed as the lunatics that they are.    But we may soon see the day where they are no longer dismissed, but accepted and celebrated, and their ideas legislated in some form or fashion.

If I were God, I likely would have wiped us out long ago.   Thankfully for all of us, I am not God (despite what the Relativists think).   But the only way for Him to gain the ultimate victory here on earth can’t be pretty for anyone.


How Did We Reach a Point Where Disagreement = Judgment and Hate?


“Love won today!”

I saw this statement and claim made shortly after the 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court that legalized gay marriage.

A couple days later, my wife posted a video on Facebook.   The purpose of the video was to once again lay out the case for the traditional definition of marriage.   It was not in any way presented hatefully, but it was not apologetic, either.   It simply presented the facts about what marriage has been considered forever, why it was considered that way, and why same-sex marriage doesn’t properly fulfill the requirements to be considered marriage.

Responses to her sharing this were that it made someone “sad that you feel that way.”   In a followup response, once again the idea that “well, I just choose to love people” came up.

Whether intended or not, these responses and reactions have as a premise that if the Supreme Court did not rule as they did, then love would have lost.   Or that thinking about this issue in the traditional sense must mean you don’t love people – at the very least, you don’t love them as much as someone who supports redefinition of marriage.   They’ll say “oh, that’s not waht I mean, or what I’m implying.”   That’s a shallow retort.   You can’t make a statement about love winning and then backtrack and say that you don’t mean that others are haters, or at least not as loving as you.   It’s a logical impossibility.

This, of course, is poppycock.

It has long been a tactic of those engaged in policy, social, and moral debate to appeal to emotion and the impugning of character in order to advance an opinion or agenda.   And while neither side of any issue is immune to that temptation, I do think there is a definite difference in applicability of that approach.   In general, the more “conservative” position on an issue is an argument based on the logical or rational merits of an idea.  This may be to a fault in many cases, where the human side of things may not be fully considered, and it’s something that conservatives need to guard against.    That is not to say the right cannot get emotional and accuse others of this thing or that, but I would venture to say that the underlying view of an issue has more of a logical train of thought to it.   The more “progressive” elements try to paint their side much more as on the side of compassion and tolerance.   This is a very emotional plea – one of inclusiveness and love (except for those who disagree, anyway).   I am not saying there is never anything deeper to have formed their opinions, but the overriding element is feelings.

The gay marriage argument is really a very easy case study on this, and I’m sure people will disagree with me on it.   Well, it’s OK to be wrong, because this is about as simple as it gets.    The main argument that the progressives have on this is “we just want people to be happy and have a companion, and be recognized for it so they are not viewed differently and they can get the same benefits other people get.   Because we LOOOOVVVVVEEEEE them SOOOOOOOOO much!”   It really is that simple.   I have yet to hear any gay marriage supporters really even attempt to suggest there’s more to it than that.   “We want what you have” is pretty much what it was all about.

Those on the other side of the argument seldom thought all that much about the individuals enough to say that we love, like, dislike, or outright hate any given person or group.   The simple fact is, this has never been about emotional and personal feelings as much as it just simply doesn’t make one friggin’ bit of sense to us at any rational and reasonable and intellectual level.    It’s about a series of facts and observations:  (1) who do we think we are to redefine an institution that’s thousands of years old into something new? (2) Men’s parts are made for women’s parts by natural design or order or however you’d prefer to characterize it; (3) the sexual relationship is pretty much designed for one purpose – procreation.    Yes, it feels great, and we’ve turned its purpose into a self-serving thing of pleasure, but most people recognize that the entire reason there are men’s parts and women’s parts is so that there end up being more people.

Of course, morality and religion come into play, and it’s somewhat ironic that this generates protests from the progressives who claim that there should be no place in the debate for religion, when their entire platform is not actually based on anything of substance on any level.

Attempts to bridge this chasm usually do not go all that well.  Let’s focus on the Christians who have both purely rational reasons for believing what they believe, and also the affirmation of the good book to boot that really solidifies their position.  One of the problems that will occur on the one side of the debate is that, even though the root of the belief is based on sound judgment and logic, the emotional element does kick in for an entirely different reason than the progressive side.    It could be a few different reasons, but it’s generally something in this universe:   I love God so much and want others to love God, and this is so wrong that my head’s going to explode, and I JUST CAN’T UNDERSTAND HOW OTHERS CAN’t SEE IT!; or there are numerous reasons and examples already that create a fear/anxiety that my own religious liberty will soon be at risk; or it just flat out makes so much sense that anyone who can’t see it is completely rationalizing in their opinion for some purpose or another (likely to appease the conscience of a loved one, or they can’t bear to believe that someone they know or love may be sinning), or just flat-out stupid.    So, because we Christians are not impervious to sin, these emotions do move us past the “hate the sin, love the sinner” frame of mind and we become uncharitable.   And this causes all sorts of issues that make us sound like haters.

But before the progressives get all puffy, you’re at fault too.    Because you simply cannot tolerate dissent, or anything other than complete complicity in both thought and action, you are unable to have a reasoned and rational debate.    A Christian can be utterly loving and charitable, but let’s face it…   if we believe something is sinful, there really isn’t a way to say that, even in the most loving way, that isn’t a little bit harsh.   And a Christian can present this without talking directly about “you” and recognize that God alone ultimately judges, and can throw all the caveats under the sun in there, but once the word “sin” is mentioned, every other word that has been said is forgotten.   All the love, compassion, delicate weaving of the argument or opinion…  gone.    After all, we dare not use the word “sin” these days.    YOU THINK I’M SINNING?!!!!   (even though I never said “you are sinning”)   YOU HATEFUL BIGOTED CHRISTIAN LOOOOSSSERRRR!!!    JUDGER!   JUDGER!

Don’t get me started on the perversion of the “Though shalt not judge” scriptural reference, which has been transformed into such a meaning that it eviscerates Paul’s requirement that we admonish the sinner.    But that’s a digression I won’t get into right now.


As a Diatriber, I guess I’m a judger.

All we can do as Christians is continue to strive for our balance point.   We must love, yet admonish.   But we must admonish with utmost charity.    But we cannot judge, especially without looking at the log in our own eye.    We must not capitulate our beliefs and participate in something that is wrong, but we cannot discriminate against people unfairly in our day-to-day lives, nor should we withhold our assistance and generosity to them either.   We must stand firm, publicly if necessary, in favor of what is good and right, while not being unnecessarily confrontation and mean-spirited in the way we make our stand.

That is a tough balancing act, and most of us will stumble around – possibly our entire lives – trying to figure out how to get it right.

Straight Pride – What’s a Catholic to Think?


In the aftermath of the gay marriage decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, a lot of arguments and debates ensued.   While the dust has generally settled on this from the immediately emotional responses of each side, there will continue to be debate about the status of marriage in the United States forever.   Whether you are for or against this decision, it’s a simple fact that this was not legislated on a grand scale at either the federal or state level, nor was the Constitution Amended, which would have been a reflection of widespread approval for such a change.   The Supreme Court, like many state courts where it was already legal, deemed that a right existed on a Constitutional basis that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, and it ruled this way across ideological lines by the narrowest possible margin.

While many want to move on and claim victory and that the debate is over, others do not.    And there is no reason to.   One can begrudgingly accept that the court ruled that way and understand that things have changed in a practical sense in how this now applies to the various elements of society where marital status matters, while at the same time utterly disagreeing with the decision itself.

On a moral basis, it’s simply silly and stupid to suggest that a 5-4 decision of an institution of law somehow changes the intrinsic morality of a certain issue.   Acceptance of something does not change the intrinsic nature of something.   I suppose if you don’t believe in God or any moral authority then you might live by a meandering and flexible set of rules, but if you believe in any higher authority that is a bit more important from a judgment standpoint than our human court, then there is no sense to be made of an argument that morality changes.   There just isn’t.

As usual, in trying to set the context of the actual point of this post, I’m rambling.   It’s what I do.


One of the predictable and somewhat logical responses to the decision was a sudden surge of straight pride.    Facebook posts emerged declaring that so-and-so is proud to be straight.    Predictable responses followed by those who argued that this is a statement of bigotry.   Really, overall, any such statement or post just devolves into all the same unwinnable arguments.   People get angry and upset and nobody is convinced of anything.

But I want to dive deeper into this and view it from a Catholic perspective or mindset.   The two sides of the argument would seem to be that this is something we should celebrate, we need to make a point, we need to stand up for traditional marriage, and there is nothing wrong with promoting “straight pride.”    The other side of the argument is that this is unnecessarily combative, that it is not charitable, that Jesus wouldn’t do it, and we shouldn’t make our point in this way.

From my perspective, I actually think both sides are right.   I don’t think this is black and white, and I think it comes down to what your motive is, who your audience is, how it’s presented, and all that stuff.

Suppose a person set up a “Straight Pride” sign in their yard.   For effect, it’s a white sign with a picture of a blue male and a pink female.   Maybe include the male/female symbols on wedding rings as a backdrop.

What is the motive with this?   What is a person thinking in their heart when they do it?    If the honest answer is “I want it to generate conversation and dialogue so I can present my side of the argument” then that is good.   If the honest answer is that you just feel so strongly about this issue that you want to make your voice known, and for whatever reason you just simply feel that this is the best way to do that, then that is good.   But the motive lies in your heart.   It’s not what you say the motive is.   If your real desire is to stick it to the other side, or to purposely be combative, or to tick off the neighbor down the road who is flying a rainbow flag, then your action is not good.

The simple fact is that you have to really be the harshest judge of your motives that you can be, and you really should also understand the response you might get.   Are you prepared for potential vandalism or angry feedback?   And if that happens, will you get angry in return, or will you forgive them and pray for them, and try to find a civil way to discuss what it is that is making them upset? If you are not prepared to meet resistance in a Christ-like manner, then it probably is not worth doing.   And that can be really tough.   But if you meet negativity with more negativity, you’re doing more harm than good with the stand you are taking.

I saw a debate on this issue on Facebook, and it was not lost on me that opponents immediately go to comparisons of “White Pride.”    There are a number of issues I have with this, and I find it the simplistic and convenient argument of an unthinking person who wants to simply shut down debate by painting anyone who thinks differently about things as a horrible person.  But these are the kinds of responses you need to be prepared for and have an answer to if you plan to engage in this type of symbolic approach to your opposition to gay marriage.

This is likely the main objection, so here are my thoughts on it:

  • A faulty premise stated forcefully and accusingly does not still make the premise true.   As vehemently as someone suggests you are a bigot, rather than try to argue nuances as to why you are not, you first of all need to completely disagree and dispute that premise and simply tell them that regardless of what they think, they are wrong, and you could go back and forth all day saying “Am not” “Are too” but you aren’t going to do that
  • Once you’ve established the complete disagreement with the premise, it then makes sense to have some reasons as to why this is different.   There are many:
    • The Supreme Court just declared different kinds of marriages equal.   If one group can be proud that they have a particular sexual proclivity, then it makes perfect sense for someone to be proud of theirs.   We’re all equal, after all.
    • I could argue about all the murkiness about the white pride/black pride issues as well, but let’s boil things down to a couple main points.   Whether you agree or disagree that “white pride” is racist, the simple fact is that blacks were once enslaved, were considered property, didn’t have the right to vote for a long part of the history of our country, were segregated, and so on.    Despite all these injustices, this was all rectified in the appropriate way (though not soon enough).    Laws were passed, and the Constitution was amended.   The same can be said of women’s rights.   Our country moved slow, but allowed the Constitutional process to play out.
    • Building on the previous point, while I am certain that gays can point to injustices (both real and perceived) they can’t hold a candle to the injustices suffered from the black community.   I’ll be perfectly honest, I am shocked that as many people in the black community have embraced the comparison as they have.   But the bigger point is that the Supreme Court seems to have decided that the processes of the past need no longer apply to the processes of today.   Instead of allowing laws and the Constitutional process to provide rights that society want to enumerate and grant, rights are invented and it’s not even hidden anymore that the Constitution does not really support the decision.   Instead, we are told that the Constitution really means what we want it to mean in the context of today.   By this logic, no Amendments need to be passed, ever, to positively define rights.   The Amendment process has moved from clarifying and expanding the rights of people to a process of restricting rights the Supreme Court granted that they have no business granting.   And they know that to do so is nearly impossible, or at the very least expensive and difficult.   So they can get away with it.    And this has offended people who disagree on this topic.   We feel that our own view has been trampled on, and the language of the Court automatically casts us in a negative light.
    • This all creates a very real difference.   When someone says “yeah, that’s the same argument people made against the civil rights act, or women’s right to vote” then you can actually even agree to a point, and then point out that even if they are right they are helping make your point.   One reason we are so upset is because the corrective actions taken against those injustices was properly done, whereas this wasn’t.   And because it wasn’t, you can’t just expect the masses to suddenly be happy about it and agree with it.
    • The granting of rights to blacks did not change anything about the nature of being white and human.   The redefinition of marriage is an entirely different animal, and any attempt to diminish that aspect of this and just make it about intolerance to gays is, again, an entirely false premise that needs to be combated at every turn.   Because of that, there is a very real fundamental difference between the two.

Having said all that, I will counter with a reason of my own as to why I actually don’t like the “Straight Pride” angle.    It’s because I have never, to be honest, understood at all why someone creates an entire identity around being gay.   Why is someone gay and proud?   Why is it that someone who has heretofore acted and talked in a way that doesn’t advertise to the world their sexual preference, suddenly morph into someone who changes his personality, speech, physical actions, etc. after “coming out?”    What is so wrong with just being gay without the world knowing it unless you mention your partner or whatever?    I have never understood it, and in fact, I think it is harmful and hurtful for anyone to have the primary identifying factor about them be their sexual preference.   We all have so much inherent dignity as a creature made in God’s image and likeness that any “pride” we have about just being us is a misnomer.   We owe everything to Him, and have nothing much to be particularly proud about, other than our own God Who loves us unconditionally.  Why the heck am I proud to be straight?   Why should anyone be proud to be gay?    I’m straight.   I feel blessed to be straight.   I think it’s a gift from God.   So, the whole “<Fill in blank> Pride” thing isn’t really my thing.

But if it is, I won’t judge.   Just be honest with yourself and be prepared at all times to respond in charitable and informed ways, without accepting premises that are imputed upon you.

A Couple Final Thoughts From My Most Recent Posts


OK, so basically I wanted an outlet to put down my thoughts on how the re-definition of marriage transpired.

I think I covered most things, but in re-reading and reflecting what I have written, there are a couple things that I want to add to wrap things up.

I’ve alluded to this general theme throughout, I guess, but I really just want to emphasize how critical it is that we tie the purpose of marriage together with what marriage actually is.   We need a triple-knot on this.   The entire idea of what people think marriage is meant to be directly affects what they think marriage should look like.

The current debate has almost completely normalized the idea, even among Christian folk who should know better, that marriage is an avenue of self-fulfillment.   Some may view this as just one aspect of marriage, but many view this as the primary purpose.   This is truly upside-down thinking, but it is the predominant view.

Thinking about Jesus washing the feet of the Apostles and then dying on the cross for His Church, marriage is supposed to emulate Jesus as the bridegroom and the Church as bride.   Are either side in that equation concerned primarily with self-fulfillment?   No.   Jesus died for His Church and the Church has suffered countless martyrs that were/are persecuted and even sent to death for Christ.

Yes, marriage is about love.   But not “Sleepless in Seattle” romantic love.    That provides a wonderful element to a good marriage relationship, but it is a byproduct of it and not the purpose of it.

All the things I wrote about, in one way or another, center around the transition from marriage as being about sacrificial love for another and instead to companionship and self-fulfillment.  This then directly leads to a complete abandonment of the idea that begetting children is a necessary element to marriage.

If this is what marriage is all about (or not about), it is no surprise whatever that people can come to grips with and accept gay marriage.   After all, it’s not about having kids, and each person just wants to be loved and have companionship and be happy.   And that’s all marriage is, so there you go.

I already discussed the evolution of acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle alternative.   Underlying this acceptance is either a real or perceived increase in people who are actually gay.   Some would argue that there is no percentage difference in the number of gay people, only that they are now more willing to be open about it, thanks to our newly open and progressive society.    I think there’s probably truth to the fact that people who are gay are much less likely nowadays to hide it or suppress it, but I also think there are factors that have actually increased the numbers of people who are gay from the viewpoint of genetic predisposition, as well as those who are steered that way due to a culture that almost seems to prefer that a person seek out every alternative than a heterosexual and monogamous lifestyle.

I already discussed one factor: fewer dads and less fatherly availability is directly linked as a factor in men being gay.   It could be entirely environmental, or it could be a factor in driving a person towards a genetic predisposition.

Another factor that has been studied and confirmed, and then basically suppressed as explanatory is the hormonal pollution of the water supply, particularly in more populous areas.   And what is the hormonal pollution from?   The birth control pill, primarily.   It is an interesting irony that one of the outcomes of a society that embraces the temporary sterilizing of itself is that it leads to more people who desire relationships that are, by their very nature, sterile.

There really are more issues that are ancillary to all of this that help fill in even more gaps.   The fact that we now procreate in ways that fall outside of the unitive act of marriage in turn devalues the family.   It is no longer from an act of unitive love, it is a scientific process.   Don’t even get me started on frozen embryos.

And then there’s abortion.   As if it isn’t enough to prevent the conceiving of a life, we somehow managed to convince ourselves that it isn’t really a human life after all, and we can just do away with it.   An entire class of people just dehumanized.    There is simply no way 50 million plus abortions can occur with it taking a toll on marriages and what people believe is true of marriage.

I’m sure more could be added to the list.   But I think I’ve said my piece.   I’ll move on to other things, or at least different aspects of this thing.

Catalysts that have helped lead to the Redefinition of Marriage


I’m probably about to step in it.   I’m about to discuss some issues that many people will thing “hey…   he’s talking about me, and I’m NOT <insert whatever it is you think I’m saying you’re doing>.”

So, I’ll just get to my point here, and you can go ahead and be mad if you want.

1) Dad is removed from the home for his work day:     This is something I struggle with all the time.   I grew up on a farm where I was blessed to have dad there all the time.   But in most cases, this isn’t happening, and it’s not for me either.   I think dad being away from the family 40-80 hours per week, depending on the situation, has taken a toll in a few different ways:

  • It created a whole lot more opportunities for dad to work closely with other people who may or may not be the best influence.
  • In the more modern work force, he will be working more closely with other women.
  • It greatly diminishes the time at home and participate in the raising of the children.
  • The entire idea that it is somehow good for husband and wife to be separated for most of the day and be free of the other is antithetical to the idea of service and sacrifice that helps cement the marital relationship.
  • In the context of the most recent rise and acceptance of gays , the gay lifestyle, and gay marriage, it has been shown that most men who have same-sex attraction also have a very tight – an unusually tight – bond with mom, usually at the expense of a similar bond with dad.   I’m not going to argue genetics and environment and all that here.   But if there is a predisposition towards something on a genetic basis, it still doesn’t necessarily manifest itself.  It would seem that there is both a predisposition, and an environmental element at play here, at least in many cases.   Dad not being around, I believe, is directly contributory to the gender identity issues of today.

All of these things are navigable, but create a difficulty in navigation that we all must be aware of.

2) Women in the workplace/traditional gender roles:   The increasing prevalence of women in the workplace goes beyond a simple desire for women to have a career.   There was a feminist agenda behind the promotion of women viewing liberation as having a career, while engaging in traditional roles as wife and mother and household duties as a form of slavery.    In the process, almost no respect was given to women from the very women promoting this concept.   Those who desired to forego career and stay home were scoffed at and derided.   It is perfectly clear that the desire of more and more women to pursue a career outside of the home had a number of effects on the modern-day family:

  • It blurred the gender roles that traditionally accompanied marriage.   The blurring of gender roles has eventually led all the way to no boundaries in gender identity with respect to who can get married.    This would not be possible had the traditional gender roles of male and female were not first made irrelevant.
  • This movement contributed to the idea of having children as a burden – they were in the way.   [NOTE:   THIS IS A DISCUSSION OF OVERALL TRENDS,  NOT A JUDGMENT OF ANYONE’S INDIVIDUAL SITUATION!]   This attitude increased the prevalence and acceptance of contraception as “necessary” for financial reasons, or other reasons.
  • Couples became dependent on dual incomes and material things became far more important than in the past.   The financial arrangement of the marriage was central to the relationship.    Financial stress is a leading cause in divorce, and much of that stress was caused either because people got in over their heads and now became slaves to career, or because they wanted to keep up with those around them, leading to one spouse thinking it “unfair” that he or she carries the financial load.
  • Many women outright delayed marriage, or never pursued it, who otherwise would have if career were not of central importance.

3) Increases in domestic partnerships/civil unions as the final stage of relationship:   Over the decades, more and more people have decided that there really is no reason for marriage.   Just live together, and if it lasts long enough you end up with a common law marriage.    Nothing special needed.   Some decide they want the benefits of marriage, and prior to everyone being able to marry anyone else civil unions were a construct to help validate the relationship for benefits or legal status.     The more this practice became acceptable between heterosexual couples, the more marriage was viewed as just one of many legitimate family options.    Since this isn’t marriage, it wasn’t a redefinition of marriage, but it further contributed to the view of marriage as nothing particular meaningful or special.

4) Children raised without a father:   Divorces, broken homes, or extra-marital relationships have led to so many kids being raised by either one parent, or splitting time, or multiple sets of parents that there is little question it has to completely distort the view of what marriage is with each successive generation.   At some point, the entire concept of marriage is simply confusing.

5) Acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle:  Getting to the current issue, before marriage could be re-defined as something other than a male-female union, there needed to be widespread acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle.   I’m not talking about acceptance and love of people dealing with same-sex attraction, or who self-identify as gay.   I’m talking about the acceptance, then actual promotion and celebration of the lifestyle itself.    Once the dam burst on this, it’s remarkable how quickly things went from viewing homosexual acts as a form of perversity to something beautiful.

It is my opinion that the primary mover on this was simple and pure moral capitulation by family and friends, and entire churches.   In the well-meaning attempt to love, not condemn, not judge, and reach out to people with same-sex attraction, suddenly mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, cousins, friends, co-workers, etc. suddenly knew someone who was gay.    Gay and proud.   Gay and, actually, really nice.   Gay, and deserving of love and companionship.    Suddenly, the moral view moved from “homosexuality is a sin” to “all they want is love, and how can that be a sin?”   Nobody wanted to speak of sexuality as a struggle, or as a cross to bear, or sinful and harmful as a behavior.   Whereas it was once acceptable to “seek help” the mere suggestion of it now became insulting and demeaning.   God couldn’t really, actually, find fault with this.   No, in fact, God WANTS everyone to be happy, and he made so-and-so that way.   The slope to where we are goes something like this:

  • Omigosh, Jimmy is gay
  • I love Jimmy – he’s my <son/nephew/cousin/friend/roomate/ice cream man>
  • But there’s this “sin” thing
  • But waitaminnit.   Jimmy’s really nice and just wants to be loved.   I’m so confused.
  • A lot of people are telling me I’m a bigot for thinking Jimmy is sinning.   I don’t want to be a bigot.  So I’m not going to say anything any more.
  • Whoa – now Jimmy wants to be married.  That ain’t right.
  • I’ve been thinking about this.   I can’t figure out why it isn’t right.   After all, marriage is just about companionship and love.   After all, people get divorced and some people don’t have children and they’re still married.
  • I don’t want to tell Jimmy he can’t get married.   he should.   It has to be OK.   I want him to be happy.   And if I start talking religion he won’t listen anyway, and actually I’m not sure why it’s wrong anyway now that I’ve been thinking about it.
  • You know, I don’t care what the bible says, I don’t care what the Church teaches, I don’t care about all the thousands of years of prior ideas of homosexuality as disordered.   I am, here and now, defining morality as I see it.

And thus, the self-appeasement and the appeasement to Jimmy is completed.   I think people honestly believe that if they just believe something is OK, then it actually is.   It is, of course, moral relativism.   But this one has a face.   Jimmy is a son , brother, cousin, neighbor, and friend to someone.   The discussion that was needed could cause division and hard feelings.   Who wants that?   it’s sad, yet understandable as well.

It became very difficult to get our collective heads wrapped around the idea that it is actually an act of love to tell someone that acting on disordered desires is a sin.  There should be no greater desire for us to love someone into heaven, even if it means saying something they won’t want to hear.   But we screwed that up through well-meaning meandering about the issue, and somehow the masses became convinced that trying to address the salvific aspect of this was hateful and bigoted.   Instead, the here and now, the temporal, was the consideration.   Disordered desires can now be acted upon with a free and clear conscience because – well – I don’t know why.   I guess it’s because God just goes with the flow and changes His mind as long as His teachings are violated for the “right” reasons.   Whatever those are.   It’s not so much that i can’t understand the people in this who don’t believe in God or a divinely ordained morality.   It’s that I can’t understand how easily Christians have rolled over on this.  Faced with the first real difficult circumstance in their life where they had to choose between God’s path and another path, they took the easy road.

And so, here we are today.

And it won’t end here.   It never does.   Let the capitulation continue.

The Second Step in the Re-Definition of Marriage


Yesterday I posted on the implications of the teaching Luther in beginning the change of the mindest of what Marriage fundamentally was up until that time.    Today, we speak of the next logical implication to that changing mindset.

If Marriage is a contract, and more importantly is not a Sacrament, then the idea of an indivisible unity between the individuals is greatly weakened, if not broken entirely.   Instead of that undissolvable bond being a very real thing, it is instead a symbolic thing.  The strength of the bond is not the bond itself, but the vow representing the bond.   This may seem close enough, but it is actually very different.  And there are natural implications that can come with it if humans start to walk down that path.   And, of course, we did.

To our credit somewhat, it took quite a while for the embracing of this to occur in either civil law or religious law, even among those who broke away from Catholicism.   The history of the reluctance to allow divorce may be read by some as a poor reflection on the rights of women (and this isn’t an altogether incorrect argument, in that given the allowance of divorce women had to work from a much stricter standard than men).   But the very reluctance to grant divorce, even with the precedent set by Henry VIII and the new theology of Luther is an indication that natural reason still rang true in the hearts of men.   There was something about ending a marriage that was very difficult for lawmakers and religious leaders to embrace as something favorable to society, or even the persons involved.

This reluctance is telling, especially in light of the case of Henry VIII.  The argument started in 1527 with Pope Clement VII.   Henry wanted an annulment because his wife was not providing an heir to the throne.   Clement declined.   In 1533, the King broke from Rome, declared himself the head of the Church of England, and married Anne Boylan.   One has to wonder if what transpired next was divine retribution, as Anne provided one still-birth, and within 3 years was accused of treason, adultery, incest, and ultimately beheaded.   All that religious upheaval for absolutely nothing.

Interestingly, divorce was not embraced after this, but it was clearly the next step in the process.   The next known divorce in England was in 1552, and there is no record of anything again until 1670.   By that time, only an act of Parliament could grant a divorce.   By the time divorce law was relaxed in 1857 in England, only 324 divorces were recorded in the history of England.

In the meantime, in the U.S., the Protestant mindset seemed to move things along a bit more quickly.   This is not to say it was taken lightly at all – it wasn’t.   It’s to say that the natural implications of the new theology progressed a bit more quickly.

By 1629, Legislative Tribunals allowed divorce for major offenses (adultery, desertion, bigamy, impotence).   Divorce was greatly discouraged, but allowed under these circumstances.   In 1776, divorce came under the authority of the courts.  In general the same standards applied, though by the end of the century some states had realized they could use relaxed divorce laws as a commerce opportunity, and thus these states had less strict standards of qualification.

Back to England, in 1857 divorce moved out of parliament but still maintained strict standards.    In 1937, standards were relaxed further, and in 1969 no-fault became the law of the land (though minimum periods of separation were required).

In the U.S., divorce moved from judicial court to family court in the 1950s.   The first no-fault divorce law was signed in California.  Governor Ronald Reagan would later call this one of his greatest errors. In the next 15 years, nearly every state followed California’s lead.

As civil laws relaxed, so did the religious standards.    With the new theology of Luther, there really wasn’t much chance this evolution wouldn’t happen.  Obviously, the Church of England was established almost entirely because the King wanted a divorce.   The Church of England itself actually tightened up its view on marriage after that, however.   Baptists, even today, while not necessarily believing in the Sacramental nature of marriage, have at least held steadfast in the belief that this is a vow God does not want broken, and have not changed their position much.   Other mainline Protestant denominations have readily accepted divorce, and this is now commonplace in most Christian denominations.   In 1976, the United Methodist Church explicitly recognized the right of divorced persons to remarry.

The Catholic Church has remained constant in its teaching of Marriage.   The bond is real, and the only way a person who has been married can remarry is if the marriage was only valid in the civil sense and not the Sacramental sense.    Thus, the annulment process is meant to discover whether there was any impeding factor at the time of the wedding that in any way made the Sacrament invalid due to a violation in form or in substance.    Many – including the Pope himself –  would argue that even in the Catholic sense, the annulment process has been liberalized.   Well-meaning people want to help get an annulment rather than strictly viewing the case on its merits.   But even if this is the case, if the Church rules for nullity, then its ruling stands, and no Sacramental marriage is deemed to have existed.   There is then no pain of sin to the person if they want to remarry.    Even if the process could use some help, the Theology is constant and the view of what Marriage is remains the same.

We cannot look at the current state of marriage in this country without a view of the history of divorce.    It is almost remarkable that it took hundreds of years after that first step of Luther’s and the second step of Henry VIII’s for even relatively strict divorce law to be applied.    But we can clearly see the progression in speed here.   Once the relaxation started, it continued, and each step came successively faster until there was no more relaxation to be had.   No-fault became the law of the land in a 15 year period, and from the beginning of that time to 20 years later the percentage of people who were divorced went from 11% to 50%.

The implications of this are staggering on many levels, including the fact that the poor and less educated are hardest hit.    Children are growing up in broken homes.   The sociological effects of this fills books.

But for the point at hand, it fundamentally changed marriage.    This created a very real shift in attitude about what the entire purpose of marriage actually is.   It’s a shift towards self-fulfillment as the ultimate goal.    That fundamental shift has its roots in Luther and Henry VIII’s views of the marriage arrangement, but it took quite some time for a more self-centered view of marriage to take root and grow.    This was aided along by a few other things that I’ll post about later.   All these things brought us to where we are today, and it starts to show us that the very thing we are now lamenting (redefinition of marriage as something other than a man-woman institution) is possible entirely because of all the previous things we’ve allowed to degrade the idea of what marriage fundamentally is.

The Re-definition of Marriage Began a few hundred Years Ago


Over the last few years, and culminating (to this point, anyway), with last Friday’s Supreme Court decision there has been a lot of lamenting the fact that we’ve taken it upon ourselves to re-define marriage.

It is right to lament.   This new innovation is, to date, the furthest we’ve yet deviated from the the true definition of marriage.   For all the prior differences between religions and cultures of what marriage is, what its purpose is, how it should be consummated, and so on there was always at least one constant: men married women, and at least at some level there was a focus on the propagation of the human species with children raised by those who helped bring them into this world.

All of that is true, and the very idea of the concept that marriage would not even include that most basic of requirements should be fought.

But while this is the latest marital innovation, it is not the first innovation.  In fact, numerous progressive elements have been at work over the the last few centuries to get us to the point we are today.   This does not occur in a vacuum.   And each successive innovation had to happen, grow in acceptance, and become part of the culture – both civic and religious – in order for us to ever contemplate as a society that the current legal definition is in any way acceptable.

I should be clear:   there has never been a global universal agreement on what marriage is.   Yes, there has been universal agreement on the need for a male and female partner.   But polygamy is part of the historic past, and is still practices today in some cultures (whether officially or unofficially).   In many cultures, marriages have been and continue to be arranged.   This essentially removes the idea that love for the other is a necessary requirement of marriage.

The issue here isn’t that differences across the world and various cultures are just fine and dandy.    But there is a difference between people having a flawed view of something who never had the right view to begin with, and people completely abandoning the correct view for something severely flawed.    In the first case, the correct view has not been rejected.   Out of tradition, culture, and ignorance it is either not known or fully understood to begin with.    And just as we’ve done for 2,000 years we try to bring the light of truth to more people who, likely through no fault of their own, don’t know any better.

The tragedy that lies before us now is that the progress that was made in bringing a proper understanding of marriage to the people of the world has not only stagnated, but actually reverted.   This reversion was very subtle over a period of a few hundred years.  In some respects, it was slow, but in other respects it wasn’t.   It’s just that it was not nearly as evident as the more recent changes.    The more recent innovations to the marriage arrangement are more dramatic to the senses, but the groundwork to enable them has been at work for some time.

The first major change in the view of marriage that set this whole reversion from the appropriate Christian viewpoint of it is was put in motion by Martin Luther.   Until this time, Christian thought was universal in that marriage is a Sacrament.   Martin Luther held that it was not a Sacrament.

From Martin Luther’s Theology of the Sacraments, we get this:

It is not enough for the symbol or sign merely to be analogous to a divine truth. There must be a divine promise connected, and the rite must be instituted by God as such.8 Thus, although such things as prayer are connected with promises, they are not sacraments because there is no visible sign. Likewise, marriage is not a sacrament because there is neither a sign nor a word of promise.9 Luther says, “To be sure, whatever takes place in a visible manner can be understood as a figure or allegory of something invisible. But figures or allegories are not sacraments.”10

The footnotes:  (8) Althaus,The Theology of Martin Luther,p. 345. “The symbolic act must be instituted by God and combined with a promise.” (9) See “Babylonian Captivity of the Church,”Three Treatises,p. 220. “Nowhere do we read that the man who marries a wife receives any grace of God. There is not even a divinely instituted sign in marriage.”   (10) Ibid.

I have great respect for my non-Catholic Christian friends, but if you have decided to go the way of Martin Luther in your theological thought, then you need to understand the implications to this Theological position.   This position essentially makes marriage a human institution, not a divinely instituted one.    Martin Luther essentially declared marriage to be a contract.  Yes, it is a holy contract rooted in spiritual values.   We promise to love one another and we promise to be faithful and all that.   But the promise is between those two people.   It is a vow before God, and that is supposed to then be the weight of the seriousness of the vow.    All this is well and good, but it still makes the very idea of what the marriage institution actually is significantly different from the Catholic (and pre-Reformation era) one.

Here is a nice summary quote from Luther:

“Know that Marriage is an outward material thing like any other secular business. The body has nothing to do with God. In this respect one can never sin against God, but only against one’s neighbour” [Weimar, Vol. 12, Pg. 131].

So, if we want to talk about the “re-definition” of marriage, we need to take a tour of how we got to how we are thinking about marriage in today’s world – especially in today’s Christian world.   Every journey starts with a single step.

Martin Luther made that first step.    And over the next couple centuries, countless souls followed the teachings of Luther, broke from the Catholic Church and adopted the view of matrimony as something less than what it was (and still is) in the Roman Catholic Tradition.

Co-opting The Rainbow


If you asked a hundred random people today what they think of when they hear the word “rainbow,” or perhaps what they associate the rainbow with, I wonder what the results would be.

Taken further, if you asked a hundred random people today what the colors of the rainbow represent, I wonder what the results would be.

Even the most devout among us, who would answer correctly that it is the sign of God’s covenant with man, would nonetheless have a picture of a rainbow flag come into our mind.   We would suppress that as our correct answer, and we would shoo it away to the best of our ability, but the imagery is there.   The co-opting of the rainbow as the symbol of LGBT rights is one of the most dramatic progressive marketing achievements in all of history.

And for this reason, I have to believe it’s by design not limited strictly to the genius of men.

It follows then that – despite all the Christians who are arguing that favoring gay marriage and embracing the complete and total acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is simply Christ-like love – it is the most devious and diabolical marketing campaigns ever undertaken.

I’ve talked about this before, but the word “diabolical” conjures up extreme pictures of evil in many peoples’ minds.   But in actuality, the more diabolical something is the less evil and more good it looks to someone who does not recognize the nature of the thing.   That, in fact, is what makes it diabolical.   The horrible and contorted imagery may be an accurate one in God’s eyes as He looks at it, but to our human eyes the diabolical can take all sorts of seemingly pleasant, and even good, forms.

Everyone recognizes certain and extreme examples of evil actions.   We haven’t (so far) lost our way so much that when we hear stories of small children being used or abused in horrific ways that we collectively get a sick feeling in our stomach.  Nearly all of us say “that is evil.”   One does not have to even believe in God to recognize it.  This blatant evilness is not of a diabolical nature.   There is no attempt by anyone to mask it as a good or pretty thing.

Something that is diabolical is akin to a spiritual Trojan horse.   It is something that people want to embrace as good or useful.   It is not self-evident to many that it is not good.   It needs to be a thing that festers and grows and takes over, and the only way it can do that is to continue to look nice and shiny and appetizing.   But anything that is diabolical usually has what poker players would call a “tell.”

A “tell” is when a player gives away the kind of hand he or she has because they can’t completely control their reactions or emotions in certain situations.   (If anyone has watched “The Middle” you will know that their son, Brick, has a “tell” when he is lying.   After he lies, he drops his chin to his chest and loudly whispers “I’m lying.”   Most tells aren’t that obvious.)  Someone may nervously scratch their ear every time his hand is strong.   They may tap their cards on the table when they are bluffing.    Good Poker players are masters at picking up the subtlest of signs and using those things to their advantage.    This is one reason I’m not a great Poker player.   My female wife (I feel the need these days to distinguish the nature of my marriage, you know) could change the carpeting in my house and I wouldn’t notice.   As if I’m going to pick up on the fact that some guy itches his ear lobe when he has pocket aces.    But I digress.

Anyway, the Devil – believe it or not – has a few tells.   His hatred for God drives everything he does.   And he can’t help trying to find ways to either mock God’s authority or to usurp it.

So, the devil knows the following:  Marriage is the image of the inseparable bond of love between Christ and His Church.    The Family is the earthly image of the Triune God.   Children conceived because of an act of love between man and wife emulates in a human way the eternal existence of the third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, because of the love between the divine Father and Son.   The primary human reflection of Christ and of the Triune God in our world is marriage and family.

Since the Devil knows this, it only makes sense that if the goal is to destroy all imagery of God in this world, the way to do that is turn marriage into something that is sterile.   To turn it into something other than life-giving love and about self-fulfillment.   And to then destroy the very nature of it by making this the preferred and promoted version of marriage accepted by man, while causing animosity and hatred towards those who accept the actual natural concept of marriage.  It’s not enough to just dismantle family, it is better to find a substitute for it that actually mocks God instead of reflects the nature of God.   And the entire time he does this, it’s done in such a creative and ingenious way that a majority of people – including those who profess belief in God – actually partake in it, are complicit in it, celebrate it, believe it is actually good, and claim that God Himself would approve of it.   What a complete and comprehensive victory that is!   (Yes, we know the ultimate victory is Christ’s.   But this particular battle, at least for the moment, resides in the opponent’s camp.)

But what is the “tell?”   The “tell” is that Satan can’t help himself.   From a marketing standpoint there could have been many ways to represent the desire for acceptance, tolerance, and diversity so desired by the gay community.    What they chose is a Biblical symbol.    In many ways, they chose “the” Biblical symbol that was the first real promise by God to man.  The most amazing thing about this tell is that it is about as subtle as a sledge-hammer.   Satan went all-in on this one.   Either the use of the rainbow would be a cause of great alarm and its use would greatly backfire in promotion of the cause, or it would gain acceptance and serve as a tool of complete and utter victory on more than just one spiritual level.   Inexplicably, we Christians sort of fell asleep at the wheel on this one.   It’s not that nobody thought about it, and there were a few little minor attempts to “take back the rainbow,” but we never really fought it to a great degree.   Admittedly, there seemed to be bigger battles to wage.   But looking back, this was a miserable failure.

Christians who may not know any better may truly believe they are acting in love by supporting this progression of what marriage means in the secular world.  I mentioned the rainbow profile pics I’ve seen on Facebook.   Some of the people who changed I know are church-going people.  It is sad, but not surprising.   That is the nature and allure of the diabolical.   But if this were truly something from God and acceptable to God, would He really allow one of the most important signs He ever chose to give to us to be used in a manner that wipes its original meaning from the memory of men?  I, for one, can’t comprehend that this is the case.

A few short decades ago, the answer to “What does the rainbow mean?” would have been primarily known as a religious reference.   Anyone else would have simply not known or would have answered in a meteorological way.

But not today.

And the devil could not be more pleased.

The Remaking of America Live and in Color!


Just a reminder:

The 44th US president, speaking in front of the biggest inauguration crowd in US history, said: “Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and begin again the work of remaking America.”

I’ll give the man credit.   He kept his word.    I have to say that eight years ago, I didn’t think he was ambitious enough to not only remake America, but also lead the charge to remaking the entire concept of family, held since the beginning of human existence.   He’s an overachiever, our President.