July 1, 2008 by Stacy McDonald
Redefining Marriage
I really wanted to post and tell you all about the Ladies Tea on Saturday, but I’m still waiting for some last minute photos; so while I’m waiting, I thought I’d update you on some things that we all need to be praying about. Things that are far more important than teas…
From MSNBC today:
The Rev. Neil Thomas, the senior pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church in West Hollywood, has officiated 15 same-sex wedding ceremonies in the two weeks since the ruling went into effect. What does he say when it comes to kissing the brides or grooms?
“I just say, ’You may now kiss,”’ said Thomas. “I don’t want to get into all that patriarchal stuff.”
And then another observation. One wedding vendor discusses the “challenge” many same-sex couples have as they attempt to fit traditional wedding traditions into their ceremony:
“But figuring out who pays for the party, who walks who down the aisle and who gets the first dance is being left to the couple…”
“The more mainstream same-sex weddings become, the more routine they’ll become when it’s not this interesting, sensational new thing,” said Hamm. “The thing I’m curious about is what happens to all wedding ceremonies once there’s marriage equality. How will same-sex marriages change the landscape for heterosexual couples?”
I’d like to know the answer to that one myself. And if you think this is something that just happens in California and will never affect you or your family, read We Must Hang Together.
Sadly, even those who claim to be Presbyterian (as apostate as they may be) are being sucked further into the abyss A Date with Disaster
And don’t miss this thought provoking article:
Afterthoughts: Ideas Have Consequences: Redefining Marriage
Similar Posts:
28 Responses to “Redefining Marriage”
Leave a Reply
Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.
I find it interesting that a number of the articles on this try to make it seem like these couples are trying to honor some sort of tradition. We live in California, and my husband works for our county. He had the unfortunate privilege of witnessing the events of the first day of legalization. Not every couple was wild or flamboyant, but he did see men wearing bridal veils and lesbian couples in matching, flashy tuxedos. What he described to me sounded more like a mockery of tradition than an earnest search to honor it.
Dear Stacy,
This entire situation makes me SICK to my stomach! How our Father must cry over this situation! Our nation has become Sodom and Gomorah. I pray that these “unions” do Not effect the way man/woman marrages take place. May traditional values continue to dominate and may Christians rise up and let their voices be heard in opposition to this wickedness!
Ruth, PA
Dear ladies,
forgive my impudence, but why are you afraid that same-sex marriages would affect traditional weddings?!
Since we are all the same in front of the law, I think that everyone has the right to marry freely whomever he/she loves. If your faith in God is trong it won’t be shaken by homosexual marriages…
And this, I’m afarid, will be just another censored post :)
By the way, Mrs. MacDonald, beautiful pictures of your youngest boy!
Sorry, I made a lot of typos in my previous comment; anyway, thank you for publishing it, Mrs. McDonald!
Hi Elena,
The person who expressed her curiosity over how sodomite weddings would affect traditional weddings was a pro same-sex wedding consultant, not anyone who was “afraid” of anything. It was a quote within the article.
I mentioned that I would like to know the answer to her question as well. Not because I am “afraid,” but because I am concerned (and repulsed) over the way God’s sacred institution of marriage is being perverted.
It most assuredly will affect every one of us – in ways we don’t even know yet. When God’s law is mocked and trampled, there will be consequences.
By the way, Elena, as far as I know, your comments have never been censored here. I only “censor” comments that are rude, obscene, or combative. I don’t think you’ve ever posted anything that would be described that way.
I agree with Elena here. I’m just not sure how gay marriage will really effect heterosexual marriage. I don’t think two people of the same gender takes anything away from the love and commitment I share with my husband. I obviously think it’s fine that some churches won’t choose to marry gay couples, but it seems highly unfair and unconstitutional if the state will not.
I’d like to point out that the woman quoted in the article was talking about the affect on weddings, not marriages. Today’s so-called traditional weddings are really the product of a massive corporate industry and have little to do with the realities of a couple’s commitment before God or their day-to-day life (or with the realities of their pocketbooks).
I’ve recently graduated from college, and as I see my friends getting engaged and married, I can’t help but ask myself, Is this what her grandparents’ wedding looked like in the ’40s? Or even her parents’ wedding in the ’70s or ’80s? Middle class girls like myself and my friends used to expect modest weddings at their local church or at the court house. As my grandmother, who was married in 1941, said, “You’re just as married if you go down to the courthouse and have dinner at your parents’ house afterward.” Now the majority of my friends expect their parents to shell out the cost of a car so that they can have a “traditional” wedding.
And this shift in ideas about tradition is the result of marketing, plain and simple. And it supports a world-wide industry worth billions of dollars, an industry that is concerned not with tradition or commitment or God, but with the bottom line. And homosexuals represent another source of revenue. So when the woman quoted in the article wonders how the landscape will change, she means the corporate landscape.
Sorry this is so long; it’s just an issue that kind of puzzles and irritates me. I guess I should get my own blog rather than post a whole entry on yours! :)
Hi Jessica,
Yes, this is true. She was talking about the actual wedding ceremony. However, there is a lot of symbolism in the traditional wedding ceremony. (the father “giving away the bride,” a white dress symbolizing purity etc.) And I think she was referring to some of that.
I agree with you about the commercialism of modern weddings. Our daughter is getting married in March. Another was married a year and a half ago. We most assuredly believe in modest, reasonable weddings – especially with 7 daughters to marry off!!! LOL We’ve even considered doing a pot luck type of dinner for the wedding feast. Feeding the crowd seems to be our biggest financial challenge – and we made all the food for our last wedding feast!
There are so many things that do threaten marriage in our culture: unrealistic notions of marriage itself and of intimacy, an airbrushed victorias secret type ideal of what women should look like, reality TV, long and stressful workdays away from home, dual income expectations, debt, I could go on and on.
That said, I have never known anyone who decided to become gay after seeing gay people involved in civil unions. I know tons (unfortunately) of gay people who married people of the opposite sex either because they couldn’t admit the situation to themselves or because they thought they could “change” themselves. This invariably causes heartbreak.
Not to nit-pick, but actually the white dress was first worn in Roman times to show bridal happiness, not purity. Only “recently” was it put back into fashion by Queen Victoria mostly to show off wealth (being able to have a special dress just for the occasion, as opposed to just wearing another nice dress).
Weddings today come in all shapes and sizes. Both of my parents walked me down the aisle to present stand with me and offer love to my husband. His parents walked with him as well. We had just family and a few friends. It was a very nice, small Unitarian ceremony.
By the way, congratulations to your daughter! I was married in March of 07. It’s not often a “wedding month” but it was lovely. The cherry blossoms had just started blooming.
Oh, this does make me very sad indeed. The homosexual lobby is very powerful because the people behind it are among the most wealthy in our country. They will pick and pick and pick away at traditional values until they get their way, and it’s already happening.
Traditional marriages are already becoming a mockery. How true that weddings these days are more about the production and expense than the God-honoring vows. We were married in 1994 at our church with the reception in fellowship hall. Recently, I’ve been to wedding showers that were far more elaborate than my wedding!
Doubly concerning to me is the fact that PCUSA is so close to allowing the ordination of homosexual ministers. I watch this issue very closely because we are currently members of a PCUSA church. Our church is still very conservative and traditional, but we will have to leave the PCUSA denomination altogether if they change the doctrine to allow homosexual ministers. I fear it is not very long before they do.
Annie said: “Not to nit-pick, but actually the white dress was first worn in Roman times to show bridal happiness, not purity.”
“And to her [the Bride of Christ] was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.” (Revelation 19:8)
I believe that same-sex marriage affects traditional marriage in a big way. It is a moral issue. As much as the media would like to make us believe otherwise, you are not born gay. It is a choice, and according to the Bible, it is a sinful choice. When we throw Biblical truths out the window, and there are no absolute truths, no right or wrongs, it will affect everything. Traditional marriage has already declined dramatically over recent years. People are choosing to live together rather than get married. The statistics for how many single mothers there are in America is staggering. I believe the gay agenda has caused people to look at wrong as not being wrong. The mentality of “It is only wrong if it is wrong for you” is becoming really prevalent. When I was in high school, being gay was considered downright immoral. Getting pregnant outside of marriage or living together was also considered immoral. Now, less than 20 years later it isn’t considered wrong in our society. That is scary! To me, same-sex marriage is just another way to desensitize people to believe that what is morally wrong is really okay.
Hi Annie – thanks on the congrats. We’re hoping SOMETHING will be blossoming in March! LOL It’s still pretty cold here in March.
Hi Madgebaby. You said: “I have never known anyone who decided to become gay after seeing gay people involved in civil unions.”
It’s not a matter of being afraid our children will see two men walking down the aisle (one wearing a veil and holding a bouquet) and say, “Hey, that looks like fun – maybe I should do that too.”
It’s a matter of indoctrinating our society into thinking that what God says is an abomination is actually just fine. As marriage is redefined and perverted, the very picture of Christ and His bride is mocked.
Creation itself proves this is an unnatural and fruitless union. The very way a man and a woman are created proclaims how we are fit one for the other.
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you.” (Leviticus 18:22-24, NKJV)
Stacy,
I just wanted you to know that I linked to your post today. It dovetailed nicely with what I had already intended on blogging about for the day. I know you are a busy lady, but you and your readers are welcome to stop by my post if you like. :)
Thanks for posting this and for approaching such an obviously controversial topic in a courageous way. I agree that marriage should only be between one man and one woman. Anything else mocks our Heavenly Father’s law and the sacred nature He gave marriage.
The unnatural act of anal sex can have adverse physical repercussions. A gay family member of mine died from peritoneal-rectal cancer, after years of engaging in anal sex with his partner. Sorry to be so graphic but that’s just one serious, damaging effect of the practice of male homosexuality. It’s nothing a condom or vaccine can solve. It’s nothing discriminatory. It’s just a fact. And it’s not even about God “punishing” anyone – it’s the consequence of breaking a physical law, one that can’t be argued or explained away by anyone.
Who knows what other medical discoveries will be made after years of this behavior and lifestyle, male or female, being so widely accepted?
Just to be clear: I’m fully aware of the scriptures used to argue against same sex marriage. I was just saying that in my experience, individuals who are gay who try (oftentimes very sincerely) to fit into the norm of heterosexual marriage suffer mightily and cause their families to suffer as well.
Madgebaby said: “I was just saying that in my experience, individuals who are gay…”
Here’s the crux of our disagreement. A person is not “gay.” God has not created a third sex. Sodomy is not a disease. It is not something you’re born with, like a deformity. It’s a sin; just like any other sin. I do believe some people are more prone to certain sins (lying, stealing, promiscuity etc.); whether it be from things they were exposed to as children or whatever. But a man is not “created” a homosexual (and neither is a woman).
That being said, if this is a sin that someone is in bondage to, and they choose to marry as a cover up, rather than repent, there’s going to be trouble. I can’t imagine how devestating this information would be to the spouse who was oblivious before marriage.
Some people are basically asking “So what?” I can understand their point – to an extent. As it stands now, it is legal for homosexual couples to do whatever they want to do in private, to make lifelong promises to one another, even to dress up and pretend to be the opposite sex.
And the fact that people do such things is no threat to me, or to other folks who advocate traditional Christian marriage.
However, the homosexual lobby is not content with this status quo. They are seeking to receive the benefits of marriage in spite of the fact that they don’t meet the natural law requirements for marriage. Marriage, as an institution, is designed to protect procreation, family, and the natural benefit that comes to every person by having both parents – one of each sex.
Other living arrangements may mimic some element of marriage or another, but homosexual cohabitation is not marriage any more than a person living with an animal is. Not even the Supreme Court of California can turn a baseball into a frog by fiat.
To demand the status of “marriage” is to demand a stamp of societal approval. It is to demand recognition by all. And it doesn’t stop there.
Around the world, we’ve seen criminal penalties for even so much as criticizing or expressing dissent of the new sexual paradigm – especially in “enlightened” and “liberal” societies like Scandinavia and Canada.
Churches and Christians are being threatened and intimidated, and pastors are being gagged in their own pulpits.
This goes well beyond tolerance, it is now a demand for forced acceptance and the creation of thought-crimes to those who cling to Scripture and/or natural law as a defense of traditionalism.
Many states have adopted constitutional amendments defining marriage as a heterosexual institution, and yet, children in government schools are fed propaganda to the contrary, homosexual couples are being given new-found “rights” to adopt children (thus denying these children parents of both sexes), and small cabals of judges are allowed a reign of terror over the legislative process.
And even my too-long comment here only scratches the surface. I didn’t even get into the psychological and spiritual “normalizing” effect that the homosexual lobby is after.
I would not want to criminalize private homosexual behavior (only a tyranny could enforce such laws) – but neither do I believe we should criminalize thoughts of any kind. “Gay” marriage tips the scales in the favor of the latter, and it has turned once free and conservative societies into places where “anything goes” sexually but where dissent is ruthlessly repressed, and these changes have happened virtually overnight.
That’s why this is a big deal for everyone. It’s a Trojan horse.
Just my two cents…
“That being said, if this is a sin that someone is in bondage to, and they choose to marry as a cover up, rather than repent, there’s going to be trouble. I can’t imagine how devestating this information would be to the spouse who was oblivious before marriage.”
My question here is that if your assertion that homosexuality is just another sin chosen, why would that person enter into a heterosexual marriage? Why not just live their sin? Are they just incredibly cruel people who want to hurt the spouse? Why would they choose to cover it up if they could just stop sinning and be married?
I’m so sad that those people are giving Presbyterians a bad name. We aren’t all like that!!
Hi Amy,
No, we’re not – you’re right! LOL We’re Presbyterian too! The article is referring to the PCUSA. Many Presbyterians consider the PCUSA to be apostate.
Father Hollywood,
Thank you for your comments. Right on!
The idea of same-sex couples being able to marry legally makes me a little un-easy. I personally have nothing against homosexuals as people, but letting them be able to marry is taking things a little “over-the-top.” Marriage is a glorious blessing that Heavenly Father has given for a man and a woman. In Romans, the bible speaks of same sex relations as an abomination. Therefore, anyone who agrees with same sex marriages is going against God’s Word. I consider myself a fairly open-minded individual, but it is difficult for me to condone something that Heavenly Father is obviously not in favor of.
I’ll probably post a more serious comment later on the nature of homosexual marriages and how they can affect God’s design of marriage. But right now, I just have to giggle a little at this. “All that patriarchal stuff?” What in the world’s patriarchal about saying “you may kiss the bride?” I think this is just that minister’s way of trying to get out of the fact that he didn’t know WHAT to say to two homosexuals. (I swear, if a minister ever forgets himself during the “wedding” of two men and accidentally calls one of them the bride, I will never stop laughing)
Even in regards to heterosexual marriages, though, I’ve never even heard of a feminist complaining about being called a bride. I’m not fond of hardcore patriarchy myself, but when I wear that bridal dress, I will be a bride, no question about that. And why confuse the poor minister? I can just imagine him trying to be politically correct, and then forgetting what he’s now supposed to say and spluttering, “You may now kiss the br-…woman, er, lady, yeah, her in the white dress, you can kiss her.”
father hollywood, I agree: they are not happy just being free to do as they like. They feel guilty about it and the only way they can get rid of that uneasy feeling is to have others validate them, pat them on the back, even applaud them. They just won’t be content being allowed to live in such a way. Can you imagine married heterosexual couples behaving the same way?
Simply, Amen.
<><