Americans in the Garden of Good and Evil
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for evil.”
Words used to have universal meanings. For example, “Woe,” is a biblical term meaning, “uh oh” and “big problems are coming.”
I think everyone “gets it” even though I just went “Bible Thumper” on the reader.
As far as religious words go, marriage is one. And… it always had a meaning exclusive to the contractual union of a male and female. Why?
The post could end here, it is so obvious. Males and females procreate, build families, enlarge communities via successive generational growth, and thus nations.
Besides, God performed the first marriage–as far as Christians, Jews, and Muslims are concerned–and so he created the genesis of the human family.
Today we are in a great debate over what should constitute marriage in the United States of America. Is meaning really that important? Should it matter?
Like it or hate it, it is fact that our first North Americans were largely escaping religious persecution abroad and saw our continent as a place of promise, a New Jerusalem, a garden of good and evil, where their choices—and not an aristocracy or King’s choice for them—would result in whatever fruits they planted by the seeds sown, each after their kind.
They knew what “woe” was all about and clearly fought to keep it away with faith-based codes of conduct, though sometimes strict and even punishing.
My first ancestor to North America, British Lt. William Pratt, married a daughter of Mayflower pilgrims in the early 1600’s. He, his sons, and grandsons fought in the frontier wars with native tribes, against the French, and as patriots in the Revolutionary War. Sons, grandsons, and great-great grandsons had instilled in them faith in easy-to-understand right and wrong laws of nature from the teachings of their founding fathers and mothers.
These men and women have defended their country with zeal ever since.
And the driving force was always about the liberty to build a family through marriage and be blessed by accompanying hard work. Never in these four hundred years did any definition of marriage need a “re” added to it. That’s because words always carried meanings that no one had to guess at.
For example, it was simply understood by them that marriage bound a man to a woman with the intent of creating family; the natural outcome being rearing boys and girls into productive men and women and thus building and perpetuating the nation. (In our country’s latter-day efforts for foreign “nation building” we would do well to examine the original meaning of the words.)
Now we are engaged in a firestorm of social-cultural reform built upon the foundation of political correctness, considering legitimizing into federal law what has never been legitimized in all human history by any government until this past decade—homosexual, same sex, “gay” unions.
The Supreme Court is being asked to consider the Defense of Marriage Act which specifies marriage to mean between one man and one women and also California’s Proposition 8 in which residents overwhelmingly cast their vote opposed legalizing “same sex marriage.”
Arguments ask us as a society at large to consider this strange new feature as a “civil right” in a way that re-defines the very easy to understand word “marriage.”
We are told that if we do not recognize it as a society we are intolerant, bigots, hateful, and it will become a “civil wrong” to be further fought.
The “good guys” are those who support ending the six millennia long meaning to marriage and family. The bad guys are those opposing men marrying men, and women marrying women, even though they oppose discrimination in any other way.
But in being asked to be “discriminating” in the marriage of same gender people to one another as a “civil right” we must ask, “When did marriage become a civil right?”
Marriage roots are deeply embedded as a religious sacrament, marriage has always been a choice, and a contract between a man and a woman, else how did any of us get to this point of writing this blog post or reading it?
Marriage does not mean civil unions may not exist, nor that government can not toy with meanings. It just “is” what it “is.”
In short the meaning of “marriage” for all times recorded to date has been reserved for the union, contract, and religious sacrament between a man and a woman.
Marriage never indulged any other kind of union, hence a simple definition backed by a history and experience; one social scientists are 100% in agreement with–the most well adjusted children adapting to productive adult lives come from a married man and wife offering fatherly and motherly love, care, and continuity of family life. And…
Nations spring from the family unit.
Now we are asked to give marriage a new definition to mean anything we want it to mean.
This post simply points out that when we loosely disregard the meaning behind words, we may also create looseness with safety of society and its continuity—tied to the moorings of what has been sanctified by actual history—the building of nations from male-female created family units pre-dating any government authorization.
Perhaps the idea to reform meanings hit a peak in our society when an impeached and former US President, who accused of sexual misconduct, signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act and then uttered these infamous words to side-step a clear and precise response to the independent counsel headed by Kenneth Starr investigating perjury:
“It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
In a 2001 Chicago public radio station interview a little known constitutional law professor Barack Obama, recited his beliefs on redistribution and social justice as he referred to the US Constitution as a, “charter of negative liberties.”
We now have a five year transparent history of what he and other social re-engineering liberal Democrats meant when the man, then inexperienced in any executive role and without business leadership history whatsoever, also uttered the words in an October 5, 2008 speech: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
Is it any wonder that the framers of the constitution restricted federal reach when they understood that the “thou shalt not” injunctions had both given liberty to good conduct but restricted society-destroying bad conduct?
Imagine a constitution with no restraints, where the whims of elected officials could change laws into their own image?
If you think we have men and women who love the mirror now, who almost act omnipotent with their gavels and pens, wait until we see them unrestrained, giving them absolute control and power to decide what is “right” and what is “wrong” or what is “good” or “evil.”
The pioneering families in America knew that a civilized society which willingly obeys such statues as the “thou shalt not’s” as simple as the famous 10 found in Exodus, were more likely to find peace and prosperity than those which ran without a moral compass saying “yes” to whatever next new thing crossed their path.
They understood also that natural law forbade unnatural things—that which could never produce something after its own kind—and that God was the giver of laws and human rights, not man.
Ever since the 1450 AD Gutenberg Bible, the first book to come off a printing press, people learned to read, understand, and explore concepts of conduct creating from it the greatest bestseller of all time.
The very first chapters of Genesis offered the concept of creation—that every seed and every animal procreated after its kind.
A man and woman were created for companionship but also to “multiply and replenish” in the earth.
Yet there was also a tree planted called the “tree of knowledge of good and evil,” which, if the first man and woman chose to eat from, would result in having the kind of knowledge God had; “knowing good and evil.”
As the story goes, a snake came along using half-truths in what he knew would be his best shot at control over them.
Thus the earliest concept of right and wrong was established in a time which we are told…
- God created man and woman.
- Snakes spoke lies against natural law.
- Man obeyed God or followed the snake.
- Good or evil resulted each and every time.
Call me a Bible thumper. I really don’t care. Historically there has never been an argument against such simple logic—until now.
Yet logic or not, I will be classed a bigot, a hater, and intolerant for applying the meaning of marriage to long cherished traditions and natural laws.
In man’s arrogance to make what has never been “right” into a right, he also dismisses and diminishes the meaning of simple words like marriage.
He may calculate that good fruit once sprang and grew from good seeds in recognition of natural laws, but now finds company in a disbarred and morally bankrupt ex-President along with the sympathy of millions of Americans in the garden of good and evil who claim fruits of a seed may become, “whatever the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”