Marriage: An 'Evolving Paradigm'?

Free World Class Education
FREE Catholic Classes

By John Mallon
© 2005 by John Mallon
Catholic Online

Is marriage an "an evolving paradigm?" This is the sort of phrase you expect to hear in women's studies department or a United Nations conference; but it is what the Massachusetts Supreme court has said about marriage.

According to Steve Mosher of the Population Research Institute (PRI) of Front Royal VA, That statement "sends a message to the next generation that marriage has no enduring meaning, and that ages of moral teaching and human experience have nothing to teach us about this institution."

In PRI's Weekly Briefing of July 13, 2004, (www.pop.org) Mosher said, "I was once an anthropologist, that strange and dying subdiscipline of sociology that studies the social arrangements of various primitive tribes. There is a vast array of social arrangements and cultural exotica to be found among these often-marginal groups, and the hundreds of ethnographies that have been written often make for fascinating reading.

"At the same time, there are some striking underlying commonalities across cultures and across time. One of these is marriage, as an exclusively heterosexual institution. While there are many different family types, from nuclear families to extended families including several generations and several degrees of kinship, these are all built around the one relationship that can provide for the continuation of the family, the fruitful bond of man and woman.

We ask you, humbly: don't scroll away.

Hi readers, it seems you use Catholic Online a lot; that's great! It's a little awkward to ask, but we need your help. If you have already donated, we sincerely thank you. We're not salespeople, but we depend on donations averaging $14.76 and fewer than 1% of readers give. If you donate just $5.00, the price of your coffee, Catholic Online School could keep thriving. Thank you.

Help Now >

"If any human group ever adopted homosexuality as the chief principal around which to organize society, it died out. No such society can long exist, except in the imagination of homosexual activists, since it would fail to provide for the future in the most fundamental way: by reproducing itself."

Almost daily we are assaulted by some kind of Owellian Newspeak, an endless stream of euphemisms that attempt to hide their user's true goals of redefining humanity according to their disordered appetites beneath layers of claptrap like "marriage is an evolving paradigm," "a woman's right to choose," "family planning," "intergenerational sex..." The list goes on and on and all seems to have something to do with people unwilling or unable to keep their pants on.

Saint Paul describes the situation pretty succinctly in the first chapter of the Book of Romans, verses 18-32, (which, I'm told, can get you charged with "hate speech" if you read it aloud in Canada).

Mosher says, "If 'same sex marriage' is legalized nationwide, public school readers will soon be filled with stories like 'Heather Has Two Mommies'. It will be taught in social science courses that the traditional definition of marriage as a bond a man and a women is outdated, obsolete and intolerant. Man/man and woman/woman liaisons will be hailed as the model for the future, equal to or better than traditional marriage. Teenagers confused about their sexuality--and there are many--will be particularly vulnerable.

"A world of shattered families peopled with millions of isolated and miseducated teenagers would be a paradise for homosexual predators. But it would be Hell to live in.

"The majority of the American people would never approve same-sex marriage at the ballot box, but we are perilously close to having it imposed on us by the courts."

Mosher cites President Bush, who strongly supports the Federal Marriage Amendment, who said, "When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the only alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution--the only law a court cannot overturn. A constitutional amendment should never be undertaken lightly--yet to defend marriage, our nation has no other choice.

"A great deal is at stake in this matter. The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, and the law can teach respect or disrespect for that institution. If our laws teach that marriage is the sacred commitment of a man and a woman, the basis of an orderly society, and the defining promise of a life, that strengthens the institution of marriage. If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost, and the institution is weakened. The Massachusetts court, for example, has called marriage 'an evolving paradigm'. That sends a message to the next generation that marriage has no enduring meaning, and that ages of moral teaching and human experience have nothing to teach us about this institution.

Download 100's of Prayers for free

For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that traditional marriage is critical to the well being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, traditional marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. Changing the definition of traditional marriage will undermine the family structure." (President's Radio Address on Marriage, 10 July 2004)

The whole "same-sex marriage" issue seems to have a lot of people heading for the hills. After the scandals of 2002 (which had more to do with homosexuality than pedophilia) the US bishops seem reluctant to say very much--an ongoing testament to the harm those scandals have done.

During the Last presidential campaign, John Kerry and John Edwards seemed especially uncomfortable about this issue. Kerry had been trying to figure out how to take both sides of the issue for months. It is tragic that the "Catholic" candidate stood with the enemies of the Church on this and so many other of the most crucial issues facing us as a culture. On the July 14th cloture vote in the Senate, the vote was 50-48 against the Federal Marriage Amendment. The two senators not voting? John Kerry and John Edwards.

If there is indeed an "evolving paradigm" here it is the pattern of hostility towards all that Catholicism (and practically every other major world religion) holds dear.

Mallon's Blog may be found at Mallon's Media Watch.