A Marriage Proposal

On Election Day, 2008, Proposition 8 was passed in the state of California. This proposition has altered the constitution such that it defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Now this is great victory in the fight to preserve the sanctity of marriage in this country, but it is just the beginning of what could become an amazing era of marriage reform in our state and our nation. My humble proposal is that citizens continue to fight for marriage and family and reverse the many detrimental changes marriage has undergone in the recent past by allowing the government more control over marriage. Many people argue that the strength of the smallest unit of a country, the nuclear family, contributes greatly to the strength of the country as a whole. If the government were given the responsibility creating marriages, it would ultimately be entirely beneficial to the United States of America.

Moral strength is one of the most important elements of the wellbeing of a marriage and family. Many people turn to religious texts, such as the Bible, for guidance. For example Malachi 2:16 states “‘For I [the Lord God] hate divorce’" and I Corinthians 6: 9-10 states that “people who are immoral or [idolaters] or are adulterers or homosexual perverts…none of these will possess God’s Kingdom”. Recently, with divorce rates nearing 50%, homosexuals and other anti-religious individuals marrying, and an increasing number of dysfunctional, conflict-ridden families, the moral strength of married couples and families has been shattered. Given that immorality and depravity have corrupted one of the most holy and socially beneficial institutions, the situation has clearly reached a point where the government must take an active role in leading the American towards the right path. When people are left to their own devices, they create relationships based on lust, convenience, sexual perversions, desperation, and irrationality. If, however, the government were to create a system that helped to create more suitable matches, the many societal problems that stem from these flawed unions would be reduced within a few generations.

My primary concern is the moral issue behind marriage in this country. Some people would go so far as to say that a governmental influence on marriage would be unethical or overly controlling. Nothing could be further from the truth. We trust the government with many aspects of our personal lives. They are responsible for the curriculum taught to our children, the laws we agree to abide by, the products we are allowed to buy, the places we can travel, the information presented to us, and even the amount of money left in our paychecks. Those hypocritical cynics who argue against government-controlled marriage are rarely seen to criticize the government’s role in public education, law, and drug prohibition. As a democracy, our government is a representation of the people by the people and therefore has a duty to guide the country on the path back to a society that values strong, moral marriages.

Thus far, my argument has been general, dealing primarily with presenting the bigger picture of the state of marriage in our country today. However, I have prepared a detailed system that could be successfully adopted and fully functional within as little as a few years. As I mentioned earlier, people often make poor decisions about who to marry, leading to dysfunctional, tense relationships. What people really need is an unbiased and expert third party, willing to do all the hard work that they would otherwise have to handle all by themselves. After all, finding a compatible match, dating, and proposing are all very difficult and stressful. However, if the government were responsible, young people would no longer have to worry about these things. India, a country where the majority of the marriages are arranged (some statistics say as much as 90%), has an extraordinarily low divorce rate, less than 10%. In fact, many cultures have relied on the use of supportive family members or even “matchmakers” to assist young men and women with this, the most important decision of their lives. Of course, technology, particularly the internet, has become an amazing resource for networking, communicating, and even dating. Modern dating sites such as match.com or eHarmony have helped over three million Americans to enter long-term relationships or marriages. If the government were to develop a system similar to this, where young Americans create profiles, fill out questionnaires, and list their preferences in a spouse, it would be simple to create compatible marriages. All one would have to do is sign up, pay a reasonable tax, and fill out information that could be used to help find the perfectly compatible match. A high-powered search engine would match up people based on preferences about appearance, wealth, geography, profession, race, religion, children, pets, personal style, music, and all other things that couples disagree and have conflict over. They would be happily married within a matter of weeks. In addition, with the U.S. online dating market expected to make $900 million by 2011, a government system with moderate taxes that reached 100% of the marriageable population would certainly boost the economy. It would open up new jobs, many of which could be done from the home, making it an excellent job opportunity for the disabled and stay-at-home parents.

Not only will this create strong marriages, but also strong families. Children brought up in low-stress, argument free homes will not be exposed to conflict or differences in opinion, so they will not learn to exhibit these behaviors. This is the most healthy, well-adjusted environment any child can hope to be brought up in. Of course, the skeptics will argue that people can change and that this might bring a new level of tension into the relationship that could result in the couples wanting a divorce. If this were the case, the couples would not be permitted a “divorce”, but rather a reassignment. If their spouse could not lead them on a healthy, ethical path then they would simply re-enter the database, find a compatible partner, and begin a healthy relationship with that person. However, if theunhealthy relationship had already resulted in children, different measures would have to be taken. A broken home is no place for a child to be raised, so the government would do everything in its power to resolve the conflict and help the couple to return to the way they were when they married. Any number of therapeutic, pharmaceutical, or personality altering techniques could be used to achieve this end quickly and efficiently.

While I feel that my proposal could be very beneficial to our country, I am not so biased that I would ignore other proposals that would help create marriages based on morality, stimulate the economy, provide loving homes for children, and create lasting relationships. However, I am adamant that this problem be dealt with before it is allowed to infect American culture any further.

 

 

 -Emma, C.A.T.A.L.Y.S.T

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

"Divorce Rate in India." Divorce Rate. 15 Nov. 2008 <http://www.divorcerate.org/divorce-rate- in-india.html>.

Good News Bible. New York, NY: American Bible Society, 1992.

Llorente, Elizabeth H. "Online dating sites turn matchmaking into profit."The Record Online Edition. 28 Aug. 08. 15 Nov. 2008 <http://www.northjersey.com/business/news/27584644.html>.

Madden, Mary, and Amanda Lenhart. "Online Dating." Pew Internet & American Life Project. 5 Mar. 06. Pew Research Center. 15 Nov. 2008 <http://www.pewinternet.org/ppf/r/177/report_display.asp>.

"Prop 8 Title and Summary." Voter Information Guide. Califronia Secretary of State. 15 Nov. 2008 <http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop8

Our Love’s In Jeopardy 

The 2008 election was a huge historical landmark for many reasons; after hundreds of years of slavery and oppression, America saw an African American elected to office. Many view this appointment as a historic landmark for both America and the world as a whole. However, the President-Elect was not the only revolutionary outcome of this election. On November 4^th, 2008, California passed a constitutional resolution to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman, effectively banning same sex marriage. This piece of legislature, called “Proposition 8”, passed narrowly with a 53% lead in the popular vote. The biggest argument presented for the proposition was the protection of the sanctity of marriage; Californians decided together to protect that sanctity by only recognizing heterosexual marriage within their state. 

Proposition 8 was a good legislative first step, but it is not sufficient if Americans truly wish to secure the sanctity of marriage. According to Miles McPherson, Senior Pastor of the Rock Church in San Diego, “I support Proposition 8 because I'm convinced that the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is God’s design. God loves every person in California, in the United States, in the world -- and so must we. So it’s important to realize that Proposition 8 isn’t against anyone; it’s for marriage. It’s for our children’s future. It’s for the truth. We're not just fighting a state legislative battle here. We're fighting to preserve God's design for the family as the best building block of society. It's as basic as that”¹. Because marriage is a religious institution both sanctioned and defined by God himself, we cannot change that definition. As put by prominent writer and biblical scholar A.W. Tozer, “True faith requires that we believe everything God has said about Himself, but also that we believe everything he has said about us,” (Tozer 54 ²). Therefore, the religious institution of marriage cannot in good conscience recognize the unions of atheistic couples. 

Our government can of course allow civil unions between atheist couples, but in order to maintain the sanctity of marriage we must disallow them from using the term “marriage” for their unions. All the same insurance laws and state sanctioned rights will be granted to these domestic partnerships, but the definition of marriage cannot continue to include couples that have no faith in God; the very idea undermines the validity and worth of those marriages based on faith. We can already see a certain level of regression from God’s design for marriage in our society today; Chris Robinson, a wedding officiant based in Los Angeles and founder of “Officiantguy.com” states on his website, “An atheist wedding ceremony, or essentially a non religious ceremony, is no problem for us.  We embrace the idea that you should have the wedding vows of your choice and you should not be judged on your wedding day.  Officiating atheist wedding vows is something we do often. Many times we have heard of wedding ministers who either forget and drop some religious blessings or verbage into a non religious wedding-ceremony or worse, intentionally put their own personal religious beliefs into a wedding ceremony.  We're not like that.  Our goal is that your wedding ceremony format should be spoken as you intended and that you should be respected for the beliefs that you have” ³. As Californians, we cannot allow this stance to be taken. It infringes on the Christian values that the sacred, religious institution of marriage is built upon. 

Now, some may argue that atheist marriages are completely valid in God’s eyes because they are “traditional” in that they are heterosexual. Those who would argue the validity of atheistic unions must realize that tradition itself proves otherwise. Marriage is traditionally a religious institution after all; couples are married by religious officials (priests, pastors, etc.) and even Robinson, who claims to be completely impartial on the matter, is ordained as a non-denominational “minister”. The Bible itself sets down certain laws for marriage, and all of them should be followed and respected. For example, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands, as unto the Lord for the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body” (Ephesians, 5:22-23). Therefore, an atheist union is untraditional because neither the husband nor the wife will submit to the will of the Lord, let alone the wife to her husband. As we are working to preserve God’s design, we cannot make any allowances in the quest to secure the sanctity of marriage. 

Among the testimonials advocating proposition 8 on “ProtectMarriage.com” was the Most Reverend Allen H. Vigneron, the Bishop of Oakland. He maintains that “As faithful citizens, Catholics are called to bring our laws regarding marriage into conformity with what we know about the nature of marriage” ¹. And we know not only that the nature of marriage requires that it be between a man and a woman, but also that there be faith as well. It has been established that same sex and atheistic marriages do not meet these requirements, but the nature of marriage as God intended is so much more specific. After all, it is impossible to overlook the fact that, as put by Paul Hall, editor and publisher of the Jubilee newspaper, “When God created the different races of the world, He intended them to remain separate. Those who marry across racial lines are breaking the laws that God made explicit in the Bible” (Hall, 1 ⁴) . This is a perfect example of a situation where we are called upon to apply our unquestionable knowledge of God’s divine design in the world we live in. The book of Ezra outlines a situation wherein such indiscriminate marriage practice was allowed, and God’s subsequent disapproval; “ "The people of Israel, including the priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples...They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness.” (Ezra 9). Obviously, as outlined by the words of the Bible itself and the astute analysis of Hall, interracial marriage is not permitted nor becoming. As such, all interracial marriages must be prevented. The only method of regulation that is apparent to me is the institution of a system of extensive background checking on all prospective couples seeking a marriage license. Should these couples be able to prove that neither has had homosexual tendencies in the past, belongs to a different race than their partner, or is lacking in faith a marriage license may be granted without issue or complaint. 

But even so, the issue of faith is both problematic and unavoidably complex. How can we judge the faith of a man or woman, let alone determine if said faith is sufficient to warrant the privilege of marriage? The Bible once again proves to be filled with answers; “Faith, you see, can only come from hearing the message, and the message is the word of Christ.” (Rom 10:17 (Phi)). It therefore follows that only Christian marriages should be acknowledged by the state. Now, obviously not all Christians are inherently faithful, but the restriction prompted by the above biblical statement does assist in narrowing the eligibility for marriage. If Faith, a prerequisite for marriage as established earlier, can only come form the message, and the message is only the word of Christ then it follows that only Christians are capable of having faith in God; if A equals B and B equals C, then it follows that A must equal C. However, this comes with the exclusion of the remaining 23 letters of the alphabet. The next logical step is to revoke the privilege of marriage from all couples who do not adhere to a recognized denomination of Christianity. This includes practitioners of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, Paganism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Scientology, the various forms of Native American and Eskimo spirituality and countless other religions. 

The immediate argument that will undoubtedly be raised against this comprehensive proposal for the necessary restriction of marriage for the sake of its sanctity is that it is a violation of the promise of religious freedom in our Constitution. And it is true that the first amendment to the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It is true that the Constitution poses an annoying quandary in this endeavor, but keep in mind that had Proposition 8 not been passed, and if these further remediations to the institution of marriage are not carried out, Christians will be unable to freely practice their religion; in advocacy for Proposition 8 Dr. Jim Garlow, the Senior Pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church, stated “ the marriage definition issue is a survival issue.  No single social issue has threatened to forever muzzle Bible believing Christians like this contest....It is imperative that all pastors and Christian leaders view this for what it is: an irretrievable moment, with profound and lasting consequences.  We must vigorously support Prop 8, as if our ministries and our lives depend on it.  Ultimately, they will. ” ¹. The true feeling and design of the founding fathers behind the first amendment was to protect citizens in a situation exactly like this one. I know personally that I would never dare propose any piece of legislation that was fundamentally contrary to the clandestine words of our great nation’s founding fathers. It should also be noted that although there have been periods in American history during which we have denied fundamental rights to certain definable groups, and for those instances we must conceded our mistakes. However, this is not one of those instances. Civil unions will of course remain an option to couples of the denominations enumerated above should they wish to enter a domestic partnership, but the term marriage must be reserved for the sacred institution of Christian, heterosexual marriage. These couples can practice whatever they like in terms of ceremony, and the domestic partnership laws of California are in place to ensure that almost equal rights are granted to these partnerships, but to call their union a marriage is an unforgivable infringement on the sanctity of the institution of marriage. 

Therefore, though Proposition 8 was the essential first step in this movement we must now move to secure the sanctity of marriage fully. These domestic partnership restrictions that I have proposed are the only option present to Californians as a logical and necessary next step towards the goal of ensuring that sanctity; all Homosexual, Atheistic, Interracial, Unchristian marriages can not be permitted. It is true that there is a lot of work ahead of us, and the road will be difficult, but Californians have already proven their resolve and determination to secure the sanctity of marriage. With all that has already been accomplished with Proposition 8, we are already on the path to victory; now we must see our actions through.

-Sikander Sohail, C.A.T.A.L.Y.S.T.

Works Cited: 

1. Yes on 8; Protect Marriage. Testimonials.  2008. http://www.protectmarriage.com/testimonials

2. Tozer, A.W., Gems from Tozer, Christian Publications, 1969, p 54, qu in Dave Hunt, Beyond Seduction, Harvest House, 1987, p 16.

3. Chris Robinson. Atheist Wedding Ceremony. 2007.  http://www.officiantguy.com/atheistweddingceremony.html 

4. Hall, Paul. “The Bible Prohibits Interracial Marriage,” Jubilee, July/August, 1997.