Skip to content

And today we are asked to celebrate worldly lusts

February 14, 2007

There are things to which I give little thought because they’re self-evident; or, if there’s something wrong, I can’t fix it or come up with a better solution; or they aren’t interesting; or they’ve always been the way they are so they really aren’t thought-provoking. The fact of State involvement in marriage fits into all of the above categories.

Some people, however, obsess on this. They are given over to a reprobate mind. They don’t really object to the State’s involvement in marriage; they want the State to confer it on them. But they abhor the very roots of marriage: the fully evident fact that it is a creation ordinance brought into being by God. The marriage of a man and woman requires no further explanation for its existence from courts, from citizens, or from deniers of God. God is his own interpreter and he has made it plain.

Yes, as usual, Seattle is in the national news for conspicuous reprobation. Yes, there is an petition going around that, if enough insane, reprobate, or illiterate people sign it, could place an initiative on the ballot. If the initiative were to pass (in which case I would move to Ireland and not follow the news), only couples capable of producing children would be permitted to marry, and if they failed to produce children within three years, their marriages would be annulled.

HUH? I know, I don’t get it either. The reprobate contingent is miffed at a State Supreme Court ruling rejecting ipisexual marriage (I’m trying to use words that won’t release a swarm of harpy googlers on my blog), citing the State’s interest in procreation.

The decision could have been worded better: the State presumably has an interest in knowing who’s legally who, and who is legally bound to support whom, but not in procreation per se. Anyway, the ipis took it and ran with it, reordering language and meaning–the one thing for which they demonstrate fair capacity–and “decided” this meant marriage was for the purpose of procreation, and therefore should not be legally valid absent fulfillment of this purpose. This is because they are soreheads who are not qualified for marriage themselves but want it anyway.

I don’t think about whether the State belongs in marriage. I know God does, and I know he can’t be dispossessed of his interest in his creation or his ordinances. I know ipisexuals don’t, because God makes this plain in his Word. I wish these people would just go away and shut up. Their presence on the streets is a judgment, an astonishment, and a hissing. But they’re out there, heathens raging against God’s law, trying to distort the law into chaos so it can be where they live.

Lest I indict Seattle as having exclusive domain over torqued marital ideology: a Pennsylvania radio station is sponsoring a poetry contest. The prize: an all-expense paid divorce.

I suppose if Valentine’s Day compels acknowledgment by any God-fearing romantics, they can hide under the bed and eat chocolate.

Advertisements
3 Comments
  1. February 14, 2007 9:15 am

    I had heard about this, but I haven’t seen any petitioners out and about. It really is foolishness. I’d be surprised if they have more than 4 or 5 people willing to volunteer their time.

    But I am often wrong on these things.

    I like the “ipi” use.

  2. Lady Rachel permalink
    February 15, 2007 10:44 am

    I also enjoyed the “ipi” uses. As for us God Fearers, we didn’t hide under the bed OR eat Chocolate. Nate cleaned the house and prohibited me from preparing dinner. :-) There are definite pros to having a practical Husband, even if he bemoans a lack of some romantic sense.

    What about couples who only produce one child…what if they use the dreaded and controversial in vitro?

    CRAZY!

  3. February 15, 2007 10:55 am

    I think one child would suffice, provided it comes along within the three-year period. But they seem to be suggesting that fertility testing will be necessary before the marriage can be certified. We’re talking way beyond Orwell here.

    This is nothing but a pathological tantrum: what the ipis can’t have, no one else can have, so there too, nyah. (sound of stamping feet…cadenza…sticking out of tongue)

    I’m grateful Nate prohibited you from preparing dinner. I understand you rather knocked yourself out that day fixing lunch. :)

Comments are closed.