The Cohort Of Mary (C.O.M)

Well, today the highest court in America decided to endorse gay marriage by providing such unions with the same benefits as an actual married couple.  That story can be read here-  http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-06-26-10-20-13

There are many issues here to consider, and the giving of certain benefits is not really the largest of them, nor is it the more important. The issue of benefits is simply a matter of definition.  In order to receive benefits, one must meet certain standards which award the benefit.  For example, I recently signed up for Chesterton magazine.  The site said that I can get 20% off anything I buy in the store on the website.  In other words if a person is a member, you get this benefit.  All of this hangs in the definition of what a member of their web site is.  The answer is that I sign the form, pay my fine, then I am a member.  Such definitions are created by the owner of the site, organization, or institute.  The members do not get to change the definition of what a member is, the members would cease to be members and would then become equal to the owner.  Now, in the case of such a thing as a news paper or magazine, the change of definitions are acceptable, in the moral and ethical sense because it is based on the mind of another human being.  Yet, in the case of nature no human or human institution has the license to simply change the definition.  How we perceive the world around us may change, but our perception does not affect the thing in itself, that is, its nature or its essence.  The human person is not defined by governments.  Governments can either endorse or oppose what a human person is, but no matter what attempts they make to be the supreme authority; though they may call themselves a supreme court, the power does not lie in their hands. This is because the definition of "human" "rights" and "marriage" are all given to us by the one who owns or creates those things.  It is funny, how we are so set on claiming ownership of things.  The liberal ceases to be one when it comes to his own property. "I am the owner, I am its master!" is the cry that comes to mind when their property is threatened.  There claim is not wrong, but no sooner do they claim to have a right to owner ship that they deny the right of ownership to God.  A right is not something some man named Jefferson made up.  A right cannot be proven empirically.  It is a metaphysical reality, which is to say it is above the mere physical.  It is more than that, it is a spiritual reality that is given and defined by God. The only way rights can be protected from the mob is that it is objective, and not in our hands to change.  Take God out of the equation, that is to say divorce religion and God from everything else, and not only are we no longer protected from the tyranny of subjectivity, but also lose the ability to be rational. God gives us an intelligent soul. Our ability to take in knowledge, to understand, and to be rational is a faculty of the soul. Refuse God, and the mind is darkened.  Thus rights are not given or taken by government, only suppressed or endorsed; it is God who gives and defines such a thing as a right.  Marriage is one of those rights; and those who partake in homosexual acts, which by the way homosexuality is not a state of being but rather an action and those who are committing the act are labeled homosexual, are not and have never been denied the right of marriage.  They are just as free as anyone else to marry.  The government has not denied them the God defined, and God given, act of marriage. What the court has endorsed today, and proponents have rallied for, is not marriage. God defines marriage as between man and woman by the very act of creating man and woman.  If God did not define it this way he very well would have left woman out of creation.  If we are to look at man and woman from a merely Darwin eye certain questions arise.  How can a species survive the concerns of ancient man, such as predators, when they must stop to give births? How can man avoid predators while bleeding spontaneously every month? My point is this, homosexuals by their very action and philosophy deems the opposite sex as not needed, and in the way; especially women.  Today marriage was not redefined; it was ignored, or even attacked in order to establish something else.  A person partaking in homosexual acts can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want. Should they choose to live a life that looks much like marriage with someone of the same sex, call it what you want, a civil union, but it is not a marriage.  Not because I say so, but because God created us so and thus defined it so.  Now, in ancient times and even now, governments endorsed actual marriage because it was socially and politically a good.  Such unions begot stability as marriage brought with it children. With children, the parents would work to provide for them thus they worked harder, both for money and in their life. In other words they strove harder in virtue, though there idea of virtue may be different than our own; which in turn led to stronger communities and more people to tax and build the empire. Homosexual acts do not build up society because it rejoices in being barren. The same is true for any marriage that uses contraception as well. The statement the president made “discrimination enshrined in law." And "It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people," is completely false, as I have just said nothing is being denied the homosexual.  They have not been treated is lower, but as equal.  A gay man is looked at as a man, who is equal, for that man to want a same sex union is to want something that is outside of nature; In other words he does not seek equal treatment, but special treatment.  To say "you can now have a union with your same sex partner” does not lift them up but rather says they are different. Endorsement of unnatural acts among people only suppresses people.  In place of rising them up, we say "no, stay down there"; by the very act of calling this union "Gay Marriage”, we are saying it is not marriage, we are saying it is different, and it is gay.   It is a strange paradox that the more such things are endorsed the more the people are suppressed, and stagnated. My last line about the term “gay marriage” is not completely accurate, as it is not gay at all.  Gay means happy, and the homosexual is not happy, or at least no more than a slave is happy.  Yes, the chains are familiar, and it’s not so bad really once you get used to the chains.  In fact these chains have a certain taste of security. The slave can depend on the chains to always be there.  It is as if these chains are who the slave is, it is a part of there being.  As G. K Chesterton said in St. Francis of Assisi, “the minute sex ceases to be a servant, it becomes a tyrant.” In the end, the homosexual is a slave and it is the Christian still fighting for his freedom.  It is the Church that says “No, you are more than some disordered act.  You are not your sin. You are a child of God, created in his image.”  The mission of the Church and God fearing men and women is to uplift the one struggling with homosexual attraction.  The war the Church is fighting is for the homosexual, not itself. The Church cannot be destroyed, nor can the family for as Chesterton also said, “We will not be able to destroy the family.  We will merely destroy ourselves by disregarding the family.”  So, to finish I am not sad because I feel the righteous has lost some great victory, rather because the homosexual and others like them, are the ones who have lost today, and God will only allow us so much time before the judgment.