Bonding Friendship

On Friday, June 26, 2015, America received the announcement that by a vote of five to four the Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage is approved by the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. The approval was strongly attacked in published statements, both legal and emotional in the languages of persons against the ruling.   The only option remaining for the restoration of the biologically factual meaning of marriage in the United States rests with gaining an amendment to the Constitution of the United States – highly unlikely.  Permission of slavery in the original constitution changed in 1865, giving men of color the right to vote before women of any race were given the right – which omission was righted in 1920.  At the same time prohibition was written into the Constitution.  It was repealed just thirteen years later.  These major events taken with the oddities related to addition and subtraction of logics, biology, history, and related evidence with the impatience of society about some civic issues offer illustrations of the imperfection of mankind to find the best order for the people in government and moral order.

The court decision redefining the meaning of marriage to society, disregards truth and morality (spiritual) as well as civil order (community/humanistic).  All people need consideration of nature’s truths and moral factors.  Biblically oriented Christians may feel perplexed about society in that Scripture does not relate virtue to same sex contexts (friendship, legally declared to be marriage).  It is not marriage based on historical pattern, nor is it fitting to the biological facts of family meaning and maturity. 

Even children have become objects of research for change in family solidarity, with denial of close male and female parentage.  The difficulty of persons to adapt to human differences leading to prejudice related to many factors like language, race, gender, nationality, even height, weight, hair and habits, must now bear still another aggravation in the variances of the meaning of marriage that is defined currently not from factual meaning (scientific) but from emotional preference.  It is presumed to instill a better society by approving the preferences of some persons through redefinition of what has been taken, even by a humanistic society, as a sacred relationship based on evidence – both biological facts and the equality of genders.  The concept of marriage within the same gender group implies an inadequacy of the omitted gender.  In biblical Christianity the matter of morals is also an issue.  The belief of one male married to one female was so strong that multiple marriages were made illegal in America in the course of history.

Even so the practice continues among a very few families in a permissive society, but the new definition of   marriage provides cause for advocates of multiple marriage also to be recognized and approved.  Even the ancients dealt with the issues.  When Jesus was challenged about multiple marriages, his reply was: At the beginning the Creator made them male and female . . . . the two will become one flesh . (Matthew 19:4-5). For Christians the male/female roles are identified and cast in the marriage/family context.  To the traditionalist the identification of a husband and a wife in a same sex marriage seems ludicrous, even funny in logic, and is seen for some in the grooming and differences with one becoming macho to represent maleness and the other with a touch of submission and glamour to represent femaleness.  There are other factors that do not seem to fit, but they are made a matter of personal preference.  The problems are exacerbated by other laws such as those related to uses of drugs, incursions of technology, and various managements of society.  Increasingly society retreats from natural to emotional life.   Orientation to homosexuality should not define the first institution defined by God, practiced and defended as a basic context for the direction of human beings for millennia.  At this writing the mixed marriages concept not only violates traditional and divinely appointed marriage, but reduces divine meaning of friendship as illustrated in the experience of Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, of the Apostle Paul and Timothy, and it may have been implied in the relationship between Jesus and the Apostle John.  Sexual intimacy has no part in that righteous relationship that improved the parties to human soul identity and service.  If sexual activity is included by some it would equate to sin and infidelity as it is violated in traditional marriage. We do not define a relationship by its hypocrisies or rationalizations.  The Church can find a way for all.