Definitely a Keeper
By: Patti Bankson
Itâ€™s simply â€œthrillingâ€. And so-o-o-o California. Iâ€™m talking about that state making Gay marriage legal. There, at least. And, at least, for awhile. There will be challenges, so itâ€™s a definite, â€œWeâ€™ll Seeâ€. In the meantime, what Iâ€™d like to see challenged â€“ a challenge thatâ€™s way over-due – is a courtâ€™s ability to totally ignore the will of the people in a matter. This one or any other. 61% of California voters had already said No, to legalizing gay marriage; Yes, to continuing to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Sadly, of course, far too many one man, one woman marriages donâ€™t survive much longer than some of the protests for or against them. But maybe thatâ€™s because weâ€™ve gradually chipped away at its foundations: fidelity, commitment, self-sacrifice, tradition. Yes, I know that even in the â€œgood oleâ€™ daysâ€ (whenever that was), not everything was as it appeared to be. Certainly, not everything was perfect. There were people who didnâ€™t know the meanings of those words even then. Or, if they did, they chose to ignore them. But, for those who chose to do so, there used to be a consequence: society frowned. Society said, â€œShame, shameâ€.
But now, that frown has been turned upside down and our society approves (whether tacitly, or otherwise) of just about any kind of behavior, no matter how abhorrent, vile, crude or harmful to the individuals doing it, those in the path of the trickle-down, or to society as a whole.
When did the frown get turned upside down? Was it when news outlets decided it was okay to slant their reportage? Like theyâ€™ve done regarding the CA gay marriage issue. ABC News reported: â€œFirst legal gay marriages lead to protests by anti-gay activists.â€ Channel 8 in San Diego reported: â€œGay Marriage Foes expected to rally at County Administration Building.â€ Are they deliberately trying to manipulate our minds and emotions, or do they really not understand that wanting to keep the traditional definition of marriage doesnâ€™t make you â€œanti-gayâ€? Maybe we just want the definition of marriage left alone. Whatâ€™s wrong with that? My guess? It makes it a little harder to paint those of us who donâ€™t want marriage re-defined as â€œhateful and militantâ€.
Maybe the frown got turned upside down because too many people didnâ€™t know the meaning of some other words: Integrity. Character. Values. Morals. In fact, if it werenâ€™t so detrimental to us as a whole, it would be funny to listen to some of the talk about morality and values. Maybe â€œfunnyâ€ is the wrong word. Maybe I should say â€œlaughableâ€. Maybe if people who actually understand those words would speak up…. quit smiling, when they should be frowning…. quit approving when they should not approve… quit sacrificing their valuable morals at the altars of music, movies, TV and YouTube…
I get that we no longer live in the age of Ozzie and Harriet, and The Cleavers. Time passes, things change. I have no problem with that. But just because weâ€™re in a new age doesnâ€™t mean that everything from the â€œoldâ€ age should be thrown out. A lot of itâ€™s still worthwhile and still of great value to us all. Marriage, as defined by God, and tradition, is certainly one of them… definitely a keeper.
Your comments are invited at firstname.lastname@example.org
Send comments to email@example.com © 2011 Patti Bankson The Way I See It / The Apopka Chief / www.thelandofthefree.net