'Who are you to deny them happiness?'

Dear Editor,

"They love each other; who are you to deny them happiness?" So goes the mantra of the humanist mind ... Human feelings are subjectively relevant, but hardly sound rationale for making decisions.

In the matter of "same-sex marriage" ontological truth is the sole judge of facts, and these principles must guide our response. "You must come to terms with the new reality!" Wrong. Here are the immutable terms of Divine reality -- Sacramental Marriage is the indissoluble union of one man and one woman. It was not man who instituted marriage, but God. Carried to its end the recognition of same-sex marriage would create a society without bloodlines, without authentic familial bonds, without genealogy. The intrinsic nature of the subject, whose object is the sustainment of the human race, makes human feelings a minor subscript.

What is matrimony? The word, derived from the Latin and French, translates to "Office of the Mother" or "State of being a Mother." (This is not to be construed as intending disdain for childless marriages. That such cases arise, whether by accident or intent, does not change the intrinsic nature of marriage.)

Thus by definition marriage has a natural end -- a divinely intended purpose -- that is subverted by what the misinformed assert to be an "alternate but equal" form. This redefinition eventually places validity on any kind of union; and the acceptance of such opens the door to calling any pairing a marriage -- including adult with child, child with child, human with animal, human with non-sentient life (plants), or even with non-life (inanimate objects).

Moreover, it denies the anatomical, physiological and psychological realities that prove the mutually beneficial and complementary purpose of the sexes (Note I write sexes, not "gender" -- a grammatical term, used to ascribe the personal pronouns of a sex: he, she, him, her). Two men or two women may sincerely love each other, but affection does not constitute marriage, and nor could man ever make subjective accidents its substitute. What same-sex marriage proposes is the institutionalization of a non-life affirming union that is intrinsically disordered; because such coupling is inherently sterile, and contrary to the intended purpose for which the design of the two sexes verifies, and for which authentic matrimony provides the best environment.

Many today are quick to boast the catchall of "human rights," so to justify numerous falsehoods ... To which I reply: What of God's Rights? The insistence that "we come to terms with this practice" requires us to accept that which is contrary to human life as being equal to that which propagates and nurtures life. What advocates of same-sex marriage demand is that we provide legitimacy to an aberration, that we make no distinction between reality and fantasy, truth and deception -- that we bear false witness against our neighbor. To comply with their demands requires that we deny both the biological facts and the ontological principles to which nature itself testifies. Rational minds can no more submit to such insanity than they could deny existence of the stars. Respect for basic truth should give sufficient reason to not follow this latest design of the humanist movement.

Recent revelations made by those who push for the redefinition of humanity's most fundamental root, confirm that the true purpose of codifying same-sex marriage is not to advance some novel notion of "equality," as has been continually asserted by its advocates; but rather the purpose is that, in conquering this one obstacle -- the divinely-instituted sacramental compact that reserves marriage to the union of one man and one woman -- the real prize sought, legitimizing homosexual behavior, may be won. In other words, the "gay marriage" banner is a disingenuous facade, based on a false pretense of prejudice, a false premise of fairness, and whose true goal is the undermining of ordered society for the sake of legitimizing destructive behavior.

The idea that we must "accept" a false paradigm, that we must defer good judgment and give our assent to that which is inevitably destructive to the body and the eternal soul, is repulsive. It is repulsive because it demands we do that which is opposed to love.

Indifference -- not hate -- is the true opposite of love. (The parable of The Good Samaritan illustrates this point.) To be indifferent to the truth for the sake of human affection or respect is hypocrisy and grave sin. It is uncharitable, and thus unjust. If we truly "love our neighbor," then we cannot be indifferent to what is contrary to his best interests -- both in this life and eternity.

We perhaps cannot help the accidents of life: who we are attracted to, and who we may come to love; but human circumstance does not justify legitimizing what is contrary to nature and God's Law.

Some may protest: "What shall you say when your child tells you he or she intends to marry another of the same sex." I reply: What will you say, friend, in defense of this supposed union, when you stand before God? "They love each other; who are you to deny them happiness?" That truth is what sits at the crux of the matter.

Bruce C. Desautels

Stratton, Nebraska