Traditional Marriage is under attack!
FAO: North Carolina Amendment 1 Campaign, Coalition for Marriage, Doctors for the Family, and other likeminded groups
Nice work on the campaigning. It’s great to see people really standing up for the traditional, Christian definition of marriage. It’s sad that polygamy and concubinage aren’t a serious prospect at the moment, but I suppose we have to be realistic about picking our battles. On that subject, I’ve noticed a few things that I think you ought to be aware of.
I was shocked to discover recently that the state is performing ceremonies that claim to marry people. There’s no vicar officiating, and religious content is explicitly banned from these perversions of the true nature of marriage. And the final insult is that they give these travesties the oxymoronic name of “civil marriages”, openly mocking our holy institution.
I know that’s bad enough, but there’s worse to come. Some of these so-called “civil marriages” are between divorcees, who (as we know from Jesus Himself) can no more marry each other than a dog and a lamppost. Yet these people are being allowed to get “married” and even to call themselves “husband” and “wife”. Can you believe that?
And I’m afraid the problem even extends to the church. I know of couples who have been “married” in church despite having absolutely no intention of having children, and some outrageous cases where one or even both parties were actually infertile. As we know, children are a vital ingredient of any true marriage, but even the church itself can’t be trusted to uphold this self-evident fact. I trust you will do everything you can to correct this appalling perversion.
However, this is academic unless we can do something about a wider problem: it seems that some partnered gay couples are in the habit of calling themselves “married” in conversation, even though that would be impossible. They actually have the nerve to use our special word for their deviant union! It would be a hollow victory if we succeeded in denying them proper marriage but they insisted on using the word anyway, so I have a suggestion: we need to trademark marriage.
I know this may seem a ridiculous suggestion, but hear me out. If we could register marriage (sorry, Marriage™) as a trademark, we’d finally be able to make sure that it was only used in approved cases. With one simple act, we’d achieve more than any number of campaigns, petitions and demonstrations – we’d finally have absolute control over Marriage™, and no future homo-loving government would be able to take that away from us.
There is a potential PR problem, though. Attempting to assert our ownership of a commonly-used word might look bad, even by the standards of the church, so it may be advisable to offer an olive branch to all those not-really-married but very noisy types. I suggest we could allow them to use our trademark, provided they acknowledge our ownership appropriately. I think the use of quotemarks should be sufficient when using the word in a non-approved context, and maybe an “air quotes” gesture when speaking.
It would be delightful to see all these various sinners and deviants forced to acknowledge their sins in these little ways, every time they refer to their shameful, godless fornication. If we adopt this strategy, I have no doubt that we will make God’s loving word known throughout the world.
Yours in Christ,
Revd George Nutter
Photo by mensatic, used under MorgueFile License