Don't call it marriage

'Do you, George, take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband?' Does that sound right to you? How about: 'Do you, Alice, take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife?' Something about those questions appears to be out of sync with centuries of religious and moral underpinnings, and, I hasten to add, any common sense description of natural law.

I've always agreed that people have a right to be in love with whomever they please, and we should not attempt to interfere with a mutually agreed upon adult relationship. However, when it comes to the sacred institution of marriage, known and respected since time immemorial as the bonding of a man and a woman, we should not, we cannot, allow it to be sacrificed on the ceremonial pyres of a politically correct society that has lost its way. None of the above should be viewed as denigrating to all those same sex couples who genuinely love each other and merely seek the strong commitment enjoyed by heterosexuals.

In fact, given the AIDS epidemic and the proliferation of an assortment of venereal diseases, we all should be advocating more monogamous relationships between consenting adults, their gender admixture notwithstanding. Yet, some things in life are inextricably tied to the physiological and emotional bond within couples of the opposite sex. Just as the miracle of birth cannot be accomplished by the combination of same sex couples, the holy act of matrimony should not be blasphemed by those who seek to interfere with, and ultimately corrupt the foundation on which the family unit rests, in this country, and around the world.

Some have said that marriage is merely an old and tired ritual, more symbolic than meaningful; hence, it should not be so jealously guarded. I disagree! Symbolism creates images that have a profound impact on the process of thought; display a crucifix or a menorah, and people instantly identify them with religious worship. Marriage evokes the image of a pledge between a man and woman to begin, if they choose, an orderly system of child—rearing and family management.

The reason that marriage is both meaningful and symbolic is that it represents more than a commitment of fidelity between men and women. It constructs an environment in which children can be born and raised with a sense of security, plus an understanding of the essential roles of mothers and fathers, in the child's journey toward adulthood. We can point to statistics and criticize the unions that didn't last until parted by death, but many of those pairings were blessed by childbirth and therefore could never be considered failures.

Could as much be said for a marriage between couples of the same sex? I don't mean to diminish the value of one's love for another, only to differentiate the methods of affirming that love. Surely there must be another way to carve out a binding connection without intruding on sacred ground, and by so doing, drive a deeper wedge between the gay and straight communities. Even in the secular world, where civil unions are often preferred, the notion of a man and woman joined in wedlock is viewed as a vital part of the continuity of the species, rather than the pursuit of a political victory.

The attempt by gays to assimilate into the mainstream of modern culture will not be advanced by assaulting the venerable traditions that forged a civilization out of a savage, hedonistic wilderness.

Traditions are important because they reflect a few thousand years of experience and knowledge concerning the roadmap that led us to our present position in the chronological ascendancy of human history. To violate those tried—and—true traditions would push us closer to the primordial boundaries of our primitive past.

Homosexuals want to be accepted for who they are. Similarly, many of us want to be understood for our closely held beliefs. An invasion of those beliefs will only result in more animosity, bitterness, and further division of a culture struggling to survive the wistful notions of social expediency. There are some doors better left unopened, and some roads more perilous than others. No one can deny that gays have made significant strides toward achieving greater understanding and acceptance from their straight counterparts. Now, it remains to be seen if they can be as understanding and accepting of the time— honored custom and strongly held conviction that the man—woman symbiosis called marriage is inviolate.

Bob Weir writes the syndicated column, "Weir Only "Human." The author of 7 books, he is a retired NYPD sergeant, living in Flower Mound, Texas. BobWeir777@aol.com

'Do you, George, take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband?' Does that sound right to you? How about: 'Do you, Alice, take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife?' Something about those questions appears to be out of sync with centuries of religious and moral underpinnings, and, I hasten to add, any common sense description of natural law.

I've always agreed that people have a right to be in love with whomever they please, and we should not attempt to interfere with a mutually agreed upon adult relationship. However, when it comes to the sacred institution of marriage, known and respected since time immemorial as the bonding of a man and a woman, we should not, we cannot, allow it to be sacrificed on the ceremonial pyres of a politically correct society that has lost its way. None of the above should be viewed as denigrating to all those same sex couples who genuinely love each other and merely seek the strong commitment enjoyed by heterosexuals.

In fact, given the AIDS epidemic and the proliferation of an assortment of venereal diseases, we all should be advocating more monogamous relationships between consenting adults, their gender admixture notwithstanding. Yet, some things in life are inextricably tied to the physiological and emotional bond within couples of the opposite sex. Just as the miracle of birth cannot be accomplished by the combination of same sex couples, the holy act of matrimony should not be blasphemed by those who seek to interfere with, and ultimately corrupt the foundation on which the family unit rests, in this country, and around the world.

Some have said that marriage is merely an old and tired ritual, more symbolic than meaningful; hence, it should not be so jealously guarded. I disagree! Symbolism creates images that have a profound impact on the process of thought; display a crucifix or a menorah, and people instantly identify them with religious worship. Marriage evokes the image of a pledge between a man and woman to begin, if they choose, an orderly system of child—rearing and family management.

The reason that marriage is both meaningful and symbolic is that it represents more than a commitment of fidelity between men and women. It constructs an environment in which children can be born and raised with a sense of security, plus an understanding of the essential roles of mothers and fathers, in the child's journey toward adulthood. We can point to statistics and criticize the unions that didn't last until parted by death, but many of those pairings were blessed by childbirth and therefore could never be considered failures.

Could as much be said for a marriage between couples of the same sex? I don't mean to diminish the value of one's love for another, only to differentiate the methods of affirming that love. Surely there must be another way to carve out a binding connection without intruding on sacred ground, and by so doing, drive a deeper wedge between the gay and straight communities. Even in the secular world, where civil unions are often preferred, the notion of a man and woman joined in wedlock is viewed as a vital part of the continuity of the species, rather than the pursuit of a political victory.

The attempt by gays to assimilate into the mainstream of modern culture will not be advanced by assaulting the venerable traditions that forged a civilization out of a savage, hedonistic wilderness.

Traditions are important because they reflect a few thousand years of experience and knowledge concerning the roadmap that led us to our present position in the chronological ascendancy of human history. To violate those tried—and—true traditions would push us closer to the primordial boundaries of our primitive past.

Homosexuals want to be accepted for who they are. Similarly, many of us want to be understood for our closely held beliefs. An invasion of those beliefs will only result in more animosity, bitterness, and further division of a culture struggling to survive the wistful notions of social expediency. There are some doors better left unopened, and some roads more perilous than others. No one can deny that gays have made significant strides toward achieving greater understanding and acceptance from their straight counterparts. Now, it remains to be seen if they can be as understanding and accepting of the time— honored custom and strongly held conviction that the man—woman symbiosis called marriage is inviolate.

Bob Weir writes the syndicated column, "Weir Only "Human." The author of 7 books, he is a retired NYPD sergeant, living in Flower Mound, Texas. BobWeir777@aol.com