Under the Oak

William Murchison reacts to this weeks attempts in Iowa and Vermont to redefine marriage as something other than a man and a woman.

You really can’t have “gay marriage,” you know, irrespective of what a court or a legislature may say.

Murchison seems to have a bit of a watered down understanding of marriage – a man and woman coming together for childbearing.

A marriage — a real one — brings together man and woman for mutual society and comfort, but also, more deeply, for the long generational journey to the future. Marriage, as historically defined, across all religious and non-religious demarcations, is about children — which is why a marriage in which the couple deliberately repudiates childbearing is so odd a thing, to put the matter as generously as possible.

Nonetheless, he is right about this – marriage is marriage and no court decision, legislation, or mob of homosexuals can change that reality. Marriage by definition is a man and a woman joined together for life. Childbearing is but one of a multitude of positive products of that union.

You can find the rest of his article here.

We live in a truly twisted world.