Jul 17, 2013 3 min read

On July 4, we celebrate our Declaration of Independence. That Declaration is the foundation of our country’s public life. It is a document which proclaims that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. It closes with a statement of “… firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence…” A public document, governing our public political lives serves as the basis for what Thomas Jefferson dared to call “the common sense of the subject.”

Yet, we who celebrate the Declaration have seen fit to remove the Creator from any consideration in our public life, and with that removal, any consideration of a standard outside of ourselves. If we still acknowledged our rights as coming from our Creator, we would be looking at the source of our knowledge about that Creator – the Bible. Then, we would indeed, as the editor pointed out, rely on the Bible – upon the whole of it – and not simply selected parts, to make good decisions concerning how we are to live as persons and as a nation.

Regarding marriage, the subject is a theme that runs throughout the book, from Genesis: “Male and female he created them. God blessed them, saying, ‘Be fruitful and multiply…'” Through the New Testament: “At the beginning of Creation, God made them male and female; for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and the two shall become as one.” To the last book, Revelation. The theme of the covenant of marriage expresses the nature of the relationship between God and his people. Throughout the Bible, the call is to choose life, in the service of both the private and public good – to do so in a conscientious and responsible way – but nonetheless to choose the actions that are life giving.

The unitive act of marriage between a man and a woman is capable of generating life, barring physical problems. A man/man unitive act is never capable of that, nor is it capable of providing a mother to a child. A woman/woman unitive act is never capable of generating another life, nor can it provide a father to a child. A child has a right to a mother and a father. A child has the right to experience the model of how to integrate the male/female aspects of themselves as persons. Mothers and fathers can and should provide that formation. Men and women should not be reduced to being simply a biological egg and sperm. These relationships cannot provide a future generation for our country.

We seem, as a culture, to have decided that none of the above is of concern. Zero population is our goal. We already see the results of our thinking. Years ago, we had three workers for every service recipient; now we have one worker for three recipients. Perhaps we need to move beyond the promoted “group think” and ask ourselves, “How does man/woman marriage serve a unique public purpose?” God seemed to think it does. Meanwhile, if denying the above becomes our definition of “equality,” then I would rather live in a cleansing rain than under that spurious umbrella.

Dolores Jarrell

McMurray