Marriage cont.

In connection with the discussion on homosexual "marriage," John Savage turned me on to this article posted at TakiMag. The main objective of the writer may be summed up in his concluding paragraph. He writes:

“Traditionalists” have it all backwards. Marriage isn’t in decline; it has instead been glorified beyond all recognition. The only way back to traditional marriage may be to allow same-sex marriage without protest. Let marriage first be deflated. Then perhaps it can be restored.

The rest of the article goes about to establish the author's foregoing assertions. As evidence that the institution of marriage is overly exalted in modern society, Mr. Bramwell quotes from the CA Supreme Court's (a reliable source for the general opinion of moderns, I'm sure) infamous opinion in the recent homosexual marriage case. In its opinion the court declared that marriage is:

[T]he most socially productive and individually fulfilling relationship that one can enjoy in the course of a lifetime. The ability of an individual to join in a committed, long-term, officially recognized family relationship with the person of his or her choice is often of crucial significance to the individual’s happiness and well-being. The legal commitment to long-term mutual emotional and economic support that is an integral part of an officially recognized marriage relationship provides an individual with the ability to invest in and rely upon a loving relationship with another adult in a way that may be crucial to the individual’s development as a person and achievement of his or her full potential.

First of all, I'd personally like to know on what evidence exactly the Court is relying for its dogmatic, overly enthusiastic statements on marriage? One must assume, given that homosexual "marriage" was, before this ruling, illegal and non-existant, that the court is basing its exalted view of the marriage institution entirely on heterosexual examples, and imputing those examples to homosexuals, as if homosexuals have the same capacity as heterosexuals to engage in successful marriages. Talk about serving up a crock full of equality b.s.!

Beyond that, look at the way the Court subtly yet significantly redefines marriage to be just another all-inclusive institution. Marriage, according to the court, is no longer a "lifelong" commitment, but merely a "long-term" commitment. Of course the court gives us no indication of what it means by the term "long-term," so I assume it could mean any "extended" period of time. Do I smell a rat here?; is someone purposely being liberal with its ambiguity? What is self-evident and non-ambiguous about the term, however, is what the term does not mean -- a lifelong commitment. I suggest to you that the court knows full well that homosexuals are uniquely incapable of upholding the terms of traditional marriage, and therefore, as an advocate of homosexual "marriage", found it incumbent upon itself to destroy yet another foundational principle of marriage for the sake of its favored group.

So, is Mr. Bramwell correct in his assertion that Tradionalists have it all wrong; that we err in defending the exaltation and exclusivity of marriage? Is he right in saying that marriage has been "glorified beyond all recognition?" Well, if you want to call the court's written expression of its opinion a glorification of the sacred institution of marriage, then I suppose his opinion carrys some weight with you. But I for one do not view the court's opinion as he does. Yes; the court uses glowing language in its pronouncements on the glories of the marriage institution, but I submit to you that the more important issue in the court's decision is its overthrow of a concept which has always attended any traditional idea of marriage; that the court's exalted expressions on the institution of marriage are at once rendered meaningless by its destruction of a principle without which the glories of marriage could never have been fully realized or written about.

One indication that marriage is indeed in a state of decline, is that the court succeeded in inserting, in the midst of all its flowery language, a fundamental change in the conditions of marriage from lifelong commitment to "long-term" commitment and that this fundamental change evidently escaped Bramwell's keen sense of the low state that is the defining mark of traditional marriage.