In response to T. Paine's Do Not Invalidate the Sacrament of Marriage

To broaden the term “marriage” to include any other iterations of involved people in the ceremony is to invalidate the meaning of the word and the sacrament that the word describes.

- T. Paine, January 27, 2012

I think some readers may not appreciate the wisdom of T. Paine’s message. Just in case, I wish to ally myself with his opinion, and clarify it, lest any ambiguity remain.

I have to agree with T. Paine about the “backwardness or unenlightened thinking” of the anti-gay marriage movement. However, backward and unthinking though it be, I and T. Paine are still on board.

“The fact of the matter is that marriage was intended for procreation and the perpetuation of our species in the most stable form possible.”

I agree with T. Paine that we should not allow women over the age of 50 to marry. Like T. Paine, I think it’s perverted, almost nasty.

“To broaden the term 'marriage' to include any other iterations of involved people in the CEREMONY is to invalidate the meaning of the word.”

Right. We are mostly talking about ceremony, or rather, the protection of a word that describes a ceremony. With more words becoming endangered every day, it is time for someone to stand up and say enough! Protect words, for God’s sake. If oppression of homosexuals is the cost of our preservation efforts, then so be it. It is a small price for me to pay.

It is true that the poor embattled term “marriage” has both a secular (legal) and a scared (my God’s) meaning. We should not commit a fallacy of complex question by marrying the discussion of one with the other. The right to marry that some seek is the right to participate in a legal marriage, first and foremost. I do accept that if homosexuals want a right to participate in a marriage granted by my God, they must petition my God, not the U.S. government, for that. However, like T. Paine, I think that the right I define as My God’s, should supersede, and wholly consume, the legal question. My God’s law is paramount.

If I were a homo, my first concern, and my only concern until it is addressed, would be for legal secular marriage. Obviously, if my God prohibits homosexuality, He would prohibit marriage between homosexuals. However, I would like to note that my God would prohibit marriage between homosexuals, not just to save the endangered word, as T. Paine’s article suggests, but because my God thinks it is immoral to engage in homosexuality, and marrying a homosexual comes perilously close to violating my God’s rule.

T. Paine and I think “It should be left up to houses of faith to marry folks.” However, we both realize that this refers to my God’s marriage, not a government contract. The legal secular question is irrelevant, and a poor excuse for violating my God’s law.

I and T. Paine say:

“My [our] Catholic faith is one that can ONLY be fulfilled by the union of one woman and one man together under God. It is a matter of natural law and God's law.”

Let me paraphrase for clarity:

“Homosexuals, like natural law, are bound to my Catholic faith, just as God Himself is, and I don’t want homosexuals to marry.”

Do you hear that homosexuals? Do you hear that God? Good. I don’t want to have to tell you/You again!

John Myste also writes for his own site, where Natural Law has been successfully amended to allow Gay Marriage.

Please visit John Myste Responds