On May 19th a graduate student at TWU, Kate Covington, had a guest column published in the Denton Record-Chronicle, which was titled “Marriage Is Individual’s Choice.” They must be teaching young girls well over there for her to be so confident at a young age that she knows what is wrong with marriage.
The fallacy in the whole system concerning the ceremony lies within the marriage license. Now what exactly is a marriage license? A marriage is a bond of love between two people. A license is proof or permission to do so. Proof or permission to do what? Fall in love. Remain in love. Be together for the rest of your life (10A).
Is this not the height of conceit? A system that has worked well for several hundred years is discovered to be flawed by a TWU graduate student. Pray tell, on what does this, our Caesarette, feed?
To answer the question, a marriage license possesses great value. In the first place, it is a legal document and becomes a matter of public record. Second, it protects the husband and the wife. The husband cannot legally, after two or three years, desert his wife (and possibly his child) and marry some other woman without going to court and being made to provide for them. If, on the other hand, they just “lived together” (based on their verbal vows of undying love) for that period of time, she would have nothing. Our current legal system is far from perfect, but it provides better protection than nothing at all.
Third, a marriage license may serve as a historical record. As a graduate student, Kate should realize that much of the information we have about the past is due to the legal document of a marriage license and church records, such as baptismal certificates. Research into one’s family tree is also facilitated by marriage records.
Fourth, the importance of a correct family history in our age has been heightened by the need to know one’s medical history. There are certain medical problems and traits which one may inherit; ignorance could result in a loss of life due to a delayed diagnosis, which a complete record would have facilitated. It is not too helpful to tell the doctor, “Oh, my mom was a free spirit who didn’t believe in marriage; it’s hard to say who my father may have been.”
A license is not permission to “fall in love,” whatever that means. When two people love each other and decide to marry (rather than just cohabit for a few months or years), they are merely complying with the laws of this (or just about any other) country. Neither is a license permission to remain in love (since many do not).
Marriage is a commitment that a man and a woman enter into. God did not institute marriage for “two people,” but for a male and a female (Gen. 2:18-25).
This graduate student laments that there are no qualifications given by the state for being a good husband or wife. She bemoans that there are no tests given to determine a couple’s chance of success. Of course, we have all had moments to regret their absence, as well as the lack of a test to qualify one for parenthood. But the alternative is probably worse. Who would design such tests: bureaucrats? And from what sources would they derive their values? The state has wisely abstained from expanding its role in these matters.
The writer of this diatribe tries to compare interracial marriages with homosexual “marriages.” The basis of comparison is that interracial marriages were not accepted (and still are not) by many in society. Her observation about it seeming odd to people is correct. When the Wright brothers began flying, it seemed so unnatural to people that they made statements, such as, “If man were meant to fly, God would have given him wings.” So what kind of reaction could be expected of most people to the first few interracial marriages, except a negative one?
But just as flying was not unscriptural, neither was interracial marriage, as people learned when they examined the issue honestly. But what does interracial marriage have to do with homosexual “marriage”? They are not comparable except for the initial reaction people might have. An interracial marriage still involves a man and a woman, as God originally designed it. God did not design marriage for two members of the same sex. He could scarcely condemn homosexuality as vile and against nature and then say it is permissible for two men or two women to “marry.”
Covington calls opposition to same-sex marriages “the most unnatural societal fallacy.” No, homosexuality is unnatural. God has declared it unacceptable, and society thus far agrees (except for Disney and a few other corporations). Who would have thought, ten years ago, that homosexuals would be granted special rights? Credit (or discredit) the news and entertainment media for changing people’s attitudes.
[For those who are already tired of this subject, it will not go away. No one should think that homosexuals will be satisfied with anything less than societal approval of their “marriages.” Expect the news and entertainment media, along with many teachers (from grade school to the postgraduate level), to keep hammering away on this idea. In every article or news story, it will be assumed that all opposition is just prejudiced.]
Gays in the military. Pro-choice. Pro-life. Legalizing marijuana. Where do we find all the answers to our questions? Simple–the Bible. I have one word for Bible-bearing God solicitors–interpretation. The Bible is a subjective piece of literature. It is to be analyzed and interpreted by the reader for their own personal understanding. It is not to be a manipulative tool whose sole purpose is to wage a holy war on society.
Wow! Not only is Kate an expert on marriage; she also apparently knows all about the Bible to boot. How did she learn so much at such a young age?
Kate, there is one word which may be accurately used of the Bible–TRUTH! Solomon, who was far wiser than any of your instructors (and whose wisdom was acknowledged by a woman, 1 Kings 10:1-9), believed first of all in the existence of truth and second in one’s ability to know and understand it. He wrote: “Buy the truth, and do not sell it, also wisdom and instruction and understanding” (Pr. 23:23).
Jesus taught His disciples that if they continue in His word, they would know the truth, and the truth would make them free (John 8:31-32). He also, in His prayer for His disciples, said, “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (John 17:17).
The Bible claims to be the inspired Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17). It does not claim to be a subjective piece of literature: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation [margin, origin], for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 21:20-21). Anyone who wants to turn the Bible into a “subjective piece of literature” will have to do more than make such a claim; she will need to discredit what it says about itself.
Who said the Bible is only for one’s “own personal understanding”? Jesus instructed His disciples to “preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). He also said, “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him–the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (John 12:48). The Bible is objective in nature, not subjective. It will be the standard by which all people will be judged. It was not designed as a literary curiosity with quaint personal lessons for each of us. It deals with sin and its remedy. Paul said, “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). Unless we repent of our sins and live by God’s standards and values, we shall all perish (Luke 13:3). The Bible is for all.
Interpretation? How does Kate Covington define vile, which is what Paul calls homosexuality in Romans 1:26? How does she “interpret” Jude 7? The text says that Sodom and Gomorrah gave “themselves over to sexual immorality,” went “after strange flesh,” and “are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” We would all be interested in a personal interpretation that can somehow deny these FACTS! It is one thing to suggest in a general way that “interpretation” dismisses truth; it is quite another to show specifically how such claims can be accomplished.
Waging the holy war is certainly a prejudicial phrase. A few years ago most of us had given very little thought to the subject of homosexuality. We all knew it was a sin because the Bible defines it as such, and articles in church bulletins, newspapers, or books were rare. But then came the media blitz in the early part of this decade, and those who believe the truth of the Word of God began to respond. So now a graduate student, with apparently little sense of recent history, accuses us of trying to use the Bible as a “manipulative tool.” Right; maybe it’s a conspiracy. Maybe Genesis 19:4-5 was added recently just to make homosexuals look bad. Maybe the idea of its being an abomination which warranted the death penalty in Israel (Lev. 20:13) was just hatched by a homophobe. Yes, people are no doubt reading into the Scriptures what is not there!
Pardon our facetiousness, but this charge flies in the face of reality. It is amazing to observe the desperation of those who seek to defend what has always been characterized as a sin in the Word of God.
This TWU graduate student makes a final comment worthy of response: “In a nutshell, marriage is not a bad idea. It is the idea that those who are not married, live in sin.” That idea comes from the Scriptures, and it is not an “interpretation”; it is the definition of fornication, which is condemned (Heb. 13:4).
Someone may think this student has a point. Maybe one of her classmates has avoided stealing from her because he “interpreted” that the Scriptures called it a sin. With enlightened eyes, he may now help himself to her possessions. Oh, sure, it’s legally wrong, but who can trust a government that requires marriage licenses? Oh, that we might find a Petruchio for this Kate!