Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 2 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! 1 Share on Reddit 1 Share on StumbleUpon 1 Tell A Friend (5 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   3 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

The Trials Of The Century: Homosexual Love vs "Morality"

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Become a Fan
  (36 fans)
- Advertisement -


Which view will win? by Google Images w/caption by Rev Dan

Marriage is not on trial. Only the validity of homosexual love is on trial.

Not in the history of the Supreme Court has there been such anticipated cases: the pile up of hundreds of amicus briefs, the media attention, the sermons, the commentaries have fueled a national "marriage fever". Outside the Court, public visitors have been waiting an astounding six days (an Obamacare public waited for a mere three days in comparison). For the first time, the Court has agreed to expedite broadcasting the oral arguments - they will be available within hours.

There will be analytical commentaries going on for the rest of the week, to be sure. 

But what, really, is on trial? Is it marriage? Is it same-sex marriage? Is it homosexuality? 

Or is it love?

- Advertisement -

"What's Love Got To Do With It?"

Ah, tradition. It marks everything as the best, the most sacrosanct. The problem with citing something like traditional marriage as ALWAYS being, as Archbishop Cordileone put it, a "total community of love," however, is to forfeit thousands of years of history altogether in favor of the modern view of marriage. Even in the Bible, there is only duty in marriage, not love and certainly not requited love: women's feelings were never featured. Of course, you have the love of Jacob for Rachel, but that relationship also involved her sister, Leah, and two handmaidens to procreate the twelve tribes of Israel. And as for history's great love affairs, well, Anthony and Cleopatra never got married. So for the first millennia of history's marriages, the most popular wedding song might be "What's Love Got To Do With It?"


The reason for most of history's marriages was twofold: the security of property and the legitimacy of offspring to inherit such property. Illegitimate children were written off, even sold into slavery. Few were raised in the status of legitimate children. The concept of good parenting was contained in how much a man left his heirs - primarily male heirs. Female inheritance is also a relatively new concept. 

Our bodies have meaning. The conjugal union of a man and a woman is not a factory to produce babies; marriage seeks to create a total community of love, a "one flesh" union of mind, heart and body that includes a willingness to care for any children their bodily union makes together.   Archbishop Cordineone , Archbishop of San Francisco.

Archbishop Cordileone's attempt to define marriage is an epic FAIL when one looks at how man has defined marriage by his actions: "a total community of love" including "a willingness to care for any children" is closer to Leave It To Beaver than Jacob and Rachel. 


Once a Religious Right wag quipped "The' love that dare not speak its name' has become the' love that won't shut up.'" The in-your-face strategies of the country's gay communities have caused a fierce push-back from its "social conservatives." Right-wing media emanating from organizations like The Family Research Council and The American Family Association have portrayed gays as "disordered", "Nazis", and "pedophiles" spreading AIDS and dying in diapers. Their rhetoric has been toned down slightly for the national media, but they still demonize by clinging to Biblical stances, considering homosexuality to be "unnatural," "chosen" (therefore mutable) and "immoral." The only mitigating rhetoric they offer: "we don't hate homosexuals, we just don't like their destructive behavior." But insisting that someone could love someone without expressing it in a physical manner is, to a degree, to negate that love, or make it less valuable. This they know, but insist that heterosexual love is superior because it intends to beget children. 

They don't seem to know human nature very well. Morality, you see, gets in the way. 

So the two contests are not about marriage, but rather about whether homosexual love has value equal to that of heterosexual love. The Religious Right has lobbied the Court (with media and amicus briefs) with the reasoning that it isn't because it is immoral and therefore damaging to society. 

Next Page  1  |  2

Rev. Dan Vojir is has been writing/blogging on religion and politics for the better part of ten years. A former radio talk show host (Strictly Books €" Talk America Radio Network) and book publisher, Dan has connected with some of the most (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Joining "Bishop" Eddie Long, Prosperity Preacher Creflo Dollar Gets Support From His Fans...ala Mommy Dearest

"Some Girls Rape Easy": Hypocrisy, Sex and The Republican War Against Women.

The End Of An Era? Praise The Lord! Televangelist Paul Crouch Dies And Leaves Behind A Life Of Decadence Beyond Belief.

Forget EBOLA: The Greatest Threat To Africa's Medical Missionaries Is Ann Coulter!

The Vatican's Fake Occupy Implodes: Documents Evoke A History Of Money Laundering, Sexual Terrorism, And Even ... Murder

Holy Misogyny! Dating Advice From Megachurch Minister: "Dress Modestly And Save Yourself ... For Me!"


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 people are discussing this page, with 3 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

I'm not really sure anyone wins: the battle will b... by Rev. Dan Vojir on Monday, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:09:54 AM
It is not about love. Questions for Vojir... in No... by Bill Johnson on Monday, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:28:44 AM
but I fail to see how cases involving consenting A... by Rev. Dan Vojir on Monday, Mar 25, 2013 at 8:32:04 AM