Just when I begin to think that a few of the people who write for the Arkansas Democrat Gazette have some common sense and are knowledgeable about current events, my bubble is popped by an article that shows how wrong I am. The editorial about marriage that appeared in the January 27, 2005, issue is one that popped the bubble big time.

The editorial has to do with the definition of marriage and what it should be. The writer made the point that language changes over the years make definition of words change, so therefore we shouldn’t try to define marriage as one man and one woman. Whether it wise or not for the legislature to include such definition in school books isn’t the issue in this article. It is the content of the editorial as it applies to the rule of logic and reason. The writer took a position that indicated that since language and definitions change we shouldn’t try to apply standards to marriage.

The writer used some examples that won’t hold water when the truth is examined. He used the example of Jacob with Rachael and Leah, the handmaidens, and the Mormons.  It seems that since the ones he mentioned changed things, and then it is okay to ignore what marriage really is and make no attempt to keep the truth in perspective. Never mind that God said, [Gen 2:18] And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” A few verses later we find, [Gen 2:22] “And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. [Gen 2:23] And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. [Gen 2:24] Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”  Here is the plan and definition for marriage, one man and one woman, and it doesn’t change no matter what some have done, do now, and will do in the future with what God instituted.  

By the time of Jesus, the idea of one man and one woman was taking hold more and more in the societies of that day. The Jews were forbidden to have more than one wife at a time and the Gentiles, as found in the New Testament letters, soon came to accept that teaching. Now who are we to change God’s plan because we don’t like the definitions?

And why do definitions change?  Because men and women don’t want to follow standards and cast aside what has been the moral rule for ages and then act as if this will make everything fine. The editorialist said that language changed to meet the reality of the time, thus his conclusion that definitions must change as well. If that line of reasoning is followed and applied to all things, then the logic which follows says that there won’t be any standard for anything.   

The truth of the matter is something else though. The language can change to suit the human tendencies and reflect the changes man makes in his relationships with others and society as a whole, but it doesn’t change the standard that God gave us in the beginning with Adam and Eve. Using the reasoning of the writer would mean we need not bother teaching standards at all if the standards of old conflict with all the modern thinking. Someone needs to stand and say enough is enough of the bologna that modernists are pushing on us. Though textbooks aren’t the issue here, it just might be a good place to start to get the schools back to teaching right versus wrong. It was done in the past, so why not do it again and begin bringing morals back into society.

© 01-28-2005 DEC