The past few days the Supreme Court has been astir with one of this decade's most hot-button topics: marriage equality. It's a difficult topic to broach calmly. Reading through the news articles triggered a memory that initially surprised me, but after further meditation, yielded insights which I'd like to share.
The scene that I immediately thought of during the “same sex marriage” issue was actually from the Book of Kings: the story of Solomon, the wise judge, who was faced with a very difficult decision. For those of you unfamiliar with the story, it goes something like this: two women each gave birth around the same time. One child lived; the other, died. Both women brought the baby to King Solomon (renowned for his immense wisdom) claiming it was theirs. Solomon requested they divide the child in half, so each woman could have a share. One mother was satisfied with the decision and encouraged him to proceed; the other immediately refused all rights to the child and asked that the baby be given to the other woman, that it would live. By this, King Solomon was able to hand the child to its rightful mother.
After pondering why this story popped into my mind, I noticed the similarities between King Solomon and the Supreme Court Justices: both faced with a very difficult decision, two sides clamoring loudly for their stance. Yet while one side clamors for equality, or what is “fair”, the other clamors for what is “right”. Is not the job of the judge to uphold the law? Does not justice demand what is right, not what is fair? Yet how can this be determined? Is not equality always right?
Consider this: true equality is like the woman with the dead child--death to all differentiation. Rather than upholding the principles of the Constitution, it poisons and perverts them. From a different perspective, is not equality of wealth inherent to socialism? Equality can only be demanded for rights—life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Wealth is a privilege, not a right; same with marriage. If marriage is a right, then requiring parental consent for marriage under the age of 18 would be unlawful and un-Constitutional: this is not the case.
To delve a little bit into theology fundamentals, let's not ignore the other half of the story: the woman with the living child is like those who fight to support only “marriages” which give life: the true meaning of the sacrament of matrimony, an sign of God Himself in the Trinity. As the love of the Father and Son, united, gives life to Holy Spirit, so marriage, too is a life-giving communion of love marked by its unitive and procreative fruits.
I've said my piece. Please comment below.
Reference: 1 Kings 3:16-28