I was discussing the whole gay-marriage thing with some people today and I realized that the central issue is usually missed in this.
The question is not - What is marriage? The question is - What is the state's interest in families?
The relevant fiscal point is not about tax-breaks for spouses - that is a minuscule concern compared with the financial ramifications of children on the economy. Thus, do states interest themselves in families.
Caesar Augustus used to financially punish unmarried men because of their failure to contribute to the well-being of Rome.
In this country in the 1930s it was an offense that was punishable for up to two years in prison to promote contraception.
This country (especially Quebec), Britain, most of Europe, are all starting to realize what a huge whoops it was to promote contraception, feminism, and homosexuality. Economies are in decline simply because these whiteys are not having children. Were it not for immigration, all of the above listed countries would be experiencing population decline.
Now, why did Caesar Augustus order that famous census recorded in the Gospel of Luke? Why did King David in the Books of Kings? Why is the U.S. about to spend more than ten billion dollars on its ten-year count this year? Because population equals strength - both militarily and financially - and population comes from having children. If you don't believe me that states actually think this way, go to the CIA website and examine some of their statistics on the nations of the world in their "World Fact Book". They list the populations of all the countries of the world and both the actual and the potential size of their armies. (Don't check out China's - it's scary.) Now, why would the CIA be interested in that?
As the Psalmist writes, "Sons are a heritage from the Lord,children a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them.They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate." (Ps 127:3-5)
The feminists who still control the bureaucracy think that they can fix this problem that they have brought upon us by extending state-run child care and maternity leave. Keep the women in the work force because the number of workers is declining and that is very bad, in other words. So, who's going to be paying into CPP in ten year's time?
Do states give tax-breaks to families and child-tax benefits because they love little kiddies, who are just so sweet and cuddly? No, they do it because without children, you've got too many Muslims (i.e., you rely on immigration), too little payment into CPP and too few soldiers.
The whole marriage debate will resolve itself soon enough. The social forces that derive from the 'means of production' will constitute a persuasive argument for the misanthropy of same-sex unions. I just hope that whoever the idiots are who will then be in charge don't turn this recognition into a gay witch-hunt, just like the homosexualists and the feminists who are now waging their Christian witch-hunt. But this persecution will likely reverse itself, because that's our fallen nature. History proves that the economically strong always persecute the economically weak. Marx was right about that too.
Tolerance or prudence - which governs humanity, which governs nations? And, in the end, what is the real point at issue in this debate?
Thus, is it necessary that Christians who insert themselves into this debate do so from principles that are throughly Christian. Christians protect all the innocent and weak. Part of the protection of the weak is the protection of families. Money diverted to DINKs (dual-incomes-no-kids, like homosexual couples) by means of tax breaks is money diverted from families.
But I don't expect people to operate from Christian principles - now, or in the future, when a new weak group replaces the old. Power is now in the hands of wealthy people who live in cities, hence the whole homosexual phenomenon, unimaginable in any other economic circumstance. But the day will come when homosexaulity, contraception, abortion and feminism will appear to the majority to be evils that must be expunged from society. Since we were never operating from moral virtue when we "tolerated" these groups, we will not possess the moral virtue to refrain from persecuting these groups. That is too bad.
Marana tha! Come, Lord Jesus! Save us from our hubris!