We delude ourselves if we try to redefine marriage

    I’m really not a big fan of word jumbles. I’m too linear in my thought process and when I see “ROBUT,” I’m not thinking “TURBO.” I’m thinking, “How could they misspell ROBOT?”  
    But, just for fun, play along with me and see if you can un-jumble the following word… “GARIREAM.”
    Somehow, even after solving the puzzle, I still feel like the word “marriage” is jumbled.
    The word marriage no longer means what it used to. Yet, the redefinition of marriage did not happen with the recent rulings by SCOTUS. Marriage has been steadily de-evolving over that past 50 years.
    A full Catholic definition of marriage requires a man and woman who pledge to love each other exclusively, for the rest of their lives, and are open to receiving the blessing of children (paraphrasing the Catechism, 1601).
    Stop and really reflect on that: marriage requires more than just a man and a woman. Somehow, this has been lost in the recent debates. Often, all we hear is that marriage is between “a man and a woman” –  which it is, but, unfortunately, we all know marriages between a man and a woman that have failed. Since our society has long forgotten that our intentions and promises are crucial for a valid marriage, we now view “the man and woman” piece as another mere triviality. The credibility of the institution of marriage was compromised, opening the door to this new radical interpretation of the word “marriage.”
    When contraception became commonplace, our culture redefined marriage. When divorce became commonplace, our culture redefined marriage. When couples sleeping together and living together before marriage became commonplace, our culture redefined marriage. Now, when two men or two women claim to be married, our culture has once again redefined marriage.  Marriage does not mean a union between two persons of the same sex, nor does it mean a temporary union between a woman and man.
    Due to this continual muddling of the term, I pose the following question: what would even constitute as an adequate definition to the word? Marriage cannot possibly mean all of those things, can it? How can one word define so many different forms of relationships?  It just cannot. Marriage is what it is, regardless of our attempts to redefine it. Therefore, if we are going to stand up for marriage, then let us stand up for the fullness of marriage that honors both the physical elements (man and woman) and the spiritual elements (the intentions and promises).
    The reality is that our society is terrified of the demands of marriage. Therefore, we think that by diluting the word, we will somehow make it more accessible. This gives us the illusion of more freedom and control over our lives and relationships. In diluting the word, we are deluding ourselves. As only G.K. Chesterton could put it, “We will not be able to destroy the family. We will merely destroy ourselves by disregarding the family.” This is what is at stake in this debate.
    Entering into a permanent bond, with exclusivity, fidelity and openness to life, is good for the couple. It is not just good for them, but for their children, for their neighbors, for their community and for their country. Marriage, as properly understood, is the bedrock of society. Marriage is a gift. Defending the traditional definition of marriage is not based on holding onto some archaic past at the expense of progress; rather it is precisely holding onto this definition of marriage that will allow our society to continue and prosper. Everything that makes our society go, hinges on a proper understanding of marriage. Marriage is a weighty word and joyfully demanding reality. It is a beautiful paradox, not a jumbled mess.
    Alas, I do not care for word jumbles, and I hope that we can un-jumble MARRIAGE.