This should come as no surprise after the "news" story from the other day. Staff editorial about the subject today:
Overwhelming data confirms that healthy children flourish best under the nurturing love between a man and a woman.Overwhelming data, no less. Overwhelming data which is not specified here.
While sexual orientation should not deprive someone of the constitutional provision of equal protection under law, such rights do not imply the right to same-sex marriage. To adopt such policies would devalue and threaten the sacred tradition of marriage.I don't understand this argument at all. If two gay guys want to go through a marriage ceremony to show their devotion to each other, this doesn't affect my marriage in the slightest.
The unique sanctity of the heterosexual family is not only the bedrock of American culture — it is the first principle of all human societies. While the world's great religions all assert this truth, the empirical evidence that it has been embraced by all peoples across all time stands on its own as proof of its validity.Oh, so it stands on its own. Good thing this isn't a newspaper, where you're supposed to back up opinions with facts... oooops.
You know, the Times claims to not be under the editorial influence of its owner, "Rev." (in quotes to borrow a Times technique) Sun Myung Moon, but this editorial should pretty much debunk that. Moon's Unification Church is largely centered around the belief that... hell, I can't even type this without laughing. Take it away, about.com:
One of the Unification Church doctrines which has attracted the most negative attention is the idea that the Fall of humanity in the Garden of Eden was not so much a result of simple disobedience to God's commands but, rather, the result of an illicit sexual union between Eve and the Lucifer. As a consequence of this, all of her children were born with defective natures, something which God has attempted to rectify by sending religious leaders to humanity.So the Unification Church is essentially a gigantic mating service. If you're single when you join up, Moon hooks you up with a partner, and you get mass-married along with thousands of other couples. And in their eyes these random partnerings are "more" sanctified than non-Moonie marriages.
One of these key figures was Jesus, but he died before he was able to marry and father children who would have lacked a defective nature. Thus, he was only able to offer humanity spiritual redemption. Moon, however, was determined not to fail in the same way and his marriage in 1960 is depicted as an important step in his effort to achieve a complete redemption of humanity. Another factor in this effort is the emphasis on mass, arranged marriages between members of the Unification Church. According to the Church's doctrines, the children of such marriages are also born without the defective natures which result from Eve's sexual dalliance.
So, despite the fact that its owner basically shits in the face of the important roots of marriage -- love and commitment -- by hooking up and marrying couples at random, the Times has the temerity to suggest that gay unions somehow cheapen everyone else marriage. What utter horseshit.
I'm an atheist and I'm married. The religious significance of my wedding means nothing to me. But being able to express my love and commitment through my marriage is very important. My wife knows that I love her more than anyone else in the world. And because of that, even though it's not rooted in religion, I think our bond is stronger than any of the thousands of random couples married by Moon.
But, hey, if you want to get hooked up for life to a random person by a crazy cult leader, I'm sure the Times would think your marriage is somehow more valid than any that could be formed in a same-sex union. Devotion and love have nothing to do with it.
I have to say, I'm a little surprised that a newspaper in a town as big as Washington can get away with a gay-bashing editorial like this, considering its pedigree. I think most other cities would have burned down the front door of the paper by now. Instead, Washington has supported this shitty Moonie rag for the past 21 years. It's embarrasing for the city.
Let's close with a passage from Moon himself, on the subject of marriage, from the Unification Church's website:
When you stand next to your spouse, as a husband, where does you hand go? In which direction does it move? Does it move to touch your own love organ? What is your tendency? Or does it move toward your spouse's love organ? What about your spouse's hands? Is she the same, or opposite? [The same.] Why? Because both man and woman’s hands want to touch their spouse’s organ the most. Is there truth or falsehood here? [Truth.] Where is the truth? The five senses are all of them truth, the human body is truth, everything truth. How can they make that kind of value, making true love, tying to the place of oneness?Woo! Moon getting a little hot and heavy there. And he's, like, 80 years old. That's disturbing.
Crazy hand, crazy five senses, you must protect and secure them, your hands, your eyes, your body. They are very precious. Don’t let them fool around. Only your spouse can welcome your entire ten senses being activated fully. Do you understand what that means? Welcome your spouse’s ten senses taking action, becoming one in partnership. Of course, you have freedom to utilize your ten senses however you want, but you must follow the law of love. If you misuse any organ once, you will be doomed to fall into hell. Have you thought, as a wife, when your husband makes that move toward the 100% utilization of his ten senses, are you ready to fully accept 100%, or 80%, what level are you at? Can you accept 100%?