It was a good sermon, Jason. The part about singleness being better than marriage came from a *very* brief look at 1 Corinthians 7, particularly verse 7 where Paul says "I wish that all of you were as I am," (Paul was single all his life), and verse 8, "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do." Even so, our pastor emphasized that just because being single is *better*, that doesn't mean it's *easier* - that in fact, both singles and marrieds face huge challenges that are unique to their marital status. As I said, the sermon was fair and balanced, and apologetic that the Church has inverted the message of 1 Cor. 7, and/or glossed over it, for so long.

Carol, having been married for only a little more than three decades myself I feel totally unqualified to say anything in response ;-) , but I'll give it my best shot. The "Aha!" moment for me during the sermon was when the pastor said "To you who've been married for a long time, think back on how you were before your wedding, and then think of how many ways you've changed for the better. Would any of those changes not happened, had you stayed single?" and when he added "Think of ways you could still improve, by giving more to your spouse - sacrificing more of what you want. Your model is Jesus, who gave up everything."

And, lessee, we're at about 250 words so far, which is roughly Gina's threshold for wanting to get back on topic (rightfully so). Did I miss anything in my first comment . . .? Well, I suppose I could add that any society willing to redefine marriage in purely secular terms must be a society that wants to live in purely secular terms - i.e., without God. And that should at least give us all, particularly those of us familiar with the writings of Nietzsche and their impact, reason for great pause.

Drat - forgot to get my shirts out of the dryer last night, so now I'll need to iron them. Gotta go.

Actually, Lee that does sound like it was a good sermon.

I heard a similar sermon, LeeQuod, but obviously not as good. It left me wondering what, if anything, I can do about mine. I've been married just over 51 years. If I'd known then what I know now..... But that's another story. I know God has us together for a reason. I suppose that's enough for me.

Lee, was the pastor who stressed how the single life was better one of those exasperating Prolific Protestant Preachers?

I heard the most incredible sermon this weekend, and it gave me tremendous insight into this issue. (God prepared both the heart of my pastor, and my ears, for that very hour.) My pastor explained that "and the two shall become one flesh" means much more than sexual intimacy. In fact, he said, it means more than emotional intimacy, relational intimacy, and so on. Rather, it means the formation of a kind of new creation. The purpose of that new creation is to permit both parties, the man and the woman, to mature in ways that would otherwise be impossible. They learn to give of themselves to each other, and to sacrifice in ways that do not come naturally. The movie "Brave" (and thank you, Rachel McMillan!!), along with the lion's share of the feminist movement, reminds us that obedience is not natural to women. Most action flicks and, for that matter, every beer commercial remind us that love (versus lust) does not come naturally for men. In both cases the individual must decide, daily if not every minute, how much of themselves they are willing to give up for the good of their spouse.

If I had been preaching, I would have been tempted to joke that this proves that singles are perfect just the way they are. However, my pastor was much more sensitive, sincerely apologizing to singles on behalf of the Church for the way marriage has been held up as so essential to all. In fact, he said, singles are able to have relationships of both a quantity and a nature that are simply not practical for the married person. And he stressed Paul's statements about the single life actually being better than marriage.

But I say all of this to make the point that as I listened to the sermon, the whole notion of "gay marriage" fell into place for me. Marriage is unique because it is in fact God doing a mystical, unique work between two people who must be male and female. So marriage is not simply about children. (Sorry, Maggie.) It's not merely about sex. (I understand that some Muslim countries have laws permitting a man to be "married" to a woman for about half an hour, thereby enabling men to legally hire prostitutes.) It's not about benefits. It's not even about the deep emotional bond that two people might form over a lifetime, to the point that one might want desperately to attend the other as they lay dying.

So marriage is, instead, about something only God can do. That explains why other, secular institutions, including legislatures and courts, have such difficulty with defining it. And gays, who told us all along that they'd be satisfied with civil unions, are really slapping God in the face by insisting on defining their pairings with the word "marriage".

As I say, this explained a lot for me. I now see gay marriage in roughly the same context as quickie Las Vegas "weddings", where the focus is on what one can get for oneself out of the relationship, not on the long-term growth of one's soul through being transformed by daily acts of giving and self-sacrifice. Therefore, Maggie Gallagher has the essential point correct: we cannot sacrifice truth on the altar of tolerance.

Now if you'll excuse me, I gotta go empty the dishwasher and run a load of laundry before my wife gets home.