Week in Review: Rainbow Union, First Ghoul Award, Quote of the Week

Jean P. Purcell

Week's End
 My post at week's end was a tough one to get right, and I jumped too soon to publish it. However, some readers read around the disorganization and got the point. I corrected the problems. 

This post about history, marriage and rainbow union is in final form: New name for new status of same-gender unions 

Ghoul Award
The report of Planned Parenthood harvesting organs of unborn children earns Planned Parenthood (PP) a Ghoul Award because of the company's continued social and medical ethics violations.
  (Disturbing information on video) I found to be morbidly chilling the the video of a cool PP rep talking over her lunch and red wine about doing abortions with care to preserve organs for body harvesting* - -whether to "crush (the infant body) above or crush (the infant body) below."   

*Ed. Note: Such euphemisms need to be discarded.

Quote of the Week
James Willingham, writing about the Bible: 

"...a process is now beginning to take place which will restore the freedoms, the depth of thought, the wherewithal to deal with the incomprehensible future now rushing upon us, and all because the intellectual book is coming back into view among the people of this land."

New name for new status of same-gender unions

Jean P. Purcell
Commentary
Religion, History > Marriage

Marriage is to be held in honor  - Hebrews 13:4


Marriage is a unique term for a unique life union--male and female. In Genesis, the first book of the Tanakh, God revealed a plan to be realized through His creation. It would come through two, the first male and female. They were to become "one flesh" in a true "fit," an intimate biological and social relationship designed and equipped for procreation. This word of God established marriage, original human and biological complementarity, two genders obviously and functionally different.

In the book of Hebrews, thought to have been written about 70 AD, the Greek word pronounced gamos, and equivalent to English word marriage, was used, among earliest references to marriage. Over time, civilizations developed. As tribes and nations (States) formed in the West, there were religious leaders who abused power, affecting multitudes. The "separation of church and state" became a goal so that the Church could not dictate to a nation how or where or if to worship God; and the State could not dictate to the Church about its freedom of religion.

International laws later borrowed from ancient biblical records regarding marriage. However, in time secular States, and their courts, decided to mess with that. Although the word marriage in English was used as early as the 13th century to define the sacred covenant union, wedding, within the Church, the State saw benefits in taking authority over weddings and marriage, and it eventually had to be State-approved or registered. The Church (representing religion) would be required to participate under the State's laws affecting religion. 

The tables were turning.

In 1653, under Oliver Cromwell's leadership (Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, 1654-1658), the State did a remarkable thing: "During the Nominated Assembly or ‘Barebones Parliament’ of 1653, ...the conducting of marriages was taken away from the clergy altogether ..." (History of Parliament - emphasis added).

Marriage union contracts had to be authorized through justices of the peace.

Jump forward 300-plus years to the U.S. in the summer of 2015, where four of the seven justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) erased marriage as it was created to be. They ruled to change its foundational identity.

It seemed that four Supreme Court justices thumbed their noses, figuratively speaking, at  sacred texts, covenants, records, history, and tradition. SCOTUS ruled a restructuring and a redefinition of marriage. To many inside and outside the Church, this seemed no less odd than redefining the heart to include the spine, ignoring science; because to include same-gender unions as marriage is to ignore biology.

This monumental event, this claim to remake what marriage is by passing a law, this delusion that what marriage is and how it works on basic levels can be changed...the ruling ignores the obvious: marriage always assumes the physical/biological ability to procreate, due to the obvious male-female physical differences; that always is the case, barring medical problems. (Hence, fierce contraception debates.) To include under marriage those legal unions that, by type, are incapable of procreation within the union is to go outside the meaning and function of marriage.

So here is what should happen now, given that marriage is between male and female:

A new term should be created for now-legal same-gender unions.    


The precedent arose on the summer evening, 2015, of the Supreme Court ruling. In LaFayette Park, across from the White House, same-gender and transgender people celebrated in front of a White House display of full rainbow lighting across the White House facade.

The LBGT community symbol is the rainbow. With the rainbow union victory by four on the Supreme Court, rainbow union gained a legal standing. That standing was what same-gender union proponents and supporters celebrated in front of the rainbow-lit White House the evening of the SCOTUS ruling.  

Marriage is a specifically and distinctly man-woman union. It is not rainbow-identified or -symbolized. Marriage does not disparage singleness; it does not judge the divorced; it does not judge anyone. Marriage is the term theologically and historically for the male-female life covenant.            

Rainbow unions need their own name that distinguishes them from man-woman unions, marriage.  

From Genesis 1: 27, 28: 
   So God created man in his own image...; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it....

Related: Changes in Marriage Law, 19th Century

Comments invited.

If Marriage were the Apple. . .

 My View Today


A few days ago I wrote here about the pendulum swing of public views. In Wait for It. Wait for It. . . I held that change will swing back. I also said that those who want change in different cases will need to work for it with others. I don't expect to see a change in the recent U.S. Supreme Court's majority (though not a complete one) marriage redefinition.

In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health et al., Justices Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, joined Chief Justice Roberts in favor of Obergefell et al., same-gender marriage. Dissenting were Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas.

In David Post's column June 29, 2015 in The Washington Post, he discussed problems with the Supreme Court making the decision. He wrote that while pleased with the law's change, he was "considerably less delighted that we arrived there because 5 Justices of the Supreme Court have so decided the matter." That may be the basis of any future court cases.

Fox News anchor Bret Baier asked former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson about his view on the  SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) decision favoring redefinition of marriage. Mr. Olson  stated his agreement with the ruling and said that a legal denial of marriage to anyone of one's choice would be equal to denying equal, unsegregated education.

The two are incomparable. Marriage, from the beginning, has been a male-female covenant blessed by God and a bond of multi-generational families; public education is an institution intended to benefit people alone and in community. Both marriage and education are important, yet they are in no basic way the same in function, purpose, history or meaning.

This is one of the problems with arguments on either side of this issue: mixing apples and oranges in reasoning. Mr. Olson's argument has a problem in that it is based on the proverbial apples and oranges flaw--two unlike things being treated as alike and equal: marriage the apple, education the orange.

Since I first posted this commentary, there has begun an investigation into reports that the largest and wealthiest abortion-providing U.S. organization has been harvesting body parts of unborn children for sale for use...research, organ transplant, other.  To what shall that be compared? With what arguments and comparisons will some in media and medicine deny, explain away, or...wait for it...defend or try to justify what is alleged in this case?


Related reading: New Name for Same-Sex Unions

"Death by Marriage"

Death by Marriage is a free ebook (Kindle) mystery novel by Jaden Skye. I have not read it, but I might. I enjoy a fast mystery story.

The title of this book generated thoughts about the deep pools of dangerous relationships. We hear of harm, even murders, that end either once-promising or always-dangerous relationships. I also thought of questions sent to Carolyn Hax of The Washington Post, an advice columnist and one of my favorites.

Letters to Carolyn Hax reflect parent-adult child, adult child-parent, live-in lovers, engaged couples, about to become move-in friends or lovers, in-laws, siblings, employees-employer, and almost every other relationship combination you or I might think of. The array of dilemmas should be no complete surprise to anyone in circles of relationships.

Relationships gone or going wrong, whether in or outside marriage, flood the news with tales of shock about lives of celebrities in sports, entertainment, and politics. The majority of troubling relationships, however, do not make the news or do so only when tragedy has occurred. What I notice in the letters or regular people to Carolyn Hax of the Post is how often people seem to be very uncertain about themselves, their actions or lack thereof, and others' actions or lack thereof, all at the same time. This is part, I think, of being in situations that hit life at its fullest points of hope or dreams.

It's a good sign, I believe, when people seek advice, help, confirmation, affirmation, or a more objective views. Many of the problems are not uncommon, if most of us would admit, although the situations may be somewhat unexpected. They are, basically it seems to me, part of personal identity and being so close to emotionally-charged challenges that it's difficult to admit the solution, or resolution, or even to think of it. 

Unreal expectations often lie at the bottom of our close relationship problems at one time or another. I could also say "unagreed" expectations, for many people in relationships seem to keep a lot of their thoughts and hopes to themselves. There is fear of really talking, face to face, honestly. There is fear of telling oneself, and so it seems easier to tell Carolyn. And I don't blame or judge anyone for that. To seek guidance from someone good at giving it is, in my view, a wise move.

I cannot help wondering if a third party not impressed by others' money, influence, appealing ways, or other circumstances might have been available to people at risk who were ready and willing to ask, talk, and listen to words in their own best interest, for the future. It's scary when one wants something or someone so much that truth is covered over...or second thoughts are pushed aside, those nagging hints of trouble that are quickly blanketed over with hopes, dreams, and fictional thinking.

Coming from a close, loving family and being in a long, close, and loving marriage and family situation, I find that my heart goes out to those in the news or in the advice columns who are in the midst of some extremely uncomfortable situation. Who among us has not been "there," at some time, I wonder. I am relieved and happy for those who seek, ask, and consider carefully...before deciding to continue further into a relationship that bruises the spirit.

Everyone can choose freedom for themselves, however hard-won it may be, and each person can allow their future to have the best opportunity. Beautiful doors of love, and I include friendships and family here, are often just ahead, although as yet unseen. I have seen this happen in almost mysterious ways. To prepare for a better life often requires letting go of the person we now are, the one avoiding change, and  letting ourselves out of boxes of limited expectations. Emotional turmoil and unrest in relationship can often end with a clearer eye to recognize patterns and our own roadblocks, rather than disasters we see in the news.

Beginning with honest admissions to one's self can be freeing, especially when a caring and wise listener can be there, even at the end of a letter. To hear and to offer another that freedom of honest expression is, to me, a great gift. In addition, there is much to be said for writing thoughts down...and for praying, often, from an open, ready heart. 

Author Jane Bullard Answers via YouTube

One of Jane's favorites_ Image by Puzzler4879 via Flickr

Not All Roads Lead Home author, Jane Bullard

Photo (c) 2005-2012 From Video

 Jane Bullard Interview 1_YouTube

Personal narrative author, Jane Bullard, about pen name decision

by Jean Purcell, aka Jane Bullard

Opine, USA, 2004 edition

It is important to think carefully before assigning a pen name, because it needs to be a name you can feel comfortable with for a long time. It needs to be more than a creative whim. Not All Roads Lead Home is a love story, a personal narrative, that Highland Books UK published under my pen name, Jane Bullard.

The first name, Jane, is an anagram of a given name, Jean. Some people, when introduced to me, call me Jane, and I am comfortable being addressed by either name. 

The last name for the pen name, Bullard, is a family name of my maternal grandmother and one of which I am proud. She was widowed when my mother was very young (the last of five), during the early 20th century, when most women did not work outside the home. My grandmother did tailoring and was a salesperson in a local haberdashery. 

After the pen name for the Not All Roads Lead Home manuscript came into being, I noticed an unexpected change in my writing perspective. I was more willing to edit out sections or chapters that I liked, but that did not serve the story, centrally. I felt the story more important, for example, than side-line interests I had in those years.   

Highland Books UK, took on the book for publication, when many publishers were discouraging authors of personal narratives. Later, after I formed a publishing company to enable U. S. distribution of my book, I ended up bring the story up to date 16 years later. That became the second edition. I decided to keep the pen name, for continuity. A coming of age, fictional story I've been working on will have my real name.   

Highland Books, UK, 1996 edition

Related articles by Zemanta

• Publishing Know-how (opinariwriters.blogspot.com)
• Pen Names (feirett.com)