DISGUSTING! That is the mildest expression I can use to describe a “wedding” ceremony hosted by a homosexual couple for Karmen and Dante, their two dogs, at their expensive residence in California.
A portion of this lavish ceremony was aired on National Geographic. It was a clear case of marriage gone to the dogs.
In covering the story for National Geographic, journalist Rebecca O’Connor stated that the owners believed their two imperial Shih Tzus were in love and felt “the canine nuptials are a wonderful example how anyone in love should be able to vow to cherish one another”.
I watched as many of the dog owners’ friends and specially invited dogs gathered to a full ceremony conducted by a “priest” who pronounced them “canine and canine, husband and wife”.
Extravagant
The reception that followed was extravagant and more expensive than the average wedding reception, during which one of the owners of the “newly wed” dogs said: “If you love somebody, marry them, so everybody get marry.”
This is the level to which some people have stooped to show scant disrespect for the sacredness and sanctity of the institution of marriage as God has established at the very beginning of time. The use of the word “love” to justify the action shows a clear lack of understanding of what true love within the context of marriage is all about.
Today the expression “love” is often used as the main reason why same-sex couples should be “married”. Anything short of divine love is shallow and will have difficulty in rising to the level of excellence, as God designed married couples to enjoy.
The Master Designer of love has given us a kind of love which, when applied, can stand the test of time and trial. In order for marriage between a man and a woman to be sustained, it needs more than natural love, more than friendship love and more than erotic or sexual love. Husband and wife in marriage need a kind of love that is unconditional, unselfish; the kind that goes beyond loving your spouse only when the going is good.
So significant is God’s love in governing relationships that He devoted an entire chapter in His manual of instructions, the Bible, to emphasise its unique characteristics. These qualities are found in the 13th chapter of 1st Corinthians. This chapter states that love (God’s style) endures long, it is patient, kind, but is never envious, never boils over with jealousy, not boastful, not puffed up or conceited, is definitely not ill-mannered, does not act unbecoming, neither does it insists on its own rights or its own way, is not touchy, fretful or resentful. It holds no records of wrong, does not rejoice at injustice or unrighteousness, but is happy when right and truth prevail. This love bears up under any pressure, and is ready to believe the best of each other and endures everything without weakening.
When I viewed the National Geographic presentation on the dogs being “married”, the words of Paula Ettelbrick, former chair of the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission as quoted in The Weekly Standard, on August 4, 2003, came rushing back to me. “Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender and seeking state approval for doing so.
“Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society.
“We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and radically reordering society’s view of reality.”
Could it be that Ettelbrick’s goal is coming to pass? Am I understanding her to mean that pushing the parameters of . . . family and “transforming the very fabric of society” may include what the gay couple did in “marrying” dogs?
Am I also to believe that “. . . providing true alternatives to marriage and radically reordering society’s view of reality” may even mean that if an individual falls in “love” with his/her animal, bird or any living thing, then pushing for state approval to “marry” his/her “love” may be in the pipeline?
No sexual boundaries
Furthermore, am I to understand by her statement there are no sexual boundaries as far as her organisation’s objectives are concerned?
As one of the main architects and foundation builders who crafted the legal framework for the now lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersexed (LGBTQI) political organisation, Ettelbrick’s words obviously carry great weight.
According to the Washington Blade of October 7, 2011, “Ettelbrick held the top spot at IGLHRC from 2003-2009 and helped build the organization into a visible force around the world”.
The laws that now govern animals in the so-called developed countries appear to extend more rights and benefits to these creatures than to human beings. I read of hotelier Leona Helmsley, who willed to her dog, “Trouble”, the sum of US$12 million; Gail Posner, who willed to her chihuahua a US$8.3 million beachfront mansion and left a US$3 million trust fund for her.
Businessman Sidney Altman willed US$6 million and a Beverly Hills mansion to “Samantha”, his cocker spaniel, referred to as his “first and true love”, and very recently Rose-Ann Bolasny of New York willed her dog “Bella Mia” millions of dollars in jewellery and a vacation home.
Even the cats get in on the fortunes. On December 12, 2011, ABC News’ journalist Kevin Dolak spoke of wealthy Maria Assunta, who willed her entire estate of $13 million to her cat Tommasoin. All of these animal owners and many more must have had great inner affection for their four-legged pets in order to devote so much financial resources to them. Some of them did not include their own relatives in their wills. Could it be that the foundation is being laid for the realising of the late Ettelbrick’s expressed dream?
Could it also be that the persistent, passionate drive by some individuals to have the laws of buggery removed from the statute books in our Caribbean countries is consistent with the vision of Ettelbrick in reordering society’s view of what she referred to as “reality”?
For one thing, marriage God’s style is neither for dogs nor any other animal companion, but only between a man and a woman. The relentless drive that the LGBTQI possesses in successfully convincing politicians and legislators to bend to their pressure may soon give rise for clamouring for human beings to “marry” their pets in the name of love, as another “human right”. God forbid.
• Reverend Haynesley Griffith is a marriage and family life consultant. Email griffitharticles@gmail.com.
