09 / 28 / 04
Because the controversy surrounding gay marriage is so basic and crucial to a healthy democratic debate, all views on the subject should be freely and fairly aired so that an informed consensus can emerge. The strong prohibitions against homosexual activity in the Old and New Testaments as well as in the Koran; while long on condemnation, are short on explanation. It should not though - because of this - be lightly dismissed out of hand.
There are sound reasons for such prohibitions to exist, in spite of the popular culture and the propensity of so called "progressives" - secular and religious - to go along with this trend to have it validated. It is unfortunate that a more substantial rationale for such prohibitions has not been forthcoming from conventional ecclesiastical sources, as they have not come to grips with the matter in any definitive manner. An enlightened approach is needed, if there is to be a more comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon.
For something like this to be viewed in perspective and context, we have to ask some basic questions: Why are we here? What's expected of us? What is the end game? All the world's religions have tried to come to terms with these core questions. They came into being at a time and place appropriate to their time and filtered through the consciousness of the prophets and sages of their time. While all have their place in the scheme of things (it must be said), some have been more illumined than others.
I am not a biblical literalist per se (at least not in all aspects); however I do maintain that it is imperative for this prohibition to be retained in principle, not only as a bulwark against opening the floodgates even further, but also as an expression of the divine design and intent. It is neither the part of love or wisdom for us to put our stamp of approval on such practices, as it violates the masculine-feminine polarities, with harmful ramifications to their spiritual evolution. We do them no good service by sanctioning their proclivities.
To preface why this is so, I would like to offer some supporting sources of reference to explain my position. First a couple of quotes from William Shakespeare:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." "There is a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them as we will."
Indeed, there is more to earthly existence than what we perceive as mind and body. From the perspective of where I'm coming from, we have other subtle bodies, such as the mental and emotional/desire bodies, as well as an etheric double wherein the soul resides. This etheric body is also known as the memory body, in that it contains the record of all our lives. It is this body that we take with us at the time of transition or death and encompasses the distilled essence of who and what we are from this and all past lifetimes. This brings us to a consideration of reincarnation.
What has reincarnation to do with the topic at hand? Actually, a lot. But before we get into that, there is something we should be clear about that most people are unaware of; reincarnation was an integral part of Jesus' world view. Here is my evidence and authority for this.
At the time of the Transfiguration, the disciples asked Jesus "why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? - - And Jesus answered and said unto them - - Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist." (Elias is the New Testament form for Elijah) Matthew 17:10 - 13. On another occasion, "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear , let him hear." Matthew 11:13 - 15. Likewise, Jesus asked his disciples: "Whom say the people that I am? They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say that one of the old prophets is risen again." (Risen again - re-incarnated) Luke 9:18-19. Matthew puts the disciples answer to this same question a little differently - he includes Jeremiah "others say Jeremias, or one of the prophets." Also, Jesus' tribute to John; "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist." Matthew 11:11. ( K J V). The significance of which is made more poignant, when you consider that Elisha is a former embodiment of Jesus. You will recall that when Elijah asked Elisha what he could do for him before he was to be taken from him, Elisha replied: "Let a double portion of thy spirit fall upon me." Then as Elijah was carried up into heaven in a chariot of fire, his mantle fell upon Elisha - symbolizing his wish had been granted. It is interesting to note that as part of the Jewish Seder (ritual meal) commemorating the Passover, an empty chair is set aside for Elijah, who is to come before the coming of the Messiah.
Why is reincarnation important in the context of the gay marriage issue? Because without it we don't have a complete picture of human life and therefore it presents a distorted view of things. For anyone who has thought about it deeply, it's the only thing that makes sense of it all. The truth is, homosexuality has its origin in past life behaviour. Looked at from this vantage point, we are better able to get a handle on it..
For the most part homosexuals are correct when they say, "they were born that way" - the exception being, if it is acquired in this lifetime. When they go on to say - God created them that way; and since all of God's creation is good, then it must be alright. No, it is not alright and God did not create them that way. It is their own miscreation that has made them that way. A little insight into how we came into individualization may be useful here. When we were first created, we came out of one integrated whole. From which issued forth two individualized souls, twin flames as they are called, one with a (positive) masculine polarity and the other a (negative) feminine polarity. Two halves of the whole; each with an identical signature of identity, exclusive to them alone in all creation. It is everyone's destiny to eventually be reunited with their other half - in God's own time and when they are ready for it. It is predicated upon both having achieved a certain level of psychological wholeness and spiritual attainment and represents the ultimate in the realization of true love.
We are here on assignment. From the spate of near-death experiences, most people are now aware of the life review that occurs at the close of an embodiment. We are called upon to assess the life just ended and evaluate how we fared in that assignment. Similarly, before embarking on another go-round, we are tutored by Spiritual Masters in conjunction with the Higher Self, as to the issues that we will have to deal with in the upcoming incarnation. We all have negative human traits and tendencies to overcome (our fallen natures) as well as strengths and virtues we need to cultivate. A best-case scenario is laid out before us and we take a solemn vow - as well as commitment - to do our best to live up to the assigned life plan.
This Higher Self - above us - to whom we are attached by an invisible cord, or stream of light, is the voice of conscience given to guide us throughout our sojourn here. Emerson, the 19th century transcendentalist, called this Presence the "Over Soul". We are admonished to attune to this Presence - which we experience as a "still small voice"- and are expected to give heed to its promptings. It is the Source that beats our heart, gives us life and warms our bodies. When we pass from the screen of life, the life-force is withdrawn and the soul goes to whatever sphere it has fitted itself for, at inner levels, between embodiments.
That in a nut shell is the way it is, regarding the rounds of rebirth and karma. From all that I have learned and have corroborated, I can attest to the fact that these are the straight goods and is indeed the truth of life.
These negative human traits and tendencies that we have accumulated from this and past lives, is what we have to transcend by God's grace and our own self-discipline. When homosexual orientation is a factor in the equation, there is an additional karmic burden to contend with. It has a strong hold on their innate nature and feeling world.. They have been given an opportunity in this life to face the issue and resolve it. They did so vow, on being allowed to incarnate. Doubtless some have kept their promise and as a result are better off for it. While others have not, and so are held in its grip.
Because of this perverse/reverse polarization, their subtle bodies are thrown out of alignment - particularly the emotional/desire body - which then skews the normal configuration of these inner bodies; in some instances to the point where even the physical body takes on opposite-sex characteristics. The more that homosexual practices are indulged in - the deeper the groove that is created - the harder it is to break the cycle. When the soul arrives at the place in spiritual evolution where it aspires to be free, it has a gigantic struggle on its hands to surmount this propensity; as there is a rolling momentum of this misqualified energy that will not readily yield to be turned on a dime.
Sometime, somewhere, these aberrant sexual energies will have to be transmuted, if the soul is to be free of its self-imposed bondage and be able to reunite with its twin flame. Ultimately the goal is to return to the Creator "whole"- spiritually and psychologically whole - having mastered time and space "to go out no more" in the rounds of rebirth and karma.
"This corruptible must put on
incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality."
- the Apostle Paul
Now to the heart of the matter: What's so wrong with redefining the legal definition of marriage to include same sex couples? In the first place, its not marriage - there are no legal gay marriages in Canada. Regardless of what the provincial courts have held - according to the Constitution - they do not have the jurisdiction to pronounce on this. They have overstepped their bounds, in the guise of purporting to defend the Charter; the recent announcement by Justice Minister Cotler that Ottawa will no longer stonewall or resist applications for same sex marriage, not withstanding. Nor do the pronouncements by recalcitrant clergy, of a blessing or whatever, have any validity when they presume to officiate at such illegitimate marriages.
Why this rush by the social and political elite to have gay marriage enshrined in law by questionable means? Let's call a spade a spade - it was a blatant attempt to pull a fast one. As long as no one protested too much, they probably assumed they could get away with it. But wait, not so fast here: Any redefinition of marriage can only be affected by a vote in Parliament. That's the law. Furthermore, there is another voice to be heard in the land - a segment of the population that the elite have little time for - they are what might be called "the little people". They are those who retain some reverence for God, have respect for His laws, and seek to do His will. It is these little people who will determine whether this goes forward or not.
Whether or not it is recognized by secular or religious authorities, I contend it is in violation of a divine ordinance instituted by the Creator for the "sacred office" of marriage as ordained between a man and a woman. That it does not always rise to that level in actual practice, is beside the point. I further maintain that the concept of "gay" marriage is abhorrent in the sight of God and His holy angels, and any attempt to legitimize it is gross sacrilege. There is no religion, East or West, if they are true to their faith, will deign to countenance this denigration of the divine will. This is where we take our stand; thus far and no further, "they shall not pass". Call it what you will, but not "marriage".
But you say: 'I'm not religious, I don't even believe in God. I'm not bound by any mythical Creator or divine ordinance - that's a lot of superstition.' Well, whether you credit it or not, whether you like it or not, the fact is we are all governed by the laws of the Creator - the laws of the universe - Cosmic Law. As with any law, be it physical or metaphysical; these laws simply exist. As ignorance of the law of the land is no excuse; even so, ignorance of Cosmic Law is no excuse. We live in an ordered universe, governed by universal laws that are immutable. Be it science or religion - if it's authentic- it's all Science. But not all science or religion is authentic Science.
You may well ask; 'who are you to pontificate on what is, or is not, the divine will?' That's a fair question. I can only say that I hold these views on the strength of what I have found to be valid and true. Call me what you will or write me off as you please. I'll stand by what I know to be right.
What's at stake here and what homosexual activists and their supporters are after is the good housekeeping seal of approval on their lifestyle, as just another "normal" sexual alternative; which it is not. All attempts to justify it, such as acceptance, compassion and equality under the Charter etc., do not cut it. These are human concepts of an earthly nature, that do not rise to the level of Cosmic legitimacy. Besides; homosexual couples already have acceptance and equality under the law, the same as common law heterosexual unions. So it's not a question of human rights.
What it's really about, is a determined effort to have their lifestyle recognized as "normal" by the public, the better to promote their agenda and gain an even greater measure of acceptance. Acceptance and equality under the law is a given -and rightly so - but there is a difference. No one can deny that gay marriage is not "different"; which is why it should not to be recognized as "marriage". Nor are we as a society obliged to have this designation inscribed in law for homosexual couples; when it is rightly reserved for heterosexual couples.
Let's be clear! This is not about gay bashing or anything of an untoward nature. That's not my style or my nature. On a personal level, it's not a factor that enters into the equation, as far as I am concerned. I have a good friend who is gay and it's never been an issue in our friendship. He knows my views and where I'm coming from. He disagrees with these views, but it is not anything that either of us would allow to come between us.
Nor do I condone discrimination of the sort that is disrespectful of persons or an infringement of their human rights because of sexual orientation. At the same time, I do positively assert from the perspective of my world view, that homosexuality is an unwholesome lifestyle that ought not to be endorsed as a societal norm. My compassion consists in speaking the truth in this regard. It is for each one to accept or reject as they choose. But neither will I abdicate my responsibility to speak out candidly on the matter.
My quarrel is with the gay lobby and their supporters "political agenda" to have gay marriage enshrined in law. I also take exception to the promotion by the media - print, television and movies - to relentlessly push the gay rights agenda. I urge a docile and compliant citizenry to take it upon themselves to seek to have this curbed by making their voices heard. We are so intimidated that we dare not speak out, for fear of being put in jeopardy of the thought police and Bill C-250.
My main concern is to preserve the sanctity and integrity of the institution of marriage, as the exclusive domain of heterosexual couples. But also to alert all, especially the vulnerable youth who might be enticed to experiment with homosexuality, of the dangers of going down this road. Advertising for this, often takes a soft sell approach along the lines of "are you questioning your sexuality"? This ever present danger of leading our youth astray by luring them into the trap of an ensuing downward spiral makes it imperative that we preserve heterosexuality as the acceptable social norm for sexual activity. To portray same sex marriage as justified and legally vindicated sends a potent message to this and future generations that in the eyes of society, homosexuality is perfectly normal and healthy. This is a desecration of the natural and divine order that we violate at our peril; particularly as it relates to the bigger picture of where our culture and civilization is headed. The biblical injunction of "the sins of the fathers being visited upon the children unto the third and fourth generation" is a potent reminder of our responsibility in this regard. This applies whether it be by sins of commission or omission.
There is more at stake here than meets the eye; we do well to ponder its implications and ramifications. As things presently stand, from my perspective Western Civilization is at the crossroads. It virtually hangs in the balance. If this trend continues to accelerate, as it gives every indication of doing, we are in for some troublesome times. What is called for is a bona fide Spiritual Renaissance of a higher order than what is currently extant, if we are to herald the dawn of a Golden Age culture. It is my hope that this will in time, be pragmatically and universally realized. But for this to happen, there is much that needs to change and much that needs to be done. There are many Light bearers, in all nations, races and creeds who in their own way are doing their bit in helping to bring this about; but more world servers are needed if we are to see it actualized.
But what of the Government's handling of this issue? Can we discern an apparent pattern that clues us in as to what Government intends for us and where it wants to take us - whether we like it or not? A quick overview is in order. It's safe to say the initial reference to the Supreme Court was an obvious manoeuvre to have the Court rule that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and a violation of the Charter. The traditional definition of marriage was not even included as an option for consideration, although it is the law of the land and ever has been.
Consider next the Parliamentary committee that was to vote on the same-sex marriage issue when two of the Liberal members on the committee (known to favour traditional marriage) were mysteriously late. It developed that two other Liberal members, both known for their support of same-sex marriage and not committee members, were conveniently on hand to vote in their place to make sure it would be defeated in committee. Then, when it came to a full vote in the House to retain the traditional definition of marriage, it was effectively defeated by Prime Minister Chretien cracking the whip over his cabinet to keep them in line. No freedom to vote their consciences here; not with this "friendly dictator" as Jeffrey Simpson labeled him. Yes, I'm aware of the practice of cabinet solidarity. It's still wrong - in this context. In matters of conscience, you can not serve two masters, you can not serve both God and the Prime Minister if it runs counter to your convictions in the matter. That's the Law. There's a heavy karmic penalty for those who would presume to hold such power over other lifestreams by this means. There's a price to pay when you encroach on another man's conscience. Cosmic Law is no respecter of persons or of Parliamentary traditions. It simply acts, impersonally and unerringly.
When Prime Minister Martin took the helm, and after taking some flak from the prevailing winds of the voting public, he did amend it to include traditional marriage in the reference. It was more of a sop to the restless natives than anything else. It indicates that this may become something of a sticky-wicket for them. All the while he knows he can count on the courts to act as his surrogate to achieve the desired end. As an Ottawa columnist once put it, when I queried her on the meaning of something that was somewhat obscure to me, she responded: "I mean that he is unable, without help from the courts, to make his political case on same-sex [marriage] in Parliament." Quite so. There is nothing like hiding behind the skirt of the courts and sloughing off one's responsibility to others, to avoid doing one's own heavy lifting. And now, with the appointment of two new Supreme Court Justices who are on record as favouring same-sex marriage, he's got it made. Or has he? As I pointed out to the columnist, Chantal Hebert, in January of '04, that this battle is going to be won at the grass roots level, regardless of how the Supreme Court ultimately rules. That in the end, Parliament will be the final arbiter in the matter. This scenario has yet to be played out. The real battle for this has not yet been fully joined; it might more aptly be described as - the gathering storm.
What does the foregoing have to say about how the Government is treating this all important issue that has enormous consequences and ramifications for the well being of society. I put it to you that we have not been well served by this Government. We can no longer rely on them to look after our interests in this regard. We have to take steps to ensure that they do. We have it in our power to show to the rest of the world that this illicit hijacking by a militant judiciary to take upon itself the power to make law; is as bogus as a three dollar bill. When they step out of line, it is our responsibility to see to it that they are put in their place. We are a democracy in this country - not a courtocracy. When they presumed to declare gay marriages legal by stealth and deception, they overstepped their bounds and perpetrated a fraud on the people. We are a nation of laws and the law is that this is the exclusive prerogative of Parliament. In the event that this singular feat can be accomplished here, we can then say to other nations facing similar circumstances; what we have done, you can do also.
Let's take a closer look at the Chretien and Martin administrations role in all of this. Is it unfair to brand them as co-conspirators in the whole affair? I don't see why. The evidence clearly shows this to be so. In the case of Chretien it's clear cut, he made no bones about it. He was bound and determined to get this done, no matter what. In the case of Martin, it is more nuanced. I recall that before the last election the Prime Minister addressed a congregation of Amidya Muslims in the Toronto area . He spoke solemnly about how he admired their values and shared their ideals. He did not take questions on that occasion and left by a side door, presumably to avoid being accosted about same-sex marriage. These are true believers in the good sense; who probably would have liked to question him on this issue, but he clearly didn't want to go there. His countenance as he was leaving the premises mirrored his discomfort and chagrin at the obvious contradiction.
Herein lies the dilemma of Paul Martin. I think he is genuinely conflicted and agonizes over this issue. His problem is that he is not being true to himself. He illustrates what Paul (the Apostle) speaks of as "grieve not the Holy Spirit within you". His inner circle and the polls have convinced him that his support of gay marriage is a winning ticket to his election and re-election. That may yet prove to be a faulty assessment of the situation that he may have cause to regret. Those nasty winds of change, they can be so unpredictable.
His other vexing problem is the democratic deficit, the dichotomy between his rhetoric on the hustings and his actual performance. If that's a problem for him now, it's nothing compared to what lies ahead when the crucial vote on the definition of marriage comes up in Parliament. On the other hand, should an election precede this vote, then it will become the defining issue in that campaign. Those of us who feel strongly enough about it- will make it so. This is where the real test of Mr. Martin's political career will be played out. If his announced free vote to the members of his caucus does not extend to the members of his Cabinet as well - no strings attached - he can look forward to meeting his Waterloo. There is no issue more relevant to his survival or demise than the choice he makes in this regard. You cannot command a man's conscience and not pay the price.
In summary: Unresolved karmic conditions, particularly as it relates to homosexual orientation, do carry over into the current life. The individual has the choice to either face up to the challenge to change or rebel and reinforce the pre-existing pattern. This makes it that much harder to break free of it in a future life. Each lifetime is a precious opportunity to make moral and spiritual progress through self disciplined correction and growth. This is why it is so important to pro - actively discourage and warn individuals (particularly the young) about getting involved in the homosexual lifestyle to begin with.
Making gay marriage legal is a powerful impetus and endorsement to make the homosexual lifestyle ever more mainstream. It is our responsibility as a society to consult with our elected representatives to forthrightly defend against all attempts to pervert natural law. Failure to do so undermines the very foundation of civilization. It is a dishonour to the Creator to presume to make gay marriage legal under the pretext of extending equal rights to gay couples. It denigrates the "sacred office" of marriage as a divinely ordained institution between a man and a woman.
This is a matter of deeply held conviction with me and from it I will not waver or recant.
Earl Baerg - Student of the Hidden Mysteries of Life.
