H.I.&M.E.H. Prince Don Louis Pèpin

 The parties promoting these philosophies and the resorting rhetoric have no background in religious history or the Bible, in the original languages, and, frankly, are Bigots. 

First, there are several areas in the Bible when translated by modern scholars, without a predetermined agenda, which relate to the acceptance of gay relationships.  However, this information has been withheld from the general public because many religious leaders believe the general public is too ignorant and uneducated to understand the subtle differences in the Bible between acceptable and unacceptable relationships.  Therefore, it is easier to just say the Bible condemns the relationship and does not condone it in any form.

 I believe the reality is very easy to understand and I have faith in the intellect of the General Public.  The Bible condemns prostitution from both positions, provider or buyer.  It condemns any form of adultery.  Adultery is defined as a sexual relationship between two humans who have no commitment to one another beyond the bond of sexual pleasure and temporary hedonistic joys.  One commits adultery when they engage in sex with anyone beyond a partner of whom they have a commitment.  Many believe you commit such an act even when it is only within your mind but has never been enacted.  This view is debatable but the reasoning is based upon the fact that thought equates to form.  If you think on it long enough; you will act upon it.  The Bible condemns lust, fornication and any form of hedonism.

 There is no reason a gay relationship should be seen as being different from a heterosexual relationship, beyond the obvious issue of gender.  Both groups love and care for their partner, in sickness and health.  God would never deny anyone the joys of a committed relationship for life, only people would be so petty and prejudiced. 

 The argument associated with Marriage being defined by the Bible is another misnomer.  The Bible speaks of marriage between individuals as a part of the history of the Jewish people.  The issues of ceremony and protocol are all old testament or Jewish Law.  There are no strictures of law associated with marriage in the New Testament.  As a matter of fact, the rites of marriage were strictly civil until the twelfth century.  Marriage was a matter of property ownership and rights.  Women were property.  The civil marriage ceremony was the transfer of property from the father to the husband and it included payment in the form of a dowry.  The father paid the husband to take his daughter in marriage.  Among the Nobles, marriages were created to increase land, authority and position.  Love was never an issue of consideration.

 The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, the only two Christian Denominations at the time, wanted to increase their revenues and position in the community, as well as, the world.  Therefore, the sacrament of marriage was invented as a method of raising those funds and controlling the population.  You had to pay for the sacrament.  The Church took control from the civil authority by claiming divine right.  You were still creating a business contract between father and husband but had to pay the Church, instead of the civil authority, to become married.  Since the Church was the performing authority and declared the event to be a sacrament; the event was considered to be blessed by God and the marriage was considered to be bound by God.  Unfortunately, the woman was still considered property and had no personal rights.  Her rights were derived from her husband.

Marriage, through the Church, became a powerful weapon of control in regards to women, through their faith.  Women bore the children and raised the family.  Therefore, it was extremely important to insure their purity and monogamy.  A man needed to know the children in his household were his own.  Children were your legacy.  Title, property and inheritance passed from the father to the sons.  The mother's bloodline was unimportant.

It was a different matter for the men.  Men were allowed to do many things beyond the marriage bed and with any other person, male or female.  It was only the female being controlled by the sacrament of marriage.  The generally accepted philosophy of the time was very simple.  Women were not considered to experience pleasure from sex, which was generally true for fresh brides. 

Historically, the husband was in his late twenties or mid thirties by the time he married.  However, the bride was sometimes as young as nine and, usually, never older than fourteen.  An unmarried girl of sixteen was considered a spinster.  Girls, in the middle ages, were less physically mature in comparison to today, due to environmental conditions.  Therefore, sexual intercourse between an older, experienced and fully developed male with a completely inexperienced, scared, and under developed female would lead to an unenjoyable event for the female.

On the other hand, men were considered to be more animalistic and physical.  It was generally accepted that men could not control their sexual appetites and hedonistic natures.  A man had sex with his wife to produce children.  It was considered a duty and a chore, with little to no pleasure.  Therefore, he had to look elsewhere for his needs and pleasures. 

Under social mores dating back to the early Greeks and carried forward through the Romans; it was acceptable for a married man to keep a younger man for a lover.  The younger man could be as young as twelve and as old as twenty-nine.  Neither party was considered to be gay.  When the younger man turned about thirty; he would marry and take himself a younger male.  If the man did not marry and/or continued his sexual relationship with the only other males; then, he would be considered gay.

Of course, men would also have relations with women closer to their own age.  These women were not considered to be worthy of marriage or were committing adultery.  However, this was not the norm.  The sexes were more socially separated and, often, geographically apart during this time in history.  Men spent most of their time with other men.  Depending on your profession, political campaigns and obligations; you could be away from your wife and isolated from most women for years at a time and it was a sin to masturbate because you were casting your seed on infertile ground.  However, it was okay to  commit sodomy.  The act was not considered to be a sin and it was not considered to be adultery.  It was considered to be natural and necessary to control the animalistic needs of the male.

It should be noted that it was considered wrong for a man to be animalistic and primal with his wife.  She was to be treated as a fragile vessel.

The church condoned these relationships and accepted them.  Priests were even allowed to marry during these times and they kept lovers, according to the traditions.  It was only later when the church made it illegal for a priest to marry.  The basis of this decision was not a matter of faith, the Bible or God but property.  The church wanted to inherit everything, therefore, there could be no legal or recognized heirs.

 Another important factor; the church does not recognize a civil marriage or union, officially.  If you were not married in the Church; you are not married and living in adultery and sin.  The state issues the license saying you can marry under civil law but the Church has to perform the rites or you are not married in the eye's of God, according to the Church.  Therefore, gay marriage, by the civil authority, would not be a violation of the sanctity of marriage because in the view of the Church; they would not be married.

 There is the issue of the separation of Church and State.  The church should not be dictating to the state over the issue of religious morality.  When religious morality is the law; it is called a Theocracy. America is a Democracy and has openly abolished religious morality laws.  Religious morality forbids adultery, fornication outside of marriage, and divorce.  People should be very careful about touting religious morality because it is a double edged sword.  It cuts both ways.

The church has the right to deny the sacrament of marriage to anyone, without cause, but the State has an obligation to make a civil ceremony available to all members within their territorial boundaries, despite issues of sex, race, age or religion, within reason.  If you meet the criteria of adulthood, under the law, and you desire to marry another who is the same sex, a different race, or a different age but of the age of consent; you should be permitted.  Otherwise, the State is in violation of the precepts of the Constitution and the Spirit of the Country.

 What would you say if you heard a white man was denied the right to marry a black woman?  What would you say if you were told two people in their seventies were denied the right to marry?  Do you see the trend?  Do you see the truth?  The only reason anyone would want to deny the right of two men or two women to marry is a basis of prejudice, not law or reason.

 Anyone who has denied the rights of gays to marry; congratulations, you have proven you are a prejudiced bigot who speaks from fear and hatred, not love.  You have also proven you are not a Biblical Scholar or a real Christian.  Shame on you! 

 To any religious leader who has condemned the relationships; get down on your knees and pray that God forgives you for betraying him and His Word.  Then, get in front of your congregation and confess your error and ask them to forgive you and teach them the truth.  Teach them the real word of God, Love.  Learn to accept people for it is God's Will to accept and support each and every human being, not to condemn them for higher ratings or more money in the offering plate.

 To every politician who has fought against these rights; quit.  You have failed your country and your job.  You are an agent of hatred and an assassin of the Devil's.

      H.I. & M.E.H. Pr. Fra' Don Louis Pèpin, who is known in America as H.I. & M.E.H. Pr. Fra' Dr. Donald Lee Pippin, Jr. or H.I. & M.E.H. Pr. Fra' Dr. D. Lee Pippin is the Prince Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Knights of the Imperial Order of the Carolingian Empire and its American Association, Noblesse Oblige Charities, Inc.

All materials are copyrighted and may not be reproduced in whole or part without the express permission of the author.