I want to do right by her. . .

In an interview with CNN back in April, the reporter asked Candidate Jon Ossoff:  “Is it true that you cannot vote for yourself?”  He explained that he grew up in the district and “in this community.” He doesn’t live there presently, he explained, because:

I have been living with Alicia, my girlfriend of twelve years, down by Emory University, where she is a full-time medical student. As soon as she concludes her medical training, I will be back into the district where I grew up, but I want to support her and her career and do right by her.

The reporter could have let it go and might have been expected to ignore the obvious contradiction in Ossoff's reply but this time he did not.  The natural question ensued: “So when are you going to marry her?”  Of course, it is a natural question, but not a natural one to liberalism confounded by all the attention given by many in our nation and especially by the religious to marriage and children and fidelity.  So, of course, Mr. Ossoff wasn’t ready for that question.  This is a surprise because he is not ignorant nor is he unsophisticated.  This is Georgia, after all.  Did it never occur to him and to his girlfriend that their twelve-year relationship, a good deal of it spent cohabiting without benefit of marriage, was something begging explanation?  What was the "right" he was desiring to do by her if it was not to marry her, to give to her all his worldly goods, and to honor her (exclusively) with his body, till death us do part?

Of course, a few weeks later, while still living together, he did ask and she did agree to marry.  But I am sure they were both rather confused by the whole thing.  Suddenly the most important question in a man's life became a political duty when it appeared the living arrangements were a definite liability rather than a neutral or a plus.  After all, if CNN was asking, what about all those conservative and religious folks who were wondering.   So, in a rather anti-climactic way, he asked and she agreed.  Let's get married.  Was it because it seemed like it might be politically expedient for his future or because they were genuinely in love, repented of their sinful relationship, and desired to really do what was good and right toward each other and toward God?  I guess we will wait and see.

My point?  Not a political one.  Heavens to Betsy, I have no idea about the dynamics of the George district that was the focus of so much money and attention.  But I do know this.  The liberal element in religion, politics, and culture does not get it.  They do not see the big deal about marriage, about family, about children, about the sanctity of the home, or about the morality of it all.  To so many of them, it is a foreign language and an alien culture.  It is the domain of religious bigots and superstitious brutes who have neither the education or the erudition to know better.  They are truly mystified by catholic creedal dogma and orthodoxy in worship, by morality built upon sacrifice rather than claim, and by the right that is defined by something larger than whim, feeling, or desire.  And that is the difference.  Those on the other side (like me) get it.   We have desires.  We are tempted.  We want to satisfy without sacrifice.  We wrestle every day with a self-defined morality that is captive to a moment or a whim.  But that is the point.  The higher plain is not the ascent to desire or selfish interest or to the vagaries of a decision made in a moment.  Rather it is the abiding truth of the commandments given not to steal our joy but to fulfill it.  It is in the self-control and cross-bearing life that flows from the one who set His face toward the Calvary like flint purely of out the joy that was set before Him and who bore the cross for us (not because we were worthy or deserved it in any way but purely out of love).  We do not agree with liberalism but we get it.  Those on the other side certainly do not agree with us but neither do they get it.