The world, according to Charles

It is an odd and awesome power, that which comes with writing the news for people to read, or a column like this, all done very publicly, where everyone can see.

This communication – even if not by intent – can persuade or advocate, sometimes just through choice of subject matter. Done well, it can elevate public debate, sometimes presenting opinions that might otherwise never be seen.

In discussions of highly controversial topics the news is sometimes shaped by omission, leaving out opinions that require deep examination.

But presenting all sides – no matter how many – is intellectually honest and ethical. So it is with this argument being heard by courts throughout the nation, as to whether two people of the same gender should be allowed to marry, or have their marriages in states that allow such to be recognized in states that don’t.

For the most part, reported extensively this week in this very newspaper, the court battle in Louisiana is largely sketched in shades of federalism. States get to decide these questions, Louisiana officials have maintained. In a republic, opponents to that view counter, the nation’s laws are sovereign in order to guarantee rights to the individuals even when the state will not.

There are other arguments as well, in opposition to marriage equality. Those arguments won’t necessarily make it into the court records. But they deserve mention somewhere, because they are the product of thought among many people.

These arguments are not likely to win a court case. Courts require evidence, the arguments are based on faith, and evidence is the antithesis of faith.

But they are among the reasons why, left to a flat-out vote of the people, marriage equality would likely never prevail here, which is why people are in court to begin with.

They are arguments steeped in tradition, born of the desire for heaven and fear of hell, for self and others and belief in what some would call natural law. Some holders of these beliefs don’t wish to speak publicly. They fear classification as haters or bigots. So they remain silent.

Someone I know who shares these thoughts is Charles Gaiennie, who is in the communications business here. He wears no collar and doesn’t want to. Which means he profits from no collection plate. Quiet, avuncular, he is a gentleman who doesn’t scream and doesn’t rail. But Charles has no qualms about communicating his personal views, which he says are at the core of his persona.

“We are on a slippery slope as a nation, as a society, where children are murdered in schools, families are divorced, children are without fathers,” Charles says. “The core of all that is the dissolution of the family and these people are contributing. So the very foundation of our society is being pulled apart. That institution is under a full frontal attack at every level. We are taking things that are clearly not as they should be and legitimizing them. It is not ethically, morally biologically and physically what God meant it to be. To elevate that is death to our society. We keep taking away the foundation that sustains our society. We have gotten to the point where something we know is wrong, we say is good. And where does this end? Homosexuality is a self-declared condition if you will. It is not like being black or being white … It is not sufficient that two men in a loving committed relationship be accepted. It is not enough anymore. So where does it stop? Ten years ago or 20 years ago these marriage arguments would have been seen as ridiculous.”

Acting on homosexual tendencies, Charles maintains, is embracing one’s sin. That leads to damnation – such as what would happen if he himself committed adultery – and he doesn’t want to see people who are generally nice, in his view, condemned to perdition.

Charles, a staunch Catholic, says he has conversations with many people of several faiths, who share his beliefs, his concerns and his fears, for society and for individuals. They, like himself, choose to battle for what they identify as good by living exemplary lives as they are able, to be there for family, what he sees as society’s core glue.

“It is not a popular conversation right now,” Charles admits. He ponders whether the public nature of the discussion, that it is in the courts at all, is somehow a product of God’s will.

And this is why he doesn’t worry because, when all is said and done, he maintains that God’s shall prevail.

And on that single point I know of few people who would disagree.

John DeSantis is senior staff writer for the Tri-Parish Times. He can be reached at john@tri-parishtimes.com.