First, let me ‘fess up to shamelessly borrowing stealing the title from Marshall Art’s place. That song is one of my all time favorites, and I can actually play it on the guitar. Sort of.
The California Supreme court “same-sex marriage” decision was predictable though unfortunate. I usually avoid bits on news that everybody is blogging on, but here are a few thoughts.
These judges over-rode the will of the people. It is as simple as that. Hopefully this will get California and other states to pass marriage amendments and get people behind a Federal Amendment as well.
“Same-sex marriage” is the oxymoron of the decade: A same-sex union of a man and a woman.
The precedent isn’t that one man can also marry one man, or that one woman can also marry one woman. Rather, it is that marriage is no longer just between one man and one woman. The judges redefined marriage to mean that it can be anything we want it to be, including polygamy, incest and bestiality. They didn’t spell that out, but it is the logical consequence of the “decision.”
As usual, the pro-gay media emphasized that this was about “love.” Nonsense. No one was preventing these people from loving each other before, or even getting married. It just means the government must recognize the unions. Does anyone seriously think that a role of the government is to get involved with love? Government primarily gets involved in marriages because by nature and design marriages produce the next generation.
I mainly feel sorry for the California school kids, who will have more of the GLBTQ “normalcy” crammed down their throats, just like in Massachussetts.
I encourage you to speak out against it while you still can legally, because by granting civil rights to deviant sexual practices it proclaims that quoting certain parts of the Bible are legally bigoted.
Here’s a piece I wrote last year:
Some random thoughts on same-sex unions . . .
Basics
The definition of marriage has always been a union of one man and one woman, so “traditional marriage” is a redundancy and “same sex marriage” is an oxymoron. But current events have forced the added words.
Claiming that marriage can be for two men or two women isn’t a little different than saying it is between a man and a woman, it is the opposite. It is claiming that marriage is not just between a man and a woman and that “marriage” is now whatever we want to define it to be.
Valid issues
I am sympathetic to hospital and estate issues of gay and lesbian couples, but I think they can be addressed without redefining marriage and generating a slew of unintended consequences.
For example, estate taxes should be done away with altogether. The government should not profit when you die, regardless of your sexual preferences. And hospital patients should be allowed to have anyone they like visit them.
I am also sympathetic to how gays and lesbians feel about many churches being soft on divorce, heterosexual adultery and fornication but not on homosexual behavior. But the answer is not to lower the bar further, it is to get back to the Biblical model of human sexuality.
Equal rights?
The issue is often framed as if gays are being denied something. Gays are free to marry in this country and they do it every day. Some apostate churches will be glad to perform the ceremony. Whole industries are set up to help you plan and execute the festivities and set up a household. The debate is whether the government has an interest in recognizing these unions.
By nature and by design, homosexual unions cannot and will not produce the next generation. It is only by exception that these relationships involve children. Therefore, the government has no reason to interfere with or regulate those relationships. (Please spare me any arguments that heterosexuals must have kids for this reasoning to be valid. We’re talking rules, not exceptions.)
Sometimes the “but they love each other” argument is used to support same-sex unions. I realize that some gays and lesbians love each other. So what? What possible reason would the government have to be involved in a relationship just because love is involved? Plenty of marriages don’t have love. Many marriages in the world are still arranged.
Aside from the marriage question, remember that adding sex to a loving relationship doesn’t make it better. There are plenty of loving relationships (parent/child, siblings, pastor / parishoner, teacher / student) that are made worse by sex, not better. Whatever happened to just having friends of the same sex?
I realize this isn’t satisfying for them, but gays and lesbians have the exact same rights that heterosexuals do: They can marry someone of the opposite sex. Heterosexuals can’t marry someone of the same sex either.
Also see Denying Same-Sex Marriage Isn’t Unequal Protection.
Why it matters
People often wonder why same-sex unions are met with such opposition. The main reason for me is that when governments recognize same-sex unions then they have given civil rights for sexual preferences. This leads directly to radical changes in what children are taught in schools, and it shuts down debate. It will ultimately result to an attempted silencing of the church. All these things are either happening in the U.S. or other countries already. It has already impacted the adoption process.
If you love kids – and by love I mean that you have their long term best interests at heart – you won’t support civil rights for sexual perversions, because this will lead to more sickening things being pushed on innocent children.
Civil unions are just a smokescreen for eventually getting “same sex marriages” to be legal everywhere. It is a two-step ploy: 1. Gain Civil Union status by acting as if they would be satisfied with all the rights without the legal recognition and associated societal approval of marriage. 2. Point out how there is no difference with the rights of Civil Unions and marriage so we might as well make “same sex marriage” legal as well.
“Same sex marriage” already resulted in radical changes to adoption and parenting laws. Who is looking out for the children? Sexual preference with respect to partners is considered immutable and paramount – i.e., a gay guy can never change and he has to have another gay guy as a partner. A masculine woman just won’t do, nor will a biological female who thinks she is really a male.
But sexual preference with respect to parents is supposedly irrelevant – it doesn’t matter if a child’s parents are M/F, M/M or F/F (or who knows what combination). They are all supposedly equal in value. Let’s put the interests of the children first on this one and not repeat the big lie that adults are vulnerable but children are not.
Who is being divisive?
Charles Krauthammer said, “Until the last few years, every civilization known to man has defined marriage as between people of opposite sex. To charge with “divisiveness” those who would do nothing more than resist a radical overturning of that norm is a sign of either gross partisanship or serious dimwittedness.”
Polls continue to show that the vast majority of Americans disapprove of “same-sex marriage,” even when the wording of the questions is skewed to favor it. Even Massachussetts was afraid to let the people have a say in the matter. That speaks volumes.
The Democratic party has flailed around on this issue. Apparently they haven’t noticed that every state that has voted on the topic has affirmed traditional marriage by an average of an 70/30 ratio, because they are once again in bed (so to speak) with the gay lobby.
Howard Dean, head of the Democrats, hypocritically said that his party supported traditional marriages then back-tracked after catching heat from the pro-gay groups. He then said they wanted to leave it to the states. Now it turns out that they wanted to work behind the scenes to oppose state efforts to affirm traditional marriage. Here is my favorite part of the Dem’s 5 point plan to fight for the homosexual marriage that they supposedly weren’t fighting for:
Labeling efforts to ban homosexual marriage as “divisive” ploys by the Republicans and others to deflect voter attention from other important issues, including “the Bush’s administration’s failed policies.”
Let’s see - marriage is clearly defined as being between a man and a woman, the vast majority of Americans agree, Democrats want to change that, so the conclusion is . . . Conservatives are the ones being divisive. Of course.
Church issues
I half expect the culture to come up with such ideas, but I’m disgusted at how the apostate churches and false teachers the churches have let in are pushing for same-sex marriages to be normalized. Pro-gay theology falls apart at every turn, but people continue to mock God with it. I’m hoping the Episcopal fallout emboldens Bible-believing Methodists (and those in other denominations) to stand firm in the face of the movement.
Miscellaneous
If I were black I would be really irritated that the gay rights lobby was co-opting Civil Rights language for their cause. This is a very simple proposition: There is no moral component to skin color, but there is a moral component to sexual behavior.
Don’t forget the push for polygamy and multiple gay couples raising kids. These are logical consequences of Civil Unions and/or “same sex marriage.”
Filed under: Christian worldview, Politics, Sexuality | Tagged: Bible, california, God, homosexual, religion
“If I were black I would be really irritated that the gay rights lobby was co-opting Civil Rights language for their cause. This is a very simple proposition: There is no moral component to skin color, but there is a moral component to sexual behavior.”
I’m black and beyond irritated by gays who use civil rights jargon. What is sad is that some blacks fall for this. Black=genes, homosexuality=behavior. What’s so hard about that?
Neil,
Again, you’ve done a great job of summarizing the issues.
Really well done.
Hi Neil. Excellent post! For Christian conservatives living in CA, this is an utter nightmare! People are going to fight this. We were already prepared. The signatures of 1.3 million people have already been sent to get this on the ballot this November.
Take a look at this copy of my blogpost today:
One CA dissenting judge’s written opinion about the four rogue judges and their homosexual pseudo-marriage decision:
But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.
Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority,4 the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.
In doing so, the majority holds, in effect, that the Legislature has done indirectly what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.
I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power.
The majority (referring to the judges) has violated these principles. It simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.
The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex.
Written by BAXTER, J
It is also my hope the Church will stand firm on traditional marriage. We have less control over what government does, but at least (with God’s help), we can better keep the flock in line.
Malachi 2:11-12–”11 Judah has dealt treacherously, and an abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem, for Judah has profaned the LORD’s holy institution which He loves: He has married the daughter of a foreign god. 12 May the LORD cut off from the tents of Jacob the man who does this, being awake and aware, yet who brings an offering to the LORD of hosts!”
Here the nation of Judah was under judgment for widespread intermarriage with women from pagan nations (this has nothing to do with race, but idolatry). It is even called “an abomination” just like homosexuality was called an “abomination” in Leviticus 20:13. Now, if homosexuality is an “abomination” and marrying an idolatrous person is an “abomination” then what would it be called if you put the two of them together and called it “gay marriage?”
Jesus tells us in Revelation 21:8 that anyone who does an abomination will be outside of the kingdom of God.
Applying this to the current situation of “gay marriage,” if this is allowed to grow and fester in this country, we will no doubt be facing the very real possibility of God’s wrath coming down upon us.
Neil, thanks for for using the correct term “same-sex marriage” instead of gay marriage. As we all know, homosexuals have always had the same right to get married as the rest of us. Their agenda involves redefining the word marriage to get a new, special, privilege sanctioned by the state. They don’t want equality. They already had it.
P.S. I just found out that the quote by Baxter J. is just a summary of his written opinion. HT to Stacy Harp for the summary.
Not true at all. If the only state-sanctioned marriages were same-sex, you would have the right to get married – you would just have to marry a man. By definition, you would not have the right to marry the consenting adult of your choice.
Before miscegenation laws, African-Americans had the right to marry, sanctioned by the state. Were they asking for some new, fancy, never-seen-before right when they asked to marry people of other races (specifically whites)? Consider that, throughout the long history of marriage, polygamy was acceptable, child-brides were acceptable, but what was always frowned upon was marrying outside of your tribe. In fact, the only times that would happen (in many cultures) was in war: women were plunder and would be taken home as slaves or wives for the victorious soldiers, and, by doing so, become a part of the new tribe.
As an aside: The evidence about the biological (albeit not genetic, but that’s irrelevant) aspects of homosexuality is quite convincing.
“By definition, you would not have the right to marry the consenting adult of your choice.”
Right, just like people can’t marry multiple consenting adults and can’t have incestuous marriages. With all due respect I think the logic holds.
You can’t draw a square circle, and a man can’t marry another man (at least in most states). Sure, I can get a few guys in black robes to change the definition of square; as they can change the definition of marriage. In both cases, the moves would be illicit and illegitimate.
“As an aside: The evidence about the biological (albeit not genetic, but that’s irrelevant) aspects of homosexuality is quite convincing.”
I’ve read quite a bit myself and found it interesting, but hardly convincing. What’s more important, however, is that I’ve found nothing close to proof of anything that would constitute changing our culture and all the laws based upn the societally beneficial aspects of traditional marriage.
BTW Theo, I’d be happy to review anything you might have in support of your assertion. In fact, I’d be eager.
“I am also sympathetic to how gays and lesbians feel about churches being soft on divorce and heterosexual adultery but not on homosexual behavior. But the answer is not to lower the bar further, it is to get back to the Biblical model of human sexuality.”
There was one behavior left out of this sentence that is so much a part of homosexuality that without it, it would be almost non-existent. That is fornication. Fornication is sex outside of marriage. It is rampant in our society, but among homosexuals (even among “so-called” married homosexuals), the numbers are astonishing. The studies show that a large number of homosexual men commit fornication more times in a year than married couples have sexual relations in a year – and the homosexual sex is more often than not with multiple partners.
My church is very family oriented, and I can tell you that adultery and spousal abuse (whether verbal or physical) is a topic of sermons much more often than is homosexuality.
Neil said: Good point, Ms. Green – I’m going to add that to the post.
I think we in the church are underestimating this. After looking at what’s happened in Canada regarding “hate speech” laws being directed at the church, I think the church needs to begin preparing to go back underground, just like in roman times. I’m serious. Scripture says that the church will be pesecuted at the end and it’s beginning.