SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Cal Thomas, someone with whom I share a lot of core beliefs but somehow rarely agree with politically, hits the nail on the head. From November 2003:

The first mention of marriage is in Genesis 2:24: ".a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling, which will be used by gay rights groups to lobby for striking down all laws limiting marriage to heterosexuals, is just the latest example of a society that has abandoned any and all authority outside of itself.

History, logic, theology and even the dictionary have defined marriage as: "the mutual relation of husband and wife; wedlock; the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family" (Merriam-Webster); or "a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife" (Cambridge).

These classic examples are being updated to reflect the mood of the times. The online Encarta dictionary defines marriage as a "legal relationship between spouses; a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners." That's a big difference.

What is happening in our culture is an unraveling of all we once considered normal. Anyone who now appeals to virtue, values, ethics or (heaven forbid!) religious faith is labeled an enemy of progress, an intolerant bigot, a homophobe and a "Neanderthal." There is no debate and no discussion. By definition, anyone who opposes "progress" in casting off the chains of religious restrictions on human behavior - which were once considered necessary for the promotion of the general welfare - is a fundamentalist fool, part of a past that brought us witch trials, slavery and back-alley abortions.

But the problem is deeper than the courts. Some of the people who most loudly proclaim the standards by which they want all of us to live have difficulty themselves living up to those standards. A culture is made up of people, but if large numbers of them no longer "hunger and thirst after righteousness" (to invoke a biblical metaphor), neither will their government.

I once found an old 1940's English dictionary and looked up "abortion"... the definition was along the lines of a miscarriage. However there was another word called "aborticide" that was defined as a man-made, forced abortion. Imagine if the debate today was between "pro-choice" and "anti-aborticide" factions. We've thrown this offensive word aborticide out of our vocabulary. Language matters and definitions matter. Cal again, from March 2004 (emphasis mine):

If same-sex marriage is allowed, it is going to be nearly impossible to prohibit the sanctioning of any other kind of human "relationship" - from close relatives of different sexes who wish to marry (that has been outlawed because of biological and incest considerations) and polygamists to adult-child "marriage."

I recently asked Republican New York Gov. George Pataki if he favored same-sex marriage. He said he doesn't but thinks some accommodation could be made to homosexuals offering similar benefits. What about polygamy? He quickly rejected that, saying "it is against the law." The New Paltz mayor is violating the law, but New York's Attorney General won't stop him. If things that are illegal violate cultural trendiness, our new definition of "truth," they are simply permitted.

I don't know how you reverse such a trend. Political activism isn't working. Appeals to higher standards aren't successful, because same-sex "marriage" is evidence that the standards have already been abandoned. How does a nation that has tolerated about 40 million abortions suddenly acquire a moral sense about same-sex marriage?

Maybe those of us wishing to preserve marriage for heterosexuals, imperfect as we may be at it, ought to ask those pushing for its redefinition what they mean by their "fairness doctrine" and upon what it is based. At least we heterosexuals have a reference that is thousands of years old. What's theirs and how do we know it won't change tomorrow?

Like I said, I've found it hard to be a huge fan of Cal in the past, but that question in the 3rd graph is one of the most penetrating, damning, insightful questions I have heard anyone utter. That is the crux. Why have we suddenly found this vast reservoir of untapped righteous anger about homosexuals wanting legal recognition for their relationships, when 3000 children are vaccuumed out of wombs, ripped and torn apart, and thrown away EVERY DAY? When hundreds of fathers walk away from their wives and children every day? As wrong as homosexuality among the pagans may be, and as bad as the consequences to our country could be, is the sin we overlook in ourselves somehow easier to overlook? Exactly which issue really needs the attention of a constitutional amendment FIRST? We see the speck in our nation's eye, but we assiduously avoid the plank in our church's eye. Help us, Lord.

Even if social conservatives somehow obtained amendments banning all abortions, restricting divorce, and defining marriage biblically, the church is still left with the task of not just bringing legal force to bear against unrighteousness, but pleading Christ's message and being an instrument of changing people's hearts. Wouldn't it be true that a nation who was redirected back to God and transformed by the power of His Word would get its laws straightened out in fairly short order? Is it really our goal to simplay make sure our laws support our own ideal society, while neglecting our neighbors' souls for eternity?