Since 2004 when Massachusetts legalized marriages for homosexual couples, members of the LGBT community and their supporters have pushed for same sex marriages to be legally accepted nationwide. And so far they have done a good job. About 16 of the 50 states will acknowledge monogamous relationships of homosexuals to be marriage by 2014. And the Supreme Court this past summer struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional. However the arguments for same sex marriage are rather weak.
For example: “We’re two consenting adults who love each other and that meets the basic definition of marriage.” And to some extent, that is very true. A broad and simplistic definition of marriage is the union of two adults who are hopefully in love with each other. Yet there’s a very big problem with this definition. It is too simplistic as it doesn’t capture the fullness of what marriage is. If I said, “A chair is an object on which you sit,” that could include anything from the ground, the dinner table, someone’s dinner, etc. None of these things are chairs, yet if we use my broad definition of what a chair is they are chairs. Thus if A meets the “basic” or even abbreviated definition of B, it doesn’t mean A is B.
Or consider the response of why the definition of marriage should change. “Because it discriminates our love and denies us the benefits which our heterosexual counterparts have.” Again, there is some truth in this statement. A homosexual couple, married over seas, were not considered immediate family and were denied various tax breaks and benefits while DOMA was on the books. And yes, if you look at marriage’s full and traditional definition it does exclude same sex relationships. But this begs the question. If the definition of marriage has to change to be inclusive towards those who are not traditionally and legally considered married, wouldn’t that mean it would have to include things like polygamy? And here is where any logic used earlier goes completely out the window. At the individual level, particularly on the internet, the response will usually be “Gay marriage isn’t polygamy” followed by some insult for being so stupid to equate the two. At the community level represented by various activist groups, the response is typically “We are only concerned with our mandate to make gay marriage equal with heterosexual marriage. We neither support nor condemn other movements doing the same.” Essentially it’s an “everybody for themselves” mentality which seems rather exclusive to me, but I digress. The point is that the LGBT community has largely down played the possibility of others hitching a ride on their movement for equality to support their own views of marriage. And just recently, one of those groups is started to receive legal status.
Last Friday, Judge Waddoups of the District Court of Utah ruled that the state’s laws prohibiting cohabitation violated the rights to privacy and religious freedom. According to a NY Times article, Waddoups was hearing a lawsuit from TLC’s “Sister Wives” star Kody Brown who was suing the state of Utah for its extensive anti-polygamy laws. Brown is a member of an off-shoot Mormon sect which still allows plural families. (The Church of Latter Day Saints does not officially allow or approve of polygamy). While the ruling still upheld the state’s zero tolerance for holding multiple marriage licenses for different marriages, for Brown and like-minded individuals this is the first step towards realizing a legal tolerance for their views on marriage. Many of their opponents, including Justice Scalia and Sen. Santorum, who have been making similar arguments during the debates with same sex marriage also agree with this assessment.
But so what? American history shows social taboos that begin to meet serious resistance tend to fall by the wayside. Examples include civil rights for all Americans, voting rights for women, and now homosexual marriages. Why try to fight history? Because making new definitions of marriage into law have serious legal and religious implications.
Consider that the government’s powers are like a liquid or gas. They fill up any container they are put into, but will quickly escape if an opening is made for them. Its powers will thus expand with any confusion, implication, or silence from the Constitution and national law. In this case if the government is allowed to determine what marriage is or isn’t, then it would have the power to define any other social institution like the family. The Founding Fathers never intended for the government to be an authority in such matters and there is no reason to give it now. Also, remember how the news media a few weeks ago had stories of Christian florists, bakers, and photographers who were being sued for not offering their services to same sex weddings. Well you’ll soon be seeing similar articles but with polygamists added to the mix. Which is quite unfortunate considering both movements want tolerance for their views and yet are very discriminatory towards those who don’t agree with them.
But the real problem that is going to occur is the battle between secular and religious marriage, more specifically what the law says and what the Church believes. For now, churches and pastors are not required to host or perform marriage ceremonies which contradict their religious beliefs. This is to continue the legal doctrine of “separation of church and state” and affirm that the government will not establish or organize a religion. Why these protections of religious freedoms isn’t extended to laymen and clergy alike is beyond me. However if the government has the authority to change the definition of marriage, does the Church have the right to teach that marriage is only between one man and one woman who are not close relatives? If the answer is yes, then why? Because of religious rights and freedoms? As pointed out above, that argument doesn’t hold up for individual Christian business owners who refuse to support weddings that don’t fit the biblical model. And if that is the reason, then it could imply that religious belief is superior to the law of the land which would mean priests, shamans, imams, rabbis, etc. have the ultimate governmental authority and not elected officials. If the answer is no, then what purpose does the right to religious freedom serve in the First Amendment?
Now some might say that all of this is ridiculous and over the top because it will never happen. I would remind them that 20 or so years ago that was the mentality about same sex marriage. Whenever a new law is made or amended, it carries many new implications and consequences which proponents of the law may not have intended. Or in the case of marriage, probably never even thought about. For this reason, I ask that all Americans rethink how this social issue is being handled.
Politics and the Bible 