Irony of Same-Sex Marriage Arguments

            I should not have been surprised that a California Federal District Court struck down the state marriage amendment (Proposition 8). But I was. Maybe I was a fool. Maybe I was just hopeful that Judge Walker might open his eyes to the truth about the sanctity of marriage and make a right ruling.
            Regardless, the decision to strike down the marriage amendment stands, for now. It is already on appeal. Most people believe this issue will continue in active controversy until the U.S. Supreme Court finally weighs and decides once and for all if states can define marriage or if there is some new fundamental right to same sex marriage to be implied from our Constitution.
            What I find particularly ironic is how Judge Walker and others can claim states cannot mandate morals, that is, morality has no basis in forming laws. And yet, that is exactly what gay activists want, to legislative morality. Just a different kind of morality.
            LGBT activist Chai Feldblum, a recent EEOC appointee by President Obama, has gone on record with a clear strategy to promote homosexual rights. She claims gay sex is morally good, and as such, government has a duty to teach it. Wait a minute—isn’t that government mandating morality? Ah, yes, but it is a different kind of morality.
            This kind of hypocrisy reminds me of how the liberals initially used the buzzword tolerance to push their agenda. Social conservatives and people of faith needed to be tolerant of homosexual conduct and the desire for same-sex marriage. However, their demand for tolerance is only a one-way street. Progressives are intolerant of anyone who opposes their agenda, especially if there is a moral or religious reason for opposing homosexual conduct and relationships.
            That reminds me of another buzzword used by LGBT activists, equality. They assert state recognized civil unions or domestic partnerships are not equal to traditional marriages, but instead makes them second-class citizens and inferior. Therefore, they demand their committed relationships be recognized as the same, as marriage. Gay partnerships equal traditional marriage. Now, religious and moral arguments aside, equal protection under our Constitution does not mean that things that are different in fact or opinion must be treated the same in law. There is one huge obvious difference between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples—gay couples cannot make babies. No matter how activist courts choose to define marriage, we simply cannot make something that is not the same, the same.  
            One final irony worth pointing out, gay activists consistently use the interracial marriage analogy to promote same sex marriage. They justify court intervention in defining marriage because they point to the U.S. Supreme Court appropriately striking down anti-miscegenation laws (laws banning interracial marriage). However, the analogy not only fails, it actually hurts the gay marriage argument. At common law, there was no ban on interracial marriages. Americans passed anti-miscegenation laws only after the institution of enslavement of Africans on American soil. This means interracial marriage was a common law liberty before anti-miscegenation laws. Court abolishment of anti-miscegenation laws merely returned us to common law. Moreover, the purpose of anti-miscegenation laws (awful as they were) was racial purity, because interracial couples could naturally produce interracial children.
Same sex marriage, on the other hand, was never a common law liberty before traditional marriage laws were passed. The purpose of traditional marriage laws is not to preserve anything akin to racial purity, because it goes without saying that same sex couples can never produce children. Traditional marriage is a naturally emerging social institution because when men and women come together, they create children, totally independent of government recognition. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, is completely a creation of the state.  Not only does the interracial marriage argument not help same-sex marriage advocates, it may actually work against them.
I cannot close without mentioning the issue of immutability.  Do you remember back when special legal protections were first granted to homosexuals to prevent discrimination, like bullying and physical harm? Back then, arguments were made that homosexual orientation was genetic and could not be changed. Sympathetic to the claim that gays were born that way and not exercising choice in conduct, special protections were enacted. This paved the way for additional gay rights, which led to gay marriage and the new argument that gay sex is morally good. The issue of whether sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic is hotly contested today by the fact that there are now many ex-gays. Studies show that sexual orientation is fluid and hard to define. Ex-gays exist, but I don’t know any ex-blacks. 
It is true that we are all born with a sinful nature. But by faith in Jesus, we are set free from the penalty and power of all sin. (1 Cor. 6:9-11) As believers, we have a choice to follow the flesh or follow the Spirit. We will be accountable to God for the choices we make. God “will give to each person according to what he has done.” Romans 2:6
Let us be aware of how fuzzy notions of equality, tolerance, and morality have been deceptively twisted to distort the truth about marriage. Marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman, a physical representation of the ultimate marriage yet to take place between the bride (the church) and the groom (Jesus Christ). Anything else is a cheap masquerade.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Women Teaching Apologetics: Breaking Through the Glass Ceiling

Miracles: Should Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

Women in Apologetics Conference "Take Aways"