Marriage and its definition have been in the news in recent days and rightfully so. Our view of marriage is vitally important. Marriage and the home is the foundation of society; as the home goes, so goes society. Fifty years ago, the definition of marriage was readily understood and accepted – one man and one woman till death ended that covenant vow. When that was the standard in our society, the biggest problems in our schools were talking in class and running in the hallways. Today, because of the breakdown in marriage and the home, we have to have armed police officers patrol the hallways of our children’s schools. We have made choices and accepted alternatives that are costing our society and our children.
Before I address same-sex marriage, let me say that no-fault divorce laws and lack of commitment to marriage vows have done serious damage to the state of the home in our nation. And further still, the divorce rate among Evangelical Christians is unacceptable. In essence, we are changing the definition of marriage as much as the homosexual community desires to.
The decision regarding the definition of marriage must be made with our head and not our heart. It would be easy to allow emphatic compassion to be our guide, rather than empirical evidence. Not that I am not sympathetic to hurting people, it is just that sometimes the right decisions will not be easy or popular. Think this through with me – If the proponents of same-sex marriage say that any distinction in marriage laws would be unjust discrimination; then by that same logic we must allow open, temporary, polygynous, polyandrous, polyamorous and even incestuous marriages.
Consider the following from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, which quotes from “Child Trends” a left-leaning research institution:
Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers and children in step-families or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes…There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents,…but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children’s development.
As much as it may be considered politically incorrect and not compassionate, study after study reveals the above to be factual, empirical truth. Two wonderful men who are room-mates and who are both attracted to women cannot, in general, exhibit this kind of biological complementarity.
Another reason for concern regarding this matter is that we are no longer able to say live and let live. Even though I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, I don’t want the government in anyone’s bedroom. But in this current debate, it is clear that the agenda is to compel me, by force of law to accept and endorse something to which I disagree. Catholic Charities in Massachusetts was forced to give up its adoption services, rather than, against its principles, place children with same-sex couples. A Court of Appeals ruled that a public school may teach children that homosexual relations are morally good despite the objection of parents who disagree.
I hate no one. Homosexuality has never sent anyone to hell, anymore than heterosexuality has sent anyone to heaven. I can favor marriage being defined between one man and one woman and not be a bigot. The society we live in has become very complex, I am thankful for the teachings of the Bible, that has endured generations and numerous attacks, that helps me make sense of the confusion. That Bible tells me about marriage and many life issues. It also tells me to love my neighbor, be they homosexual, straight, Muslim, Christian, Democrat or Republican. Nobody ever said following the Bible would be easy.