Same-Sex ‘Marriage’—the New Mainstream
Public perception of homosexuality is undergoing rapid, unprecedented change. Thanks to aggressive homosexual activism, the fringe view has shifted to the center, and shoved the center to the fringe. Now, as the Supreme Court considers two cases aimed at granting homosexuals the right to claim the legal status of marriage, the subject dominates the national conversation, and with unambiguous bias.
A recent cnn talk show was held in something of a “theater in the round” format, with the host, manifestly pro-gay “marriage,” in the center seated at a table with a lesbian celebrity who has been in a 12-year relationship. A man in the audience was given the unenviable task of defending traditional marriage amid a crowd noticeably unreceptive to his position.
This is America today: nationally televised bullying over homosexual “marriage.”
“I find it extraordinary that you would deny her the right to marry,” the host lectured the man. “I find it odd.” A few times during the discussion the two at the table asked the audience to voice, as a mob, their disapproval of the marriage advocate’s position, and made sure this man understood just how far in the minority he was. The host concluded the segment by telling him, “The fact that you want to stop people from getting married in America in the modern era, I just find a bit offensive these days. It’s not fair, it’s not tolerant, it’s not American.” (The host is British, by the way.)
Now, public opinion at large is not nearly so enthusiastic for same-sex “marriage” as it appeared that cnn studio audience was. Polls show that supporters have just edged past half of the country. Can you imagine that host telling President Obama that his view—which up until about a year ago was publicly against homosexuals being able to “marry”—was offensive and un-American?
Nevertheless, it’s clear we have passed a tipping point. The president’s views have evolved; he now sees the light. And suddenly the defense of traditional marriage—what was, as recently as a year or two ago, a majority opinion in America—is now characterized in mainstream media as out of touch and intolerant. This is not mere reporting on the issue; this is the cable news network that appears in airports and public spaces throughout the country working as an advocate, ushering homosexual “marriage” toward public acceptance through schoolyard intimidation.
It was just as instructive to hear this man’s argument for traditional marriage. He made sure to state that he had no problem with homosexuality. “I think all Americans have the right to live and to love how they choose to,” he said repeatedly. The primary reason he was concerned about the Supreme Court cases was that if the justices decide to change the federal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, they would be short-circuiting the democratic process playing out in states. “It’s up to citizens to vote for what marriage is,” he argued.
It appears this is essentially what the “conservative” argument for traditional marriage has been reduced to: Let the states decide. Let the people vote on it.
Of course—as the cnn host so stridently pointed out—popular resistance to same-sex “marriage” is in rapid retreat. A cnn poll showed that in 2007, 60 percent of Americans were against it; in the few years since, that number has already shrunk to 47 percent. The trend is obvious. Letting states vote on the matter would, before long, produce the same result as a Supreme Court shortcut.
This is a shockingly rapid cultural shift. It was only 16½ years ago that a liberal, Democrat president signed a law to ensure the federal government defined marriage as a male-female union. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by large majorities of both the House and Senate.
Now, Bill Clinton says it was a mistake. The current administration says doma is unconstitutional. Eight federal courts have ruled it unconstitutional. Most observers believe the law is about to be struck down.
After all this time, we’ve suddenly come to recognize that defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman violatesthe founding document of the country.
Mainstream opponents of same-sex “marriage” are being shouted down as they try to make a logical argument why homosexuality is okay but homosexual “marriage” is not. The nature of their case shows that homosexuals have already won the argument that homosexuality is morally acceptable. They have won the argument that homosexuals are entitled to legally recognized “civil unions.” They have won the argument that homosexuals should be able to raise children, through adoption, artificial fertilization or other means.
And they have soundly won the argument that the Bible has absolutely no place in determining public policy or law.
Discussing the Supreme Court cases, a major Fox News personality said disdainfully that the only argument that opponents of same-sex “marriage” have is to “thump the Bible.”
As the Trumpet has pointed out, the Constitution is under attack in America today. But as much as it is being disparaged, the Bible’s status is far worse. It is completely ignored if not ridiculed. “While most politicians take their oaths of office on the Bible, many of them prove by their actions that they don’t believe, or follow, what’s in it,” wrote Cal Thomas recently. “Better they should place their hands on Rolling Stone or People magazines, which more accurately reflect the direction and attitude of contemporary culture.”
Where did marriage come from? The Bible. It was created by God at the beginning of human history, in the second chapter of Genesis. The laws defining and governing marriage are contained throughout its pages: restricting sex to within marriage; forbidding divorce; placing the man as the head of and provider for the family; enjoining parents to love and teach their children; putting children in subjection to the authority of their parents, and so on.
People can vote on these things if they’d like—judges can ignore them—the president’s views can evolve—states can change the policies on their books—the federal government can fiddle with its own definitions. But God’s laws of marriage do not change. The American public could be unanimous in its support of homosexual “marriage,” and it wouldn’t alter God’s definition one jot or tittle.
When we break those laws, we suffer. Just look around to see the proof. As much as people bemoan the “loveless” marriages and supposed oppression of women and children in the past, those problems are nothing compared to the society-shaking crises caused by rampant fornication, cohabitation, adultery, divorce, shattered homes, fatherlessness and other modern epidemics.
Advocacy of same-sex unions belies a complete ignorance of the institution of marriage as God created it. It shows ignorance of the need for children to grow up with their biological parents; of the fact that God intends a child to have a father and a mother; that ideally, every child has a strong male role model and strong female role model within the home. It reveals ignorance of the profound, inspiring purpose for which God created marriage and family in the first place.
Such ignorance is rampant today. Many people clearly recognize the resulting crises and are desperate for answers: how to get their marriages to function properly; how to get their kids under control; how to bring some sanity into their home life. But when they don’t look to God, their answers only aggravate the problems.
Nowhere is this truer than with the bullying, freight-train crusade to stretch the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions.