News Articles

FIRST-PERSON: Same-Sex ‘marriage’ isn’t marriage

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (BP)–This week I’ve been collecting my thoughts and information on three topics I wanted to address in this column in coming weeks.

I had intended to write this column for the Baptist New Mexican week after next, but I, like many of you, was run down today by the massive snowball that became an avalanche this week — the granting of marriage licenses in San Francisco to same-sex couples and the announcement Feb. 19 by Sandoval County’s clerk that her office would be issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples.

When the Associated Press called me Feb. 20, I had to put together right then what I had been working on related to the question, “What’s the harm in letting ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ couples get married?” My answer in a single word is, “Plenty!” There are plenty of good reasons why, up until now, same-sex couples have been “discriminated against” and have not been granted the privilege of getting married.

Of course, we as Christians base our convictions on the sanctity of marriage on the clear teaching of God’s Word. We believe God knew what He was doing when He defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman freely and totally committed to each other as companions for life, where the two become one and a family is formed.

He created the institution of marriage like He did for the good of individuals and the societies they form. Consequently, God prohibits anything that perverts His blueprint, including not only homosexual acts and relationships but premarital, extramarital and recreational sex by heterosexuals.

Matrimonial law in our society, as well as other societies around the world, reflects not only the above biblical law but also natural law, which God has plainly revealed for all to see. Princeton legal philosopher Robert George, in his book “The Clash of Orthodoxies,” says that laws related to marriage understand it to be the union of one male and one female.

Charles Colson explains George’s view that such a union is “consummated by acts that are reproductive in type, whether or not they result in children.” It is the union of husbands and wives into “a single procreative unit — an organic unit achieved even by infertile couples,” Colson says. Homosexual acts do not do that, so there is no way, according to George, that any homosexual relationship could be called a “marriage.”

Throughout human history, governments, through legislative and legal processes, have recognized that marriage between male and female individuals is a basic structure necessary for the preservation of society, and they have forbidden other sexual behaviors for the good of their society. Marriage can be considered the basic “molecule” for the “organism” of societies. Societies that destroy the “molecule” cannot do so without imperiling the “organism” itself.

Families formed by the union of one man and one woman have proven to be the most stable environment for raising children, so society itself pays a great deal of attention to addressing the challenges children face when, for whatever reason, their mother and/or father are not present.

“Both boys and girls define themselves and establish their own identity and expectations based on their observation of both father and mother, husband and wife, male and female,” says Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, in defying the California law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, claimed, “There is no rationale for discrimination against any individuals in California.”

But if there is “no rationale for discrimination against any individuals” when it comes to issuing marriage licenses, then neither is there any rationale for discrimination against individuals who engage in other practices our society has forbidden, such as the marriage of two men and one woman, or two women and one man, or a brother and a sister, or even a man and his pet. There is, in fact, an excellent rationale for discriminating against certain individuals on a variety of moral grounds for the good of an orderly society.

The implications of legalizing same-sex marriages are enormous, and include:

— the possibility that newspapers could be sued for refusing to run same-sex wedding announcements.

— public schools could be pressured to include same-sex “marriage” as an alternative as valid as opposite-sex marriage when dealing with marriage and family life issues.

— businesses, even if they have a religious objection, could be required to grant the same benefits to same-sex couples that they give to married employees.

For the good of our state and our nation, let’s stand together in opposition to this movement that threatens the very fabric of our society.
Loudat is editor of the Baptist New Mexican newsjournal.

    About the Author

  • John Loudat