News Articles

FIRST-PERSON: The real motive behind ‘gay marriage’

McMINNVILLE, Ore. (BP)–If you can’t beat ‘em at the ballot box, then snooker ‘em in the courts or slip it past ‘em in the legislature. This has become the preferred strategy of homosexual activists from sea to shining sea.

In spite of the fact that voters across the United States continue to reject the concept of “gay marriage,” activists persist in pitching their appeals to sympathetic jurists and left-leaning legislators.

Thus far, Massachusetts is the only state to legalize “gay marriage,” although that was mandated by the state’s Supreme Judicial Court. Vermont allows same-sex couples to form civil unions which mirror marriage, and Connecticut soon will follow.

The end-run around the will of the people continues unabated. Eight states have lawsuits pending that seek to win judicial sanction of “homosexual marriage.” Within the past year courts in California, New York and Washington state have ruled in favor of “same-sex marriage,” although all three are on appeal.

On March 14, a California judge struck down the state’s marriage laws and ruled that California had “no rational basis” to ban “gay marriage.” For the record, citizens in the Golden State passed Proposition 22, a defense of marriage initiative in 2000. Sixty-one percent of voters affirmed marriage as being between only one man and one woman.

On May 12, a federal judge struck down Nebraska’s constitutional marriage amendment. It should be noted that voters in the Cornhusker State passed the amendment, designed to maintain the unique status of traditional marriage, in 2000 by a margin of 70 to 30 percent.

The California assembly considered legislation that would create “gay marriage,” and it fell only four votes short of passing June 2. Its action represents the first time a legislative body in the United States has voted on a bill that would have changed the definition of marriage.

Legislators in Oregon are considering a bill that would create civil unions for homosexual couples. Many observers view the legislation as nothing more than “gay marriage,” sans the name. The bill is being considered in spite of the fact that voters in the Beaver State, a bastion of liberalism, approved a constitutional amendment affirming traditional marriage in 2004.

It seems that many politicians would rather pander to well-funded and assertive “Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender” special interest groups than represent the will of the people.

Thirty-nine states have defense of marriage laws on the books and 18 have passed constitutional amendments that define marriage as being between only one man and one woman. The amendments have passed by an average margin of 70-30 percent, and several additional states are seeking to place them before voters in 2005 and 2006.

In spite of defeat after defeat at the ballot box, homosexual activists continue to ignore the will of the American people. And they will not rest until every knee in America is forced, by judicial fiat or legislative coup, to bow at the altar of “gay marriage.”

Activists staunchly maintain that all they want is the opportunity to “marry” and enjoy the attendant benefits of marriage. However, what they really desire is societal approval and acceptance of a lifestyle that has long been viewed as aberrant.

Homosexual couples are routinely “married” in churches, and by clergy, who accept their lifestyle. So, in a way, “homosexual marriage” already exists in America. As to the legal benefits of marriage, same-sex couples have a variety of legal tools available that allow them to secure many of the same rights as heterosexual couples.

What homosexual activists are really pushing for is legal recognition of their lifestyle. In so doing, they believe they will gain -– or force -– societal acceptance.

Once “same-sex marriage” is legally recognized, government will tout homosexuality as natural, normal and healthy. It also will force acquiescence to ensure this new minority class is treated “fairly.” How can it do otherwise?

Without a single shred of incontrovertible evidence, homosexual activists are in the process of hoodwinking select judges and legislators into accepting that their sexual orientation is innate. In so doing, they are close to imposing their will, and their lifestyle, on the whole of American society.

There is only one answer to the strategy of the homosexual activists and those sympathetic to their cause –- a federal marriage amendment. Unless traditional marriage is defined constitutionally, activists are going to continue to seek out sympathetic judges and lobby left-leaning legislatures until they get their way.
Kelly Boggs is pastor of the Portland-area Valley Baptist Church in McMinnville, Ore. His column appears in Baptist Press each Friday.

For more information about the national debate over “gay marriage,” visit http://www.bpnews.net/samesexmarriage

    About the Author

  • Kelly Boggs