E-mail Scott
Links to
other sites


Letters to
the editor

Blog Archives:
2003 - 2004
2005 - 2006
2007 - 2008

The case against homosexual marriage

By Scott Tibbs, November 18, 2008

Two weeks ago, the voters of California voted for am amendment to their state's Constitution to prohibit state government from recognizing same-sex couples as "married", after a ruling by California's Supreme Court ruled the previous ban unconstitutional and cleared the way for a large number of homosexual couples to get married in California. A similar amendment passed in Florida, and 70% of black voters supported the amendments in both states.

For years, homosexual activists have argued that discrimination on the basis of sexual behavior is the same as discrimination on the basis of skin pigmentation. They have argued that the "civil rights" struggle for homosexuals is the same as the civil rights struggle for blacks decades ago, and that banning on same-sex marriage is the same as banning interracial marriage. By a large margin, black voters in two states rejected those comparisons. Jonah Goldberg points out that 64% of Latino voters in Florida also supported the ban.

And they were right to reject that comparison. Sexual behavior is simply not the same as skin pigmentation, which is an innate and immutable physical characteristic. Even if one could demonstrate that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, that does not automatically classify homosexual behavior as morally correct or neutral. What if we discovered that some men were genetically predisposed to have sex with multiple women? Would we then argue that adultery is morally neutral or acceptable? What if we discovered that some people are genetically predisposed to steal? Would we argue that stealing is morally neutral or acceptable?

Some supporters of same-sex marriage are trying to argue that "sexual identity is not behavior." That is silly. The whole issue of homosexual marriage is about behavior, unless people making that argument expect us to believe that all of those "married" homosexual couples are going to be celibate. Marriage assumes sexual intimacy, and I do not believe the government should be placing a stamp of approval on immoral and unnatural behavior.

We hear a lot about homosexuals being denied "equal rights" because government will not recognize same-sex marriage. Really? Are homosexuals being denied the right to free speech, freedom of religion, or the right to peaceably assemble? Are homosexuals being denied the right to keep and bear arms? Are homosexuals being denied the right to trial by jury, or the right to be free from unreasonable searches of their property? No, the only "right" that homosexuals are being denied is the "right" to have their marriages recognized by government. Homosexuals can still get married if they find a "church" that is in rebellion against the God it claims to worship, but the government will not recognize that marriage.

Is a ban on homosexual marriage a violation of the 14th Amendment's mandate of equal protection? No. Refusing to recognize homosexual marriage is only "illegal" under a new "interpretation" of the Constitution which was never intended when the document was written. It is pure judicial activism.

I see no reason homosexuals should be denied many of the legal rights that married couples have, including inheritance, hospital visitation, wrongful death and power of attorney. There is no reason many of these rights cannot be put in place through freedom of contract. I oppose measures by government to criminalize homosexual behavior with sodomy laws, because I do not believe it is the business of government to legislate what two consenting adults decide to do in private. I believe homosexuals should have the same protection that everyone else enjoys through the Bill of Rights.

I do not, however, believe that government should place a stamp of approval on a sinful lifestyle by classifying same-sex relationships as identical to a marriage between one man and one woman. Homosexuality is destructive both to individuals and society as a whole, in addition to being condemned by Scripture. In addition, having government recognize same-sex unions as a "marriage" presents a host of serious civil liberties problems, as churches that follow Scripture's doctrine on sexual morality will inevitably be forced by the state to violate their principles. When that happens, I hope that Christians will follow the example set in Acts 5:29 and say "we ought to obey God rather than men."

Previous articles:

Homosexual marriage back on the front burner -- November 24, 2003

Homosexual marriage ban rejected by the Senate -- June 9, 2006

It is about behavior, not identity -- June 25, 2006

Five Democrats kill ban on state recognition of homosexual marriage -- April 5, 2007

California votes to ban homosexual marriage -- November 7, 2008

Sarah Palin, social conservatives and the Republican Party -- November 10, 2008