By Scott Tibbs, July 10, 2009
There have been three letters to the editor in the last couple weeks responding to my letter to the editor last month praising the California Supreme Court's decision to allow Proposition 8. Proposition 8 was the amendment to the state constitution banning state recognition of homosexual marriage. I will respond to my critics in this blog post.
Christina Norris asserts that "every adult American has the right to find happiness, commitment and a fulfilling life with another consenting adult." I do not believe government should be prohibiting people from living together if they so choose, provided both involved are adults. Two men or two women can get married right now if they find a "church" in rebellion against Scripture willing to perform the ceremony. What they do not have is the right to have the state place a stamp of approval on a relationship condemned throughout Scripture.
Efforts to force the teaching that homosexuality is na acceptable lifestyle into government schools aside, the point I made in my letter was that male homosexuals have a much higher rate of sexually-transmitted diseases than the general population. There is a public health issue here. Furthermore, as Tim Bayly points out here, lesbian relationships are statistically more violent than heterosexual relationships. (There won't be any mention of that at this year's Take Back the Night rally against rape and domestic violence.)
Norris also asks, "What does the ethnicity of the voters matter?" Unfortunately, in a 200 word letter to the editor, I don't have the space to fully explain all my points. The point of that statement is that the vast majority of black voters in California (and Florida, for that matter) rejected the claim by advocates of homosexual marriage that sexual behavior is the same as skin pigmentation. As I pointed out last November, comparisons between interracial and same-sex marriage ignores biological reality. Regardless of skin pigmentation, the union of a man and a woman of different races is fundamentally the same as the union of a man and woman of the same race. In both cases, you have male and female of the species homo sapiens in a union. That cannot be compared to the union of two men or two women."
If "Scripture has no place in law", as Erin Constantine argues, should we abolish restrictions on things such as theft and murder? After all, the Ten Commandments predates any U.S. law by thousands of years. I'm not advocating that government prohibit anyone from living as they choose, although I pray that those trapped in the sin of homosexuality are liberated form that sin through the power of Jesus Christ.
Finally, Peter Burkholder argues that if I really believe that homosexuality is immoral and should be discouraged, I should "should be campaigning for a ban not on same-sex marriage but against homosexual sex." Scripture's teaching that sodomy is immoral is the reasoning for my argument that same-sex "partnerships" should not get a stamp of approval by the state recognizing those unions as a "marriage." I do not, however, favor banning homosexual behavior. Provided all those involved are consenting adults, it isn't the government's business to police how people choose to behave. However, Scripture compels believers to warn of the spiritual dangers of homosexuality.
The awesome reality is that, no matter what sin troubles any person, the answer is the same: the shed blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. He calls people to repentance. Those who put their faith and trust in him and repent of their sins can count on His sacrifice covering their sins, no matter what that sin may be. From the person who steals a small item from the supermarket to the people who led the terrible genocide in Rwanda, the blood of Christ covers all sins. No matter what we have done, our Father in Heaven sees the righteousness of His Son, not the wickedness we all bring to the table. What a blessed assurance!