By Scott Tibbs, January 22, 2009
William Murnahan responded to my letter to the editor from December in the January 20 Herald-Times, but his letter misses the mark on several key points.
No one is "trying to tell a religious organization who cannot participate in their ceremonies?" As I very clearly said in my 2006 guest column on the issue, two people of the same sex can get married if "they find a church where the elders and pastors are in rebellion against God's word and are willing to perform a 'marriage' ceremony." What I oppose is for government to place a stamp of approval on a sinful lifestyle with a state-certified marriage contract.
Murnahan poses the question, "why does our country require a religious ceremony to obtain legal rights?" This is just laughable. No religious ceremony is required for marriage. A marriage ceremony performed by a city clerk is just as legally valid as a ceremony performed in a church. I find it hard to believe that Murnahan does not know this, making his statement an intentional distortion of facts.
Murnahan claims that those pushing for a constitutional amendment prohibiting government from recognizing homosexual marriage (presumably including State Representative Peggy Welch) are "no different than the Southern politicians of the 1960s." Really? Is that why 70% of blacks in Florida and California voted for a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage? While Barack Obama obliterated John McCain in California, Proposition 8 passed anyway.
Murnahan can repeat this claim as many times as he wants, but sexual behavior is not the same as skin pigmentation. Whether someone has dark or light skin is determined by genetics, not choice. Sexual behavior is always a choice. Even if there is a genetic predisposition to homosexual behavior, predisposition is not destiny. A genetic predisposition also does not affect morality. What if there were a genetic predisposition to stealing? Would stealing be OK?
Homosexuals should not be denied the rights that all individuals have under the Constitution. I see no reason why homosexuals should be denied the right to determine inheritance rights and hospital visitation through freedom of contract. But government should not recognize a behavior condemned as sin by the God that protects this nation and has blessed us with wealth and liberty.