May 13, 2004
With Same Sex "Marriage?"
by Michael J. McManus
On Monday, May 17, Massachusetts will become the first state
to legalize same-sex "marriages" as the result of a 4-3 decision
by the state's highest court. This is a watershed moment in
America's history being forced by the vote of one judge..
The decision in the case Goodridge v. Department of Health is
radical. It declared that the historic definition of marriage as
the union of a man and a woman was irrational. The court
compared opposition to same-sex "marriage" to racist prejudice
against interracial marriage.
So it purposefully set the date for the legalization of gay
marriage as May 17, the 50th anniversary of the Brown vs. Board
of Education decision of the Supreme Court which ruled that
segregated schools were unconstitutional.
However, this is not a civil rights issue. Rev. Walter Fauntroy,
a former aide to Martin Luther King, and major black
denominations were the first religious leaders to join the
"Alliance for Marriage" that is fighting for a Federal Marriage
Amendment. America's Catholic bishops and the National
Association of Evangelicals signed on two years later.
Significantly, the Goodrich decision quotes the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision striking down a Texas sodomy law: "Our
obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our
own moral code."
The arrogance of both courts is obnoxious. "Marriage is a
divinely ordained institution, not a social experiment to be
reinvented and redefined by a handful of unelected elites." That
statement is not by a religious leader, but of U.S. Rep. John
What's wrong with two homosexuals choosing to "love, honor and
cherish one another as long as life shall last?" Nothing.
Individuals have the right to live as they please. But two
percent of the population does not have the right to change the
definition of marriage itself.
In Massachusetts, marriage no longer legally joins a husband and
wife or bride and groom but "Party A" and "Party B." Soon
Massachusetts will no longer be able to speak of mothers and
fathers, but only "parents."
However, children do not simply need parents, but long to be
brought up by their own mother and father. Neither two lesbians
nor two gays can give a child the same opportunity for wholesome
growth as a mother and a father.
Marriage is "society's way to seeking to ensure that the people
whose sexual act creates the baby are committed to one another
and the baby," writes author Elizabeth Marquardt.
Goodridge argues "It is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the
marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children,
that is the sine qua non of civil marriage."
Nonsense. What percentage of gays make a "permanent commitment"
to one another? America's largest gay magazine, The Advocate,
studied 2,500 gay readers in 1995. It reported that of
average 38 year-old gays, only 2 percent had sex with just one
man, 57 percent had more than 30 male partners and 35 percent
had more than 100.
In the past year alone, over 60 percent had five or more
Could such people provide a stable home for children? Obviously
The sine qua non of marriage IS the begetting of children, and
to give these innocents a stable home.
Goodridge states, "If procreation were a necessary component of
civil marriage, our statutes would draw a tighter circle around
the permissible bounds of nonmarital childbearing." I agree.
Same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children. Yet
today a third of lesbians and a fifth of gays bring up children.
The Kinsey Institute reports that under 8 percent of homosexual
relationships last as long as four years.
Gays point to the erosion of heterosexual marriage by divorce,
and have a valid point. I regularly advocate legal and pastoral
reforms to reduce divorce, but today's crisis is gay marriage.
"The reality is this, once one state has legalized same-sex
'marriage' it's only a matter of time - I'm talking weeks, not
years - before the other 49 states will have their marriage laws
challenged as well," asserts Tony Perkins, President of the
Family Research Council.
Gays will fly to Provincetown, Mass. to "get married." Many will
then demand their home states recognize the "marriage." If
denied, they'll file law suits that are likely to end up in the
Supreme Court, which ruled that gays have a right to "seek
autonomy" such as "personal decisions relating to marriage."
Perkins is fighting for a Constitutional Amendment limiting
marriage to "the union of a man and a woman." If you agree, call
the local offices of your Congressman and Senator.
2019: Column 1965: Protecting Girls from Suicide
Eight Reasons To Marry
Ten Myths of Marriage
The Ministry of Marriage 911
The Message by Eugene Peterson
Green New Deal
Christian Persecution Rising Abroad
Gun Control Laws Needed
The Worst Valentine:
Pornography: A Public Health Hazard
Sextortion Kills Teens
Cohabitation: A Risky Business
same sex marriage,
abortion and infanticide,