Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of marriage — monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence — the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
—Ryan Anderson—
Key points: If lying is wrong (and it is), then endorsing a lie is worse, and endorsing an obvious lie is even more terrible. Same-sex marriage is, among other things, a lie; because marriage is, inherently and in a generous number of self-evident ways, a union made up of one man and one woman. Thus, if we’re talking about two men or two women, it is impossible for their relationship to be a marriage — ever, under any circumstances, regardless of what society says, and regardless of what the state declares. Congress will make a big mistake if it puts its stamp of approval on same-sex “marriage” through federal law. Now is the time to call your US Senators and to tell them to keep that from happening.
Over the last several decades, Americans have been duped into adopting a perspective on marriage that assumes the state has absolute authority over marriage and the family and that government can manipulate the definitions of marriage and family, making them whatever it desires to make them.
Consider this portion of an earlier Word Foundations article about marriage. The brief excerpt from the article asserts persuasively 1) that marriage is a one-man-one-woman relationship and that it can’t be anything else; and it shows 2) some of the ways Americans’ thinking about marriage has been manipulated to tilt favorably in the direction of the belief that two men or two women can have a marriage between them, as long as the state recognizes their relationship as a marriage and calls it that.
As we will see, however, manipulative games cannot make a relationship between members of the same sex a marriage. Why? Because marriage is what it is because of the differences between men and women generally. More specifically, a particular marriage is what it is because of the differences between the man and the woman who are the two parties in their particular marriage. Marriage is and must be a heterosexual union, by definition. To say that two men or two women can marry is like saying a square triangle can exist, or a calm F-5 tornado.
Let me illustrate what I am saying this way. Suppose the Supreme Court said that no state can prohibit an individual from exercising his or her “right” to fly out of a nineteenth-story window in a high-rise building; or suppose Congress passed a law stating the same. Would a person seeking to exercise his or her “right” to fly out of such a window survive the attempt? No, because what gravity is would overrule the arbitrary court ruling or law and pull the individual straight down to his or her death. On their own power, people cannot fly, and gravity pulls them down. It’s that simple.
To say that two men or two women can marry is like saying a square triangle can exist, or a calm F-5 tornado.
Marriage Is What It Is, Not What the Left or Government Claims
Now, with regard to marriage, homosexual activists have engaged in a massive public relations campaign and made the case that same-sex couples have been unfairly denied marriage. To accept this idea as true, one has to accept a definition of marriage that grants the state absolute authority over it. Such a definition is utterly false. The state has no such authority. Marriage predates government, including the US government and the government of every state in the union. Marriage is what it is and what it has been through the centuries innately. The “Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage” puts it this way.
Marriage is ontologically between one man and one woman, ordered toward the union of the spouses, open to children and formative of family. Family is the first vital cell of society, the first government, and the first mediating institution of our social order. The future of a free and healthy society passes through marriage and the family.
Marriage as existing solely between one man and one woman precedes civil government. Though affirmed, fulfilled, and elevated by faith, the truth that marriage can exist only between one man and one woman is not based on religion or revelation alone, but on the Natural Law, written on the human heart and discernible through the exercise of reason. It is part of the natural created order.
Christian statesman Charles Colson made the point both powerfully and succinctly: “The argument [of the homosexual activists], you see, is that to deny homosexuals marriage is manifestly unfair. But it’s not unfair. Gays and lesbians are not unworthy of marriage; they are incapable of marriage.”
Gays and lesbians are not unworthy of marriage; they are incapable of marriage.
—Chuck Colson—
Evidence that Marriage Is a Heterosexual Union
In 2017, I wrote a series of articles titled “Myths that Led to the Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage in the United States.” A printable summary of the series is available here. One of the myths we explored is the idea that “Homosexuality is on par with heterosexuality.” Among other things, we did a deep dive to examine realities that make marriage an exclusively heterosexual union. We said that in spite of the overwhelming success of activists’ public relations campaign to advance the idea of same-sex “marriage,” such a concept cannot be a reality:
Stark differences between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual one remain, and these are realities that cannot be altered. Let’s take a hard, long look at some of the clear reasons marriage must be a heterosexual union.
First, the bodies of a husband and wife fit together. This fitting is clear to us “in the outlines of the genitalia of a male and a female. This is a fitting that obviously is not present with two men or two women. Moreover, sexual intercourse involves precisely one man and one woman. The human bodies of the man and the woman therefore point to monogamy and sexual exclusivity—and those of same sex couples point to abstinence from sexual activity altogether.”
Second, only a heterosexual union can produce children. But wait! someone will say. Some heterosexual couples are childless. First, exceptions do not negate the rule, and second, childless heterosexual couples are not the same aschildless same-sex couples. If a heterosexual couple cannot produce a child, there is a reason other than the fact that their relationship involves a member of each of the two sexes. We know without doubt why two men never will become parents on their own, and why two women will forever remain childless between themselves: Same-sex couples have an innate inability to produce children.
Third, the bodies of a husband and wife work together during sexual intercourse to enhance the probability that the wife’s egg will be fertilized by her husband’s sperm.
Fourth, when a baby arrives, the tiny boy or girl “is totally helpless. She needs nourishment on a regular basis. He needs to have his diapers changed—repeatedly. We are truly deaf and blind in the most extreme sense if we fail to see that nature’s way of bringing a new human life into the world also makes a clear and bold statement about who should have the primary responsibility to care for newborns when they arrive.” The husband and father, who is physically stronger, is better equipped to protect and provide for his wife and the children that result from their union. The wife and mother is better equipped to nurture and care for her children. This does not mean a woman never can have a career outside the home, but let’s listen to what nature says in and through a woman’s body about meeting infants’ physical needs. She and she alone can produce milk that nourishes her children. While it’s true that some women can’t produce enough milk and that some prefer to bottle-feed rather than breastfeed (the couple’s choice), this does not negate at all the natural ability that women have to feed their newborns. Alarmingly, recently a biological man made national headlines because hormone therapy had made it possible for him to breastfeed—but at significant risk to his baby. Mark it down! It is undeniable that he was not “born that way”!
Fifth, because of the innate differences (also go here and here) between men and women, heterosexual couples experience a relational mystery that is non-existent among same-sex couples. While homosexuals often do experience a sense of mystery with regard to their own sex or gender, the mystery of which I write here is focused on the opposite sex; and consequently, in a heterosexual relationship, on the other person. When a couple approaches this relational dynamic properly, it serves to enhance their relationship and cement their bond. [Consider: the mystery inherent in a man-woman relationship is natural, because neither the man nor the woman has an experiential understanding of what being a member of the opposite sex would be like. The mystery in a homosexual relationship arises because, for a variety of reasons, neither party in the relationship has arrived at a place of confidence regarding his or her own identity as a male or a female. Thus, he or or she is looking to the same-sex partner for answers to the mystery he or she is experiencing. With all the gender confusion out there, is it any wonder that homosexual relationships have increased in number?]
Sixth, male-female differences can be seen in parenting styles. Children need both the strong influence of a father and the encouraging, nurturing touch of a mother.
Seventh, natural reproduction “isn’t just about caring for babies and children so they will grow up to become responsible individuals; it’s also about maintaining a healthy society for years to come. The future of the human race depends on reproducing it so those dying out can be replaced. This can occur only with heterosexual couples. As Charles Colson put it, ‘The survival of the human race depends upon marriage as the institution by which we procreate and perpetuate civilization.’”1
Eighth, majority opinion in the Obergefell has a strong emphasis on autonomy that stands in opposition to the selflessness and sacrifice necessary in a real marriage. Here are two examples. The ruling states, “Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.” The decision also says, “The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs.” Again, the ruling’s emphasis on autonomy (and here we’ve cited just two examples) stands in stark contrast to the interdependency that is inherent, and inherently necessary, in a marriage, where the goal is for the two to become one. I realize that with regard to same-sex couples, we are speaking of “committed relationships.” So why is it that the ruling has to underscore individual autonomy so much? If it didn’t, it couldn’t justify making same-sex relationships eligible for marriage. Yet in doing so, the ruling contradicts one of the core principles of marriage!
Ninth, homosexuality is associated with increased risks to one’s psychological health (also go here and here). Although researchers may speculate that the cause of these risks is discrimination against gays and lesbians, this trend is evident even in the most gay-friendly places.
Tenth and finally, homosexuality is associated with increased risks to one’s physical health. Heterosexual intercourse, obviously, is not the same as homosexual intercourse. Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family puts it politely—but you readily can understand what he means.
One of the key reasons for the significant risk of disease and physical trauma associated with homosexuality is due to the design of human anatomy and how this anatomy is misused during homosexual sex. The bodies of two individuals who are of the same sex are not designed to be united sexually. Homosexual activity misuses parts of the body that produce no natural secretions to protect against infection and that are designed to carry out other bodily functions.
By contrast, body parts that unite in exclusive, marital, heterosexual sex were created for that activity by God. God also designed the human body so that it protects itself against abrasion and infection, and thus disease, naturally. Sexual fidelity between a husband and wife also keeps infection and disease at bay. In other words, a woman and a man were created by God for sexual union in marriage; the bodies of a husband and wife fit together.2
We therefore are back to item #1.
Another writer, Dr. Paul Cameron, doesn’t describe the situation as politely as does Mr. Stanton. Yet, we need their descriptions, because they help us more readily understand why homosexuality puts health and even life expectancies at risk.
While here we have not up to this point emphasized the biblical and theological reasons homosexuality is harmful and wrong, this perspective also is important. Go here to read an excellent article that cites biblical teachings on this matter.
Congress May Authorize Same-Sex Marriage Legislatively; Tell Your Senators to Keep that from Happening
Despite these hard and fast realities, Congress appears poised to write same-sex marriage into federal law. Do not be misled. There could be no stronger of affirmation of homosexuality by a nation than to uphold same-sex “marriage” legislatively, requiring states to permit it and to recognize it legally. This is the ultimate endorsement of homosexuality. As we noted in a recent article, family expert and advocate Dr. James Dobson has warned,
In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) reiterated that marriage consisted of one man and one woman. The bipartisan legislation was passed overwhelmingly by both the House and the Senate. Congress was echoing the will of the American people. Thirty-one states, conservative and liberal, had already voted to reaffirm that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
Fast forward to today. Recently, all 220 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives along with 47 Republicans voted to repeal DOMA in support of codifying same-sex marriage into federal law (H.R. 8404).
Even as I write this, it is uncertain as to whether or not enough Republican senators will stand against the Left’s radical LGBTQ agenda to thwart the Senate’s version of this perverted bill.
A vote in the US Senate on this legislation could take place as early as Monday, September `19 — but it may not come at all until after the midterm elections in November. Either way, your Senators need to hear from you on this issue. Family Research Council’s Director of Federal Affairs for Family and Religious Liberty Mary Beth Waddell writes,
Some Democrats and liberal Republicans in the U.S. Senate are working on a “religious liberty” amendment to the marriage redefinition bill. But this amendment can’t truly fix the underlying problem: Enshrining the redefinition of marriage in law harms children, denies reality, and super-charges attacks on Americans who continue to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Your senators are under a lot of pressure and need to hear from you about the harms of this bill!
Authorizing Same-Sex Marriage Means Declaring War on Christianity
Mary Beth Waddell’s warning aligns with our observation that the main problem with the bill is that it would put a stamp of approval on a lie. Mark it down. Other very ominous problems certainly would arise from that approval. How can anyone keep a straight face and, on the one hand, vote to make same-sex marriage the law of the land, and, on the other, defend Christians’ right to decline to participate in a same-sex wedding by politely refusing a business opportunity to provide flowers, bake a cake, or provide a venue for such a celebration? Republicans are foolish to believe that their God-fearing constituents will continue to support them regardless of whether or not they vote to enshrine same-sex marriage into federal law.
Republicans are foolish to believe that their God-fearing constituents will continue to support them regardless of whether or not they vote to enshrine same-sex marriage into federal law.
Contact your US Senators today and politely insist that they do everything in their power to make sure that US federal law does not recognize or authorize these unions.
Do it for the sake of liberty, for the sake of the member of future generations, and for the sake of America’s future.
Copyright © 2022 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.
Be First to Comment