by Nathan A. Cherry, 08/13/2012
I’ve been saying for a while now that if the government tries to redefine marriage for homosexuals that it absolutely will have to redefine it again for polygamists, polyamorists, pedophiles, and who knows what other “alternative lifestyle” people conjure up. If the government redefines marriage once, but refuses to redefine it for these groups it will be guilty of the same discrimination it now accuses traditional marriage supporters of harboring. So ten years ago when people like Supreme Court Justice Scalia predicted this would happen in his dissent of the Lawrence V. Texas case, he was right.
Just as homosexual couples came “out of the closet” to demand their rights we are now seeing polygamy, polyamory, and even pedophile groups edge closer to public view and start voicing support for their lifestyle. One such supporter recently wrote:
“If someone wants two or more spouses or lovers and no one personally involved objects, why should it be anyone else’s business, especially the government’s? The law has no more business being an uninvited guest in the bedroom of consenting adults than you do.”
I agree. The government doesn’t have any business defining marriage. As I told a group of middle and high school students last week, “Since God created and defined marriage only God can redefine it…and He ain’t doing it.” But the truth is clear that it is not the government’s job to define marriage, but rather to protect the definition of marriage as it was created and intended. That argument falls on many death (liberal, atheist, agnostic) ears, but it remains nonetheless the truth.
The Bishop of Aberdeen summed it up aptly when he recently said:
“You can’t have a meal without food, and you don’t have marriage without a man and a woman. This isn’t just social convention. It’s not something any government can change…The truth is that a government can pass any legislation it likes, it can legislate to say that everything with four legs is a table, even when it’s a dog and not a horse, but that won’t make it so.”
Just because the government thinks it can redefine marriage doesn’t mean it actually can. The true, literal definition of marriage can only be conveyed to one woman, one man, for one lifetime. The problem is that the government now believes it knows better than the Creator what defines marriage and what is best for raising children. So to get around the Creator’s definition the government has decided to remove God from the public sector while simultaneously denying He exists; thereby, in their minds, paving the way for their hostile take-over of marriage.
But America would be foolish to ignore the lessons of history on the subject of marriage. As many in our society try to convince us that marriage is for no other purpose than tax-breaks and government benefits, they equally press us to accept the belief that sex is a fundamental right intended solely for pleasure. This line of thinking leads directly to the moral decay of a society bent on sexual gratification and pleasure; the same moral decay that destroyed the once great Roman civilization.
If marriage is not defended as the sacred union of one man and one woman for the purpose of reflecting the holy Creator while rearing children to do the same it is meaningless. Once it is meaningless it becomes so pliable that any definition can be added to the growing list of those seeking shelter under the umbrella of the term.
Those of us that continue to sound the alarm that arguments used by homosexuals to demand marriage redefinition will be used my polygamists and other groups get ridiculed. Yet one prominent law professor currently representing a polygamous family agrees. Jonathan Turley is saying:
“…the very court rulings that paved the way for same-sex ‘marriage’ also pave the way for polygamy. And this, it turns out, is exactly what Justice Antonin Scalia predicted in 2003 in his withering dissent of Lawrence v. Texas, where 6 Supreme Court justices found a constitutional ‘right’ to Sodomy. Scalia warned that with the court’s ruling, ‘State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest . . . are … called into question by today’s decision.’”
The bottom line is simple, if the government redefines marriage once for one group, it will be forced to redefine it again for other groups or be accused of the same discrimination it now accuses traditional marriage supporters of harboring. There is no way around this concrete conclusion. So, the only way to avoid a spiral downward into moral decay that will ultimately bring our society down is to preserve the only true definition of marriage.
The alternative is a word with no meaning and a society with no marriages at all. How is that helpful?
Help Protect the Family Now! Please click here to give through our secure online server
About Nathan Cherry
Nathan Cherry is the chief editor and blogger for the Engage Family Minute blog, the official blog of the FPCWV. He serves also as the Regional Development Coordinator as a liaison to the pastor's of West Virginia. He is a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-religious freedom conservative. He is also a husband, father, pastor, author, musician, and follower of Jesus Christ.