Court's Eye for the Married Guy!

Now Religion in the News, a report and comment on religious trends and events being covered by the media. This week’s item is from World magazine, December 6, 2003, with the headline: “Court’s Eye for the Married Guy— When the Massachusetts Supreme Court on November 17 ruled in Goodrich vs the Department of Public Health, that the state constitution prohibits the state from stating that marriage is between a man and woman, Justice Margaret H. Marshal wrote for the majority: ‘For decades, indeed, centuries, in much of this country, including Massachusetts, no lawful marriage was possible between white and black Americans. In Goodrich, a statute deprives individuals of access to an institution of fundamental, legal, personal, and social significance—the institution of marriage—because of a single trait, sexual orientation, as it did in past race-based cases, history must yield to a more fully developed understanding of the invidious quality of the discrimination.’”

Tom: Let me see if I’m understanding this correctly, Dave. It seems that the bias toward gays is similar to the racial prejudice that preceded that historically. So, we’re in the same ballpark, according to this justice, Margaret H. Marshal.

Dave: Yeah. But of course, how they could imagine that is beyond me. One of them is a matter of the color of someone’s skin. The other one is a matter of sexual perversion, and I won’t apologize for that. To say, “Well, a white and a black man and woman were not allowed to marry,” that’s not right. The Bible does not propose such a prohibition. In fact, we have mixed marriages in the Bible, okay?

Tom: Well, Moses…

Dave: Right. He married an Ethiopian. But to say that that now is like, well, two men can’t get married, or two women can’t get married. Look, if they want—if two men want to live together and practice perverted sex—they were not created for this; they were not made for it; their bodies are not made for it, or two women who want to do the same—let them go ahead and do it. They don’t need a license for this. They’ve been doing this without a license. What they want is for the world to recognize this as some legal marriage on a par with marriage between man and woman, and it simply is not. They are forcing this upon the rest of us. They want us to acknowledge that what they are doing is okay.

Now, Tom, it’s very simple. They first of all are violating the very first commandment God gave, and that was “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” If everybody practiced this—I don’t know how you can have a “gay pride” parade and try to be proud of a practice that is unnatural, and which if everyone adopted it—and that is their goal, they take this into the schools, they take it everywhere—if everyone adopted this, it would be the end of the human race because they don’t produce children. How you could be proud of that, I don’t understand.

If they want to do this, let them do it. People have been doing this throughout history. Don’t force the rest of us to say, “This is marriage as between a man and woman,” because it simply is not!

Tom:  Dave, I think this is insane. We have our Justice—state Supreme Court here—condoning this thing, encouraging this thing. But we also have other people out there who are sort of going along with it. You know, we’ve talked about President Bush, and he’s done some very good things—there’s no doubt it. But he claims to be a Christian. Now, my understanding is look at any marriage ceremony—I’m talking about in a church somewhere—they say, “What God has joined together.” God has not joined anything like this together!

Yet President Bush writes to…well, first of all, he came out and he endorsed “Marriage Protection Week.” Well, yay! That’s great. On the other hand, he writes a letter of congratulations to the Metropolitan Community of Churches of Los Angeles, and its homosexual pastor, Troy D. Perry. Now this church performs nearly 6,000 same-sex weddings each year. So, what message is being delivered here?

Dave: Well, he congratulates them for getting the gospel out, I believe. Words to that effect.

Tom: Well, I can quote it: “By encouraging the celebration of faith and sharing God’s love and boundless mercy, churches like yours put hope in people’s hearts and a sense of purpose in their lives.

Dave: Tom, I wonder whether this was just a form letter that went out to churches around the country, or this was a mistake. Has anybody run that down? I don’t know. I would hesitate to criticize him. On the other hand, they ought to be more careful to whom they send these letters.

Tom: Well, again, it’s a significant event in the time of this church. It celebrates the 35^th anniversary of the church, so…. But you may be right—somebody’s not watching the store, as it were, but at the same time….

Dave: On the other hand, the homosexuals, they have a lot of clout. More clout than they deserve for the very small percentage. What is there? One percent, 2 percent, 3 percent at the most?

Tom: At the most.

Dave: But they do a lot of lobbying. They wield their small numbers to great effect. And unfortunately, we have a phrase, “politically correct.” What that says for politics is not good. And the politicians do cater to homosexuals. And that gives them that much more power. In other words, morality, truth, what the Bible stands for, and what this person who may be a professing Christian claims to stand for, as a Christian. That falls by the wayside in order to get votes. That is symptomatic of the day in which we live. And it is not good for society; it is not good for the church; it’s not good for the young people growing up. It is a deterioration of moral standards.