Safely here in Branson, and after a good night’s rest I’m launching into several meetings today. Thanks to those of you back home who are praying for the trip.
Couldn’t help but notice that President-Elect Obama is making waves with his choice of Rick Warren to participate at his inauguration, given Warren’s support of Proposition 8. Many homosexual organizations are outraged and seem to feel that Obama has betrayed them. You can read about it here: “Gay leaders furious with Obama.”
One annoying comment in the article was this one, by Evan Wolfson, founder of the pro-same sex “marriage” organization “Freedom to Marry”: “Rick Warren did a real disservice to gay families in California and across the country by casually supporting our continued exclusion from marriage.”
The fact is that a couple of people of the same sex are excluded by definition from something that is a relationship between a man and a woman. Mr. Warren is described in the same article as “compared the ‘redefiniton of a marrige’ to include gay marriage to legitimizing incest, child abuse, and polygamy.” And while outrage often follows such comparisons, those comparisons are exactly right. If the current definition of marriage is being thrown out as a supposed “human rights” issue, why is it just the sex part of the definition that should be ignored? Why not the number of people involved? Why not the ages of people involved? Why not their familial relation?
Sure, society is (currently) less willing to accept incest, statutory rape, and polygamy, but societal norms change. The fact that homomsexual “marriage” is being debated at all is a sign of this. Go back a few decades to more sensible times, and the concept would be still appropriately repulsive. How can we presume that such change will not occur to these other types of relationships?
I liken this to some extent to the attitudes of some pro-abortion activists. Most of them object to showing people of the results of abortions and discussing what abortion procedures actually do to the infant in the womb. But there was one abortionite I read who, in her column, chided her comrades. I don’t have her quotes, but she essentially said that if those like her who supported abortion were not willing to face pictures of the results of their choices and were not willing to be graphically upfront about what abortions do, then they were weakening their own cause and that they were losing the moral high ground they claimed to have. (Of course, “claimed to have” is important in that last sentence.
I believe the same is true with the “let’s redefine marriage” crowd. Unless they are willing to drop the shock and horror many seem to display when connections between their “movement” and the considerations of other unacceptible unions — polygamy, incest, etc. — then they cannot be taken seriously as people who really want to discuss an issue. Whether Politico’s quote marks around the words “redefinition of a marriage” in the quote above are legitimate quotes because the words are from Mr. Warren or whether they are “scare quotes” (as what I use when I write the words homosexual “marriage”), the fact remains that redefining marriage is exactly what these activists are trying to do. And at the very least they actively should offer a reason why their new definition of marriage is acceptible and why it won’t open the doors to the other definitions against whom they do not like to be compared.
Marriage was instituted at the creation of humanity — by humanity’s Creator — as a relationship between one man and one woman. The definition of “marriage” as given in the dictionaries and encyclopedias may change over time as society changes its sentiments, but let’s not pretend: it is an institution between a man and a woman, and those who are seeking to “marry” individuals of the same sex are seeking to ignore their Creator redefine that institution.