Amendment to state constitution to protect marriage is needed now
Don HinklePathway Editor
March 2, 2004
“God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”
Pro-family groups have so frequently and effectively used this statement in their quest to protect the meaning of traditional marriage to the point where I am not sure whether it has become a cliché or a battle cry. For sure it has become a point of irritation to homosexual activists as the debate over same-sex unions has moved to the front line of the culture war. Why? Because of the powerful theological truth it imparts in such simplistic fashion. It is both salt and light, casting the clarity of objective truth of an omniscient God upon the murky, subjective quicksand of postmodern tolerance that has allowed homosexuals – reinforced by activist judges more interested in rewriting than interpreting the U.S. Constitution – to increasingly impose their lifestyle on society.
“God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve,” acknowledges God as Creator of the universe and we are His creatures. But it also points to the fact that God created us as men and women. Why? To be procreative in the institution He has ordained for such activity: marriage. Two people of the same sex are not included in such an arrangement for obvious reasons, thus God has ordained that marriage will only consist of a man and a woman.
Yet Missourians – and Americans – find themselves at a moral crossroads over whether to allow two humans of the same sex to enter into the marriage arrangement established by God. If we do we will for the second time in a generation (legalizing abortions was the first) have elevated ourselves over our Creator. To do so will usher in a new epoch in which the definition of marriage and the basic foundation of civilization – the family – will ultimately be destroyed. Homosexual “marriage” is an apple best left on the tree.
Now is the time for believers in the Lord Jesus Christ to unite in prayer for God to bestow His wisdom and reveal His truth on this critical issue to the Missouri General Assembly. For in coming weeks, perhaps in mere days, our lawmakers will stand before The Great Lawgiver and make one of the most important decisions in the history of this state. It is with hope and yes, even expectation at The Pathway, that they will soon approve a measure giving Missourians the opportunity to vote Nov. 2 to amend the state’s constitution so homosexual “marriage” will never be allowed here, restricting it to between one man and one woman. We certainly urge them to do so. Missourians, and particularly the 650,000 who profess to be Southern Baptists, should be thankful that God has given us men and women to rule over us who, at least on this vital issue, govern with Solomonic understanding.
Whether they realize it or not, by approving an amendment to the constitution for this purpose will bring honor to the Deity from whom they derive their authority. Many of them, courtesy of two Missouri Baptist churches, were provided tickets to a special preview of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” Feb. 23 in Jefferson City. Some, no doubt, still recall the poignant exchange between Pontius Pilate and the Son of God as documented in John 19:11, “Jesus answered, ‘You (Pilate) could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above.’” Pilate, like all government authorities, received his power from God alone. Kings, presidents, potentates and even Supreme Judicial Courts of states like Massachusetts do not operate independent of the sovereign power of God. Thus when those in authority mock God, payday will come someday (Eccl. 12:14). Conversely, when they obey God, expect showers of blessings (Ps. 33:12).
One example of how Missouri lawmakers have acted with distinction as the debate over a state constitutional amendment has intensified occurred Feb. 24. That is when Sen. Ken Jacob, a Columbia Democrat and minority leader in the Senate, offered an amendment to a Senate resolution (ultimately approved) calling for the constitutional amendment. His amendment would have also prohibited the state from recognizing same-sex civil unions enacted by other states. For example, in 2000 Vermont approved same-sex unions, granting many of the rights and benefits of marriage to homosexual couples.
Some conservatives in the news media, including myself, saw this as an attempt to strengthen the Senate resolution and ultimately the constitutional amendment. Jacob pointed out that if the Missouri constitutional amendment were approved, homosexual couples married in Massachusetts – or any other state — would not be recognized in Missouri. However, he argued, the state would be forced to recognize same-sex unions like those granted in Vermont unless the constitution forbade such recognition.
Including language that seems to protect the state from having to recognize same-sex unions made perfect sense to me. The idea of same-sex unions has always troubled me because it sounds like a nice compromise in a battle that is, quite frankly, to the death (in other words there will be no compromise, one view will prevail). “Same-sex unions” is the quintessential postmodern term because it ultimately changes the definition of marriage through the manipulation of language. A key tenet of postmodern thought (not all of which is necessarily evil) is that truth is relative and that people create their own truth through “stories” or language. Such thinking is straight from the mind of Satan. I must admit, however, that my concern in this case was misplaced.
While it seemed like a good move on the surface, many senators, including the Republican leadership favoring the constitutional amendment, identified Jacobs’ move as something else: an attempt to load the amendment with confusing language that could put its ratification and perhaps legal standing in jeopardy.
Most of our state senators realized there is nothing in Missouri law about same-sex unions. Consequently, if such a couple came to Missouri seeking the same benefits as married heterosexuals, they would have no standing in Missouri and would be referred back to the originating state. To add same-sex unions into Missouri’s governing document would have potentially made it a target for state courts. Jacobs’ amendment was defeated 26-7, thus averting a potential disaster.
Missourians must realize that a state constitutional amendment will only protect the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman in state courts. It will not protect the state from activist federal court judges, including the U.S. Supreme Court. That is why the quest to amend the U.S. Constitution is so vital.
Public opinion polls suggest Missourians will approve an amendment to the state constitution to protect the traditional definition of marriage by a substantial margin. The Almighty is sure to look upon it with favor as well. After all, it is He who created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
March 4, 2004