Defining marriage as between man, woman
February 17, 2004
The legislative action of the U.S Supreme Court in 2003 banning anti-sodomy laws in Texas has served as the wide and slippery slope toward denigrating traditional marriage between one man and one woman. It has spurred the debate for legal, same-sex marriages. It is this type of judicial legislative action that we must make sure does not happen in Missouri.
Traditional marriage between a man and a woman must be protected for the proliferation of our generations. Only a man and a woman, united, can create life. This social and biological construct is essential for further life to continue. We must have a compelling interest in preserving life. A same-sex relationship cannot produce or bear children.
Homosexuality is a lifestyle that is not natural or genetically inherited. It is a decision, a choice. This lifestyle should not be illustrated to our children as natural. It is not an inherited gene, but a distinct choice of how to live a lifestyle. Just as some choose polygamy, or choose to smoke, thus people choose to live life as a homosexual.
The homosexual lifestyle is based on a behavior choice that endangers family, children, and the core of society. The attempt to push this decadent lifestyle into mainstream society and to brand those who oppose it as "homophobic" is simply wrong. The suffix, "phobic" implies, by nature, a fear. There is no fear; opponents simply oppose the homosexual lifestyle as the norm and refuse to accept that such a lifestyle is good for society.
The issue of same-sex “marriage” is not some sideline debate. It is the marriage debate. Either we win–or we lose the central meaning of marriage. The great threat unisex “marriage” poses to traditional marriage as a social institution is not some distant or nearby slippery slope, it is an abyss at our feet. If we cannot explain why unisex “marriage” is, in itself, wrong, we have already lost the marriage ideal.
Same-sex “marriage” would establish in law a public judgment that the desire of adults for families of choice outweighs the need of children for mothers and fathers. Homosexual “marriage” gives approval to the creation of a motherless or fatherless family as a deliberately chosen "good." It would mean the law was neutral as to whether children had mothers and fathers. Motherless and fatherless families would be deemed just fine.
Same-sex “marriage” advocates are startlingly clear on this point. The Vermont Supreme Court struck down many legal features designed to reinforce the connection of marriage to children. Simply put, the judges stated children in our culture don’t need marriage. That is part of the problem we face, part of the reason 40 percent of our children are growing up without their fathers.
It is also true, as gay-marriage advocates note, that we impose no fertility tests for any marriage: Infertile and older couples marry, and not every fertile couple chooses procreation. But every marriage between a man and a woman is capable of giving any child they create — or adopt — a mother and a father. Marriage between a man and a woman discourages either from creating fatherless children outside the marriage vow. In this sense, neither older married couples nor childless husbands and wives dilute the core meaning of marriage. Even when a man marries an older woman and they do not adopt, his marriage helps protect children. How? His marriage means, if he keeps his vows, that he will not produce out-of-wedlock children.
Redefining marriage so that it suits homosexuals would require fundamentally endangering our cultures legal, historical, and social conception of what marriage and family should be. Marriage is designed to unite male and female and sustain the idea that children need mothers and fathers.
Because of their predominant promiscuous lifestyle, marriage is unsuited to the desires of many homosexuals. In the end, no good research on the “marriage” intentions of homosexual people exists. (In a recent network survey only 15 percent of homosexuals said they would marry. For what it’s worth, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that 0.5 percent of households now consist of same-sex partners. What about corporate policy and benefits? General Motors reports that out of 1.3 million employees, 166 claimed benefits for a same-sex partner, only .01 percent.
People who argue for creating homosexual “marriage” do so in the name of high ideals: justice, compassion, fairness. Their sincerity is not in question. Nevertheless, to take the already troubled institution most responsible for the protection of children and throw out its most basic presumption in order to further adult interests in sexual freedom would not be high-minded. It would be biblically wrong, morally callous, and socially irresponsible.
Our final call is to recognize the ultimate definition of marriage found in Scripture. It is a specific relationship created by God and supported throughout His Word (Gen. 1-3; Rom. 1). God’s Word specifically addresses the issues of same-sex unions and opposes homosexual relationships. We are called to share God’s Word with homosexuals and shine our light before them in love, but we must also be “salt” in this debate for family values. (State Rep. Brian L. Baker, R-Belton, represents the 123rd District and is a member of First Baptist Church, Belton.)