by Keith Bassham
By the time you are reading this, the state of New York will have become the sixth and largest state in the U.S. to provide for legal same-sex marriages. The legislative decision came June 24 when two Republican lawmakers in the New York senate gave their votes to the cause at the last minutes.
Writing for the ACLU LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) Project, James Esseks said, “New York is a huge step forward that accelerates important trends. New York isn’t just the sixth marriage state, it more than doubles the number of people living amidst the freedom to marry.” (Note, this is not true, of course. When people say things like “Gays do not have the right to marry,” what they mean is that men cannot marry men, and women cannot marry women. They could marry, within the bounds of the laws of their respective states, but they could not marry someone of their own sex, nor someone under age, nor more than one person. There are several limitations on marriage, and I’m certain an advocate could be found to eliminate any of them.)
Elsewhere, we learn that because President Obama’s view of marriage is “evolving,” the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is now being examined by the Federal government complete with Senate hearings helped along by a determination by the Attorney General that at least part of DOMA may be unconstitutional. DOMA, as you may recall, was a measure promoted under then President Bill Clinton by lawmakers anxious to prevent a call for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a uniquely one-man-one-woman relationship. It was supposed to “protect” traditional marriage. Several states, not content to rely upon acts of Congress, have passed their own protective measures in the form of constitutional amendments, but under the current administration’s “evolving” position, those safeguards could soon be under attack.
Roughly one year ago, a federal judge in California overturned a ballot measure from 2008 supporting the traditional marriage definition (the text of the proposition was “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”), but the initiative remains in effect pending appeal. So marriage is still marriage in California and in 33 other states.
Where are we then politically? Well, the chief executive is evolving (which means he is waiting until it is safe politically to announce his true position), a safety valve piece of legislation is coming loose, a large state’s legislature has redefined marriage and at the same time effectively doubled the number of Americans eligible to take advantage of this new thing they insist is to be called marriage.
And where are we socially and religiously? I have written on this subject in previous issues, and I invite a review of what we know. The rest of this article is largely taken from what I wrote several years ago under the title, “When in Rome.”
Though homosexuality apologists deny there is any homosexual agenda, there is one. In their 1989 pro-gay book, After the Ball, Marshall K. Kirk and Hunter Madsen wrote, “The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior.” These same-sex marriage declarations are important to the homosexual community because what they are after is not merely tolerance but broad acceptance, and as long as this legal marriage barrier stands, homosexuality will not be regarded as normal.
But what if the activists are after more? Suppose they skillfully take the ball down the field, and the states capitulate one by one. And what if a majority eventually takes the view (as some already have) that one-man-one-woman marriage is just an archaic societal and temporal convenience, and that it is time for a redefinition of marriage. Will their goal have been reached? Or do they wish to take us all the way back to something resembling a pre-Christian Rome where vastly outnumbered Christians attempting to live chaste and godly lives were considered strange?
In 1972, at the National Coalition of Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago, delegates published a “Gay Rights Platform.” Among their goals for transforming society at the federal and state levels, they asked for “the repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent,” as well as the “repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.” Current activists like to brand this document as obscure and meaningless, but the meaning is clear.
Today, we are being asked as Christians to assent to the pagan view of “anything goes,” and much of Christendom has agreed to do just that. In a recently published study, The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reported in the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, 56 percent of those from mainline denominational churches agreed with a statement that said, “Homosexuality is a way of life that should be accepted by society.” Only 34 percent said homosexuality should be discouraged. The number of evangelicals agreeing with acceptance was smaller (26 percent), but considerable.
Some in confessing Christendom go quite a bit further. In early July, the Presbyterian Church (USA) voted to open ordination to partnered homosexuals. And we all know how the traditional barriers with regard to sexuality have come down one after another in several mainline denominations.
But we are Bible-believing Baptists, and we continue to affirm the biblical teaching reflected in our own Articles of Faith:
“Since God created mankind into genders distinctly male and female, we believe that the only legitimate marriage is that between a man and a woman. He has commanded that no intimate sexual activity be engaged in outside of marriage. We believe that any form of homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, bestiality, incest, fornication, adultery and pornography are sinful perversions of God’s gift of sex.”
Whether it is a matter of gradual accommodation or a lack of will against cultural pressure, those who Jesus calls salt and light appear to be blending in, making life choices similar to those of their fellow citizens. Christianity, to have its effect, must provide a contrast, and that means we should be prepared to be considered just as offensive as were our counterparts in ancient Rome. We must get our own house in order, and go against the present immorality.
According to Baylor sociologist Rodney Stark, when Christianity came to Rome, these people devoted to Jesus stood in contrast with their neighbors. While among the Romans there were few sexual taboos, Christians went against the culture and, Stark says, “condemned divorce, incest, marital infidelity, and polygamy.”
While pagans married their daughters off in their early teens, Christians waited until later. When Roman officials forced their wives to undergo abortions (which often resulted in the wife’s death) and to commit infanticide, the Christians did not. The practice of adultery, homosexuality, and polygamy, common (though not always so public) among the denizens of Rome, were thoroughly condemned in the Christian community.
The Christians stood out against their pagan environment, and in the fourth century, when Constantine was emperor, he caused Rome to adopt a view of marriage and sexuality that was more in line with the Christian view. That view, known these days as traditional marriage (ideally, one man, one woman, one lifetime), dominated the culture of the West these past 1,600 years.
In a sermon on Jonah I once said, “We sometimes have to be against the world to be for the world.” What I mean by that is a little like what a surgeon does — attacking the human body with a scalpel or laser, inflicting temporary damage to provide for longer term overall health. Nations who overthrow God and refuse to acknowledge Him as Creator and Sovereign do not last. Marriage — one man, one woman — bound as it is in the teachings of Genesis and the Creation story, is a keystone of that acknowledgment. When a society abandons that keystone, the road leads only downward. That is history.
What then can we do? Regardless of redefinition, we model marriage as God intended. In fact, we reject not only the free and easy sexuality of our times, but we reject the manipulation, the consumerism, the materialism, the dishonesty, and entertainment values as well. There is more than homosexuality going on in the first chapter to the Romans — I count a couple dozen sinful behaviors as well. We are to reject them all.
Besides modeling, there is also room for political action on the part of individual Christians. When the referendums on marriage come to our localities, stand up for traditional marriage. Pay attention to the courts and judges, and the elected officials who appoint and approve them. States that have legalized same-sex marriage have not done so by the vote of the people, but by mere one-vote majorities in the state courts or through coercive manipulation and pressure as was the case in New York. To date, no popular referendum has approved same-sex marriage, and the activists know it will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve their goals by a vote of the people. So it is inevitable they will continue to use the courts and smaller legislatures where they can use political force.
More than anything else, remember that change (to borrow a word) is what we are all after. The homosexual activists want change to ensure acceptance. We wish to change prevailing attitudes toward morality. And though the activists have a game plan that includes using courts and legislators (when possible), we know that politics and politicians are not the all-powerful saviors they sometimes seem. Our battles will be won more in the neighborhoods, in the workplace, in the schools, in the media, and in society — the places where we may shine as lights in the world. As Christians live godly lives and give strong witness to the resurrected Lord who empowers them, change comes, one heart at a time.