Bluefield Daily Telegraph
The Supreme Court has taken on the task of determining whether or not marriage should be “redefined,” so that same-sex couples have the right to marry. Some Christians might wonder what all the fuss is about, thinking: “This doesn’t affect me, and after all, isn’t the Supreme Court simply being asked to, ‘end the discrimination’ against gays and lesbians by the government?” In considering this possibility, four key points must be understood.
First and foremost is the fact that governments have never, “defined,” marriage. God did that in the book of Genesis. He reiterated His definition in the fifth of the Ten Commandments. Jesus also affirmed God’s definition of marriage in Matthew 19:4-6, when He said: “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?”
Secondly, except in countries practicing strict sharia law, governments are not in the business of, “discriminating” against gay and lesbian couples, either. Co-habiting gay and lesbian couples have not suffered any reprisal at the hands of government, as cohabiting heterosexual couples have not suffered reprisal for their lifestyle choice. Only married heterosexual couples suffer higher tax burdens by the government.
This brings us to point number three. Whenever the Supreme Court redefines marriage, it is opening the door to other supposed, “minorities.” This means polygamists and every other perversion of God’s plan will demand and receive the same, “equal right,” to marry. Allowing for a “redefinition of marriage,” that favors one group, without allowing the same, “equal privileges,” to any other group claiming minority status based upon sexual preference, would also have to be declared unconstitutional.
This takes us to point four, and the real crux of the matter. The divine mandate of marriage is for the procreation of the species. Marriage places upon a husband and wife the responsibility of raising children in the protective confines of a stable home and family. States that have declared same-sex “civil unions” lawful have left those state court systems in a burdensome legal conundrum. Whenever these unions end up in divorce, it means that not only the biological parents of the children produced, along with the same-sexed significant others of the now divorcing couple, have the same parental rights and privileges as the biological parents. That means now four (instead of two) individuals have the same parental rights and privileges concerning how the time and financial interests of those children are to be divided.
Nevertheless, it will be in the government’s best interest to, “redefine,” marriage and family. Here is why: when the terrible consequences of ever more convoluted forms of, “family,” begin to create havoc with the legal system, the courts will have a steady flow of cases that will backlog every legitimate claim to parental custody rights. Eventually the government will determine that every type of living arrangement must be recognized as a, “family,” eventually leading the government to opt out of recognizing any institutional form of either. Then the government will have full authority to determine how all children are to be parented and what living arrangement is best suited for every child.
Key point number four is the real reason the Supreme Court will be all too happy to intervene in this process. It ends by getting the government out of protecting any parental rights. Thus, the government will be enabled to become the, “Big Brother,” that most Americans have always (rightly) feared. This is not an issue of equality, it is ultimately an issue of parental rights that will be lost forever. That is why this issue is of paramount importance to every one of us. God is the One who defined marriage and family, and He did so for the ultimate protection of children. He did this, because God knows parents are the best protectors of their own offspring, not governments.
Dr. Dan R. Jividen