Subscription Lists
Point of Reference
by Fred Price
The “defense of marriage” debate is an ongoing one in my home state of Indiana, as well as many other states across the country; with a number of people questioning why a constitutional amendment is needed when a state law already stipulates that marriage is properly defined as the joining of one man to one woman. A secondary concern being the probability of a Supreme Court ruling on this issue in the near future, possibly negating decisions made at the state level beforehand.
At the center of this debate are challenges to the traditional view of marriage in two fundamental areas, fairness and civil rights. One argument against the time-tested standard of marriage – which has never proven itself to be perfect but has shown itself as the best chance for stability in families, communities, states and countries – being based on the assumption that reserving marriage to a man and a woman is somehow unfair and even discriminatory.1
A counterpoint to that assertion being that any entity whose success is dependent on at least a modicum of order must establish standards, laws that benefit the greatest number of people by defining the parameters of acceptable and unacceptable behavior, certainly with consideration and safeguards for minority views; the application of these standards always found irksome by some who promptly brand them unfair. (The recent bans on public smoking being a case in point, considered a minor issue by some but for others a very big deal indeed – not to mention immigration laws etc, etc.)
For instance, state mandated standards for driver’s licenses are a must, but one questioned and deemed unfair by the still too young to drive enthusiast, the elderly who can still get by – for the most part – and the not really drunk but buzzed driver. Another recent hot-button issue being the election laws that stipulate who can vote and where their ballots must be cast, as well as mandating that those running for office must actually reside in the area they seek to represent. The results being that some were denied the opportunity to run for office, one individual stripped of the office he had already won, another found qualified to run even though he owned a home in Indiana and elsewhere – the debate being where his permanent address actually was. Not everyone agreed with the outcome of these challenges – they were “unfair” – some believing the better qualified individual was left out of the process simply because of where they did – or didn’t – live; which was “discriminatory.” Even as those laws are in place to protect people from being represented by those who don’t know or care about them but are merely seeking fame and fortune through political influence.
The truth being, marriage is not a universal entitlement open to anyone who has an emotional attachment to someone else. Like most other states I’m aware of, Indiana doesn’t allow brothers and sisters to marry nor underage individuals – although what constitutes underage may vary a bit from state to state – no matter how sincere their feelings may be. (For good medical, scientific and psychological reasons.) In fact, an older partner (usually male) having sex with a too-young counterpart (usually female) is guilty of statutory rape whether the sex was consensual or not; the female considered too young and inexperienced to make that decision; which many consider unfair. Love and or lust not being the only qualifier for a marriage certificate or physical union. If it were, then any and every other configuration of individuals would have to be considered as well; from homosexual unions up to and including bigamy and polygamy. (Incidentally having as its official slogan, “Polygamy: the next civil rights battle”, mimicking the tactics of the LGBT community.) Which raises the prospect of bisexual activists demanding the “right” to marry a man and a woman.
Much like the fairness issue, portraying Judeo/Christian marriage laws as an intrusion on civil rights has emotional appeal; with the right actors, music and “presentation” of facts, the most vile offenders and practices become capable of gaining sympathy and support. Although up to this point, the courts have rather surprisingly rejected the claims of LGBT activists that they deserve minority status. Established law allowing a certain amount of “discrimination” when the legal qualifiers are reasonably applied and work for the greater good. (Which will always be challenged for clarification – as it should be.)
Micah Clark of the American Family Assoc. of Indiana, asserts that “The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach men to women, fathers to mothers, and both to children. Whatever two men may be; they are not a mom. Children have a right to a mother and a father. Some are quick to note that not every husband and wife have children” (Or should have) “Yet, every child has a father and mother. This requires us to look at marriage not just from the desire of adults, but as a societal responsibility to the needs of children.”2 (Rosie O’Donnell; a vocal gay rights activist, admitting during an interview on ABC’s Primetime that her toddler son often asked, “Mommy, why no daddy?” Her response being, “I’m not that kind of mommy.” Her son, however, is apparently “that kind of child”; wondering about and – at least on some level – yearning for a mother and a father.)
“If we change the standard for marriage into anything anyone desires,” (As opposed to what God has decreed and civilized societies have been founded on) “marriage will ultimately mean very little.” (See Genesis 1:27 & 2:18-24; Leviticus 18:6 & 22; Matthew 19:4-6 & Malachi 2:13-16 – especially verse 15, “Because he was seeking godly offspring.” Romans 1:26,27; 1 Corinthians 6:9,10; Ephesians 5:22-23) “Such an unraveling will weaken and devalue marriage and detach more children from mothers and fathers. This would be neither “fair” to children nor “right” for society.”3
1Taken from a Flashpoint essay by Micah Clark, Executive Director of the American Family Assoc. of Indiana, appearing in the Terre Haute Tribune Star titled, The Fairness of Marriage.
2Ibid.
3Ibid.
Rate it:
Fred Price - married (50 years), father of two grown children, grandfather of six.
Fred retired earlier this year after 42 years as a factory worker. He has always had a heart for young people and the challenges they face today. Over the years Fred has taught Discipleship Groups for High School and college students.
Receive the newest devotional each week in your inbox by joining the "Point of Reference" subscription list. Enter your email address below, click "Go!" and we will send you a confirmation email. Follow the instructions in the email to confirm your addition to this list.