Editorial

America’s debate about "gay marriage" reached a new level of intensity last week when President George W. Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman after the recent actions of judges in Massachusetts and the mayor of San Francisco left the president no other option.

"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity," President Bush said in a Feb. 24 announcement.

"On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard."

On the same day as the president’s announcement, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan fielded by my count no less than 66 questions about "gay marriage" and a constitutional amendment in a press briefing that lasted 36 minutes. The mood of the White House Press Corps: How dare the president put the prestige of his office behind such Neanderthal concepts!

Those who demand that same-sex "marriage" must be legalized in our nation – and thus obliterate the practice of all of human history – have an obligation to explain why marriage is not appropriate for any other deviant sexual pattern adults and minors would wish to enter into.

Orlando Sentinel columnist Myriam Marquez attempted to casually set aside links to other sexual immorality in a Feb. 25 commentary championing same-sex "marriage": "This isn’t about pedophilia or bestiality, as some critics claim in steering the issue into perverse territory. This is the civil rights issue of our time" (her emphasis).

Who says those practices are "perverse," Ms. Marquez, and by what standard should they be considered as such? The same was said not too many years ago about homosexuality. What Ms. Marquez and other supporters of same-sex "marriage" must explain is why there is any moral distinction between the currently fashionable "marriage" of homosexuals and those "marriages" characterized by polygamy, pedophilia, incest and other deviant sexual practices.

The following are not theoretical, but actual examples of other deviant "marriages" and practices which will be the next "civil rights issue of our time" if the barrier to same-sex "marriage" falls:

• Polygamy. A federal lawsuit filed Jan. 12 in Salt Lake City, charges that Utah’s ban on polygamy violates the constitutional rights of J. Bronson (a woman) from joining the marriage of G. Lee Cook and D. Cook. Attorney Brian Barnard argues his clients’ civil rights were violated when the Salt Lake County clerks denied their request for a marriage license. (CBSNews.com, Jan. 27, 2004.)

• Incest. A Mobile County, Alabama, circuit judge voided the marriage of a father and daughter, and ordered Alice Ferdinandsen, 30, and Carroll Ferdinandsen, 53, to maintain separate residences after they pleaded guilty to incest. In 1989, the father pleaded guilty to the rape of Alice, his then 16-year-old daughter. (Mobile Register, Feb. 5, 2004.)

• Pedophilia. The North American Man/Boy Love Association campaigns for the abolishment of all age of consent laws - that is, decriminalizing pedophilia. This organization is an active, welcomed partner of the Homosexual Lobby advancing the homosexual "marriage" issue. (For a troubling look at the growing acceptance of pedophilia in America, see "Pedophilia Chic," The Weekly Standard, June 17, 1996, and "‘Pedophilia Chic’ Reconsidered," The Weekly Standard, Jan. 1, 2001.)

The inability of the Homosexual Lobby to answer this logical retort to "gay marriage" was vividly demonstrated in a Feb. 24 debate on CNN’s "Crossfire." Conservative co-host Tucker Carlson asked Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign Fund (a leading homosexual rights organization), why other groupings of three or more persons should not also be legal. "Because I don’t approve of that," Jacques replied.

Oh, so a homosexual activist doesn’t approve of polygamy and that makes it wrong, but millions of Americans (by large majorities in most polls) oppose "gay marriage" and those views are bigoted?! After all, "gay marriage" is "the civil rights issue of our time," as Ms. Marquez so eloquently wrote. But that’s Mr. Barnard’s argument for his clients’ would-be polygamous "marriage."

As the fusillade of questions White House Press Secretary McClellan was subjected to demonstrates the debate about "gay marriage" in America is going to be a difficult, perhaps even unwinnable one. And yet, this is a debate our nation needs.

Even before the current campaign for "gay marriage," it’s clear that our society is in the midst of a massively dangerous, destructive experiment with marriage. Between 1960 and 2000 U.S. households with married couples declined from 78 to 52 percent, with the total number of households with unmarried partners increasing by 72 percent just between 1990 and 2000. The explosion of no-fault divorce and serial marriages is further undermining the biblical ideal for marriage.

In his March 1, 2004, weblog (http://mohler.crosswalk.com), R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., argues, "The same-sex marriage issue presents the Church with a challenge of monumental significance. We must rebuild and sustain a moral context and an entire worldview in which a defense of marriage makes sense - a world in which same-sex marriage would be literally unthinkable."

Mohler outlines three tasks necessary for the recovery of a worldview of moral clarity necessary to win the battle over marriage:

"The first task is biblical recovery. Too many Christians live out of the world’s moral wisdom, rather that the wisdom of God as revealed in the Scriptures. The Bible presents us with a moral framework embedded in the Gospel, and directs our lives to an obedience that glorifies God and leads to true human happiness.

"Second, we must live before the watching world like redeemed people, demonstrating the joyful and liberating freedom of living under God’s rule by grace. Our churches must be seen as communities of believers growing in grace - living out the moral authenticity of the Christian life.

"Third, we must help a fragmenting and hurting society to pick up the pieces. Love of neighbor compels us to seek the good of others, even when they will not seek it for themselves. Christians are sinners saved by grace. By grace, we can help others to find moral sanity on the other side of confusion and rebellion."

Let there be no doubt - the prospect of winning the fight over "gay marriage" is daunting. The hurdles for adoption and ratification of a constitutional amendment are justifiably high.

The president said, "... the voice of the people must be heard." This is a debate with which we have been forced to engage by our culture, and it is one from which we must not back down.