Who redefined marriage first?

Another good post over at Meditations of My Heart. We've made the same point in discussions here before, but it is always encouraging to see more pastors coming to the same conclusions.

If male and female gender roles are all interchangeable; if marriage is all about "love," "mutual support" and "companionship"; if marriage doesn't naturally include children (at least not now, or if the "couple" ever decides to); then why are we upset that the homosexuals think they should be able to get married too?


GL said...

That almost sums it up. I would add only one more item. Married couples decided that they should be free to engage in the same sexual acts that homosexuals engage in -- I'll not be graphic here. If those acts are licit for a husband and wife, why shouldn't they be for two men? That was essentially Justice O'Connor's take on why the remaining sodomy statues are unconstitutional, because the same act was legal for a man and woman to commit together, but criminalized when two men commit it together. That, she concluded, violates the Equal Protection Clause. I'm sorry to say that I think she was correct.

Erich Heidenreich, DDS said...


Seeing that there are three primary purposes to marriage (the unitive purpose, the procreative purpose, and the curb to infidelity), there is only one of these purposes that homosexuals have a problem with: procreation.

Think of it this way: If you could take a pill that would inhibit the unitive or curbing functions of sexual activity, would it be moral to take it? I doubt anyone would say yes.

So why is it so easy for people to find no compunction in taking a pill (or engaging in an act) that inhibits the procreative function?

Anonymous said...

We live in an age so depraved that normal behavior raises eyebrows.

GL said...

For readers of this blog who haven't read the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, here's a brief description and then some excerpts from Justice O'Connor's concurrence, by which she unintentionally exposes the depravity of our nation in our time.

In Lawrence, Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, in which he based striking down the remaining sodomy laws on the "right to privacy" which Justice Douglas introduced in Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court case in which the Court struck down the remaining state prohibitions on the use of contraceptives by married couples. "The right to privacy" is the legal foundation for Roe v. Wade, Lawrence and Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health (the Massachusett's case that first established the mandate that a state recognize same-sex "marriages"). In essence, "the right to privacy" has become a right to do whatever one desires sexually as long as all parties have the capacity to consent and do in fact consent.

In her concurrence, Justice O'Connor wrote, in part:

"I agree with the Court that Texas’ statute banning same-sex sodomy is unconstitutional. (Cite omitted.) Rather than relying on the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause [i.e., "the right to privacy"], as the Court does, I base my conclusion on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 'is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.'

* * *

"The statute at issue here makes sodomy a crime only if a person 'engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.' Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.06(a) (2003). Sodomy between opposite-sex partners, however, is not a crime in Texas. That is, Texas treats the same conduct differently based solely on the participants.

* * *

"This case raises a different issue than Bowers: whether, under the Equal Protection Clause, moral disapproval is a legitimate state interest to justify by itself a statute that bans homosexual sodomy, but not heterosexual sodomy. It is not. Moral disapproval of this group, like a bare desire to harm the group, is an interest that is insufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause.

* * *

"When a State makes homosexual conduct criminal, and not 'deviate sexual intercourse' committed by persons of different sexes, 'that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.'

* * *

"A State can of course assign certain consequences to a violation of its criminal law. But the State cannot single out one identifiable class of citizens for punishment that does not apply to everyone else, with moral disapproval as the only asserted state interest for the law.

* * *

"I am confident, however, that so long as the Equal Protection Clause requires a sodomy law to apply equally to the private consensual conduct of homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, such a law would not long stand in our democratic society."

GL said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Erich Heidenreich, DDS said...

Yes, but it does more than raise eyebrows. Living according to (and speaking up for) God's Word on marriage and procreation is a prime example where Christ's "sword" (Matthew 10:34) divides people, causing us very real strife and persecution for standing up for the Truth of the Word of God. We are seen and treated like idiots, intolerant homophobes, and condemned for supposedly not being good stewards, etc. - all for trusting the promises of God that children are always a blessing and that He will provide for all he brings into the world.

GL said...

I am confident that Justice O'Connor was correct when she wrote: "[S]o long as the Equal Protection Clause requires a sodomy law to apply equally to the private consensual conduct of homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, such a law would not long stand in our democratic society."

At one time, of course, such laws did stand, and for quite a long time, but then our ancestors' "democratic society" became "our democratic society" and we had different moral values than they did. It's not, therefore, the case that laws punishing heterosexual sodomy cannot long stand in any "democratic society", but only in some such society. The morals of the "demos" (i.e., the people) determines whether such laws can stand.

If you ever wonder why we appear to be losing the battle against approval of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, the answer is right there in Scripture, given to us directly from our Lord: "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

Erich Heidenreich, DDS said...

Also, when the churches rejected the Scriptural doctrine of marriage and procreation they became false prophets like those mentioned in Jeremiah 23, telling those who stubbornly follow their own hearts, "No disaster shall come upon you" - leading them into unrepentant sin, and therefore persistent unbelief:

16Thus says the LORD of hosts: "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD. 17They say continually to those who despise the word of the LORD, 'It shall be well with you'; and to everyone who stubbornly follows his own heart, they say, 'No disaster shall come upon you.'"
18For who among them has stood in the council of the LORD
to see and to hear his word,
or who has paid attention to his word and listened?
19 Behold, the storm of the LORD!
Wrath has gone forth,
a whirling tempest;
it will burst upon the head of the wicked.
20 The anger of the LORD will not turn back
until he has executed and accomplished
the intents of his heart.
In the latter days you will understand it clearly.

GL said...

Indeed, Erich.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever." Thomas Jefferson

Could it be that as we watch the acceptance of homosexuality and the advance of same-sex "marriage" we are observing His justice unfold and that those being judged are not those who seek to advance those causes, but those who seek vainly to oppose them?

Compare Numbers 13-14. "Because you have turned back from following the Lord, the Lord will not be with you." Numbers 14:43b (ESV)

Erich Heidenreich, DDS said...

I'm not sure about attributing what is happening in our culture to God's direct justice. What I am sure about is that calling evil good and living in unrepentant sin is turning one's back on God, losing faith and salvation.

Anonymous said...

Gee, the anti deviancy laws were standing just fine by the demos who never chose to repeal them. It wasn't until a judge ruled that they couldn't stand. So, O'Connor is stating that the laws can't stand because we won't allow them while at the same moment she sits pen in hand felling the very law the citizens' representatives duly enacted. It is absurd on its face.

GL said...

"Gee, the anti deviancy laws were standing just fine by the demos who never chose to repeal them. It wasn't until a judge ruled that they couldn't stand."

Actually, that's incorrect. By the time the Supreme Court struck down the remaining consensual sodomy laws in Lawrence only seven states still made consensual sodomy a crime. Prior to Lawrence, 26 state consensual sodomy laws had been repealed by the legislatures in bills signed by the governors, with no judicial invalidation. That is, the people or demos, speaking through their elected representatives, had repealed the consensual sodomy laws in 26 states, not the unelected judges. In two more states, state courts had invalidated the laws and the legislature and governors then followed up with a repeal. Thus, in 28 states, the demos had a part in terminating the laws against consensual sodomy. In 9 states, the courts, acting along, had invalidated the consensual sodomy laws.

At the time Lawrence was decided, only 9 states still criminalized consensual sodomy whether the parties were of the same or opposite sex. Four other states criminalized same-sex consensual sodomy, but not opposite-sex consensual sodomy.

Thus, out of the 50 states, the people, or demos, had acted, through their legislatures or governors in 32 of those states to decriminalize all consensual sodomy or, at least opposite-sex consensual sodomy. And, beyond that, court records show that those states that still criminalized opposite-sex consensual sodomy seldom prosecuted it. Probably most citizens in those states were entirely unaware that consensual heterosexual sodomy was a crime. Had they, they likely would have supported repeal of at least that aspect of the laws in their states.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law

Anonymous said...

Thanks, GL, but I want to emphasize that even if only one state in the union wants to ban abortion, or gay marriage, or sodomy, its citizens have the right to do so. The federal gov't is out of line when it strikes down duly passed laws just because it wants to and the fact that other states have repealed theirs should not matter. There is no federal bandwagon statute.