How many times since the enlightened four-justice majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court judicially decreed same-sex "marriage" in 2003 have we heard the activists' challenge: "How does my same-sex 'marriage' affect your heterosexual marriage?" It was intended to be an argument-stopper. The rhetorical question to end all rhetorical questions. Traditional marriage supporters and people of faith offered reasoned answers at the time, only to be sneered at as delusional.
Well, with the benefit of the passage of time, we now know. Real-life examples support our arguments concerning the effect of the homosexual agenda on marriage and families. And the following four, which are representative of similar developments all over the legal and governmental realms, illustrate unacceptable obstacles to getting married, raising kids, going to church, and running a business.
The "bride" and "groom" may now exit stage left. Enter "Party A" and "Party B."
The California marriage license of newlyweds Rachel Bird and Gideon Codding was rejected by a county clerk because they inserted the words "bride" and "groom" to replace "Party A" and Party B."
The May decision by the California Supreme Court redefining marriage to include same-sex pairings effectively deleted "bride" and "groom" from the state's lexicon, demeaning heterosexual couples who recognize marriage as a traditional celebration of the natural and unique differences of male and female.
The Coddings felt strongly against having their marriage reduced to a genderless contract, but their strong feelings would also have meant no entitlement to state marital benefits if they refused to play by the new politically correct rules.
After several weeks of press reports, and a lawsuit filed by the Coddings, California announced on Oct. 3 that it will back down on the "Party A/Party B" requirement and apparently will allow newlyweds the "option" of using "bride" and "groom." The state reports it has received numerous "inquiries" on the subject, which undoubtedly translates to outraged complaints from folks like the Coddings. This dispute, however, highlights the coming battle over words the government will require us to use to describe the "brave new world" of same-sex "marriage."
A church that holds a biblically orthodox view of marriage and sexuality could lose its tax-exempt status as a result of the recognition of special rights for one sexual behavior.
The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a New Jersey United Methodist organization, lost part of its property tax-exemption for refusing to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its property. Additionally, it is being investigated and charged with violating the state's nondiscrimination statutes. The church is still locked in litigation. And if you thought statutory "religious exemptions" would protect churches, forget it. New Jersey has one, and it hasn't stopped the government persecution of this church.
Parents are losing the right to oversee/direct the sexual education of their children in states like Massachusetts, where same-sex "marriage" is recognized as the moral equivalent to natural marriage.
The Parker and Wirthlin families in Massachusetts lost a federal lawsuit in 2008 when they asked to be informed when the teacher was going to address issues of sex and family. They were rudely informed by not one but two federal courts that any parental rights stopped at the schoolhouse door. Their right to control their children's moral upbringing did not supersede the homosexual agenda in Massachusetts. In the words of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: "Given that Massachusetts has recognized gay marriage under its state constitution, it is entirely rational for its schools to educate their students regarding that recognition."
The two children involved in the suit attended kindergarten and first grade. The gist of the state's argument, with which the court agreed, is that the earlier the state can indoctrinate our kids, the less likely that the values (the court called them "attitudes and stereotypes" of course) taught at home can corrupt them. Think about that for a moment.
To add insult to injury, the U.S. Supreme Court just this week refused to hear an appeal by the parents in the case.
Small-business owners cannot operate without agreeing to compromise their deeply held biblical beliefs.
Jon and Elaine Huguenin are a Christian couple who run a small photography studio in Albuquerque, N.M. They declined a request to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, based on their religious beliefs about the nature of marriage, and were fined $6,600 by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. The commission refused to even consider the couple's First Amendment arguments.
Mere monetary fines may be passé, however, when it comes to enforcing the new order. In Colorado, a new law known as SB 200 goes a step further and specifies jail time as an additional punishment for religiously minded business owners taking a similar conscience-based position.
It's pretty obvious by now that the old "how will my same-sex 'marriage' harm yours?" canard was more of an illusionist's hand-waving distraction than a serious debating point.
It bought homosexual activists some time, but now the evidence is clear. There is no aspect of family life that is not detrimentally impacted by a state-sanctioned homosexual agenda that is fundamentally at odds with the biblical view of marriage and sexuality.
This part of the culture war is a zero-sum game. Every time the homosexual agenda advances, religious freedom, marriage and family take a hit.
