Update: If I had to put a label on her, I’d call Christine at Talk Wisdom a traditional marriage activist.
To dissenters looking for an explicit argument on how and why “gay marriage” is bad for society, read Protecting America’s Immune System: A Reasonable Argument Against Homosexual Marriage. Frank Turek is much more articulate and “reasonable” than I am.
In some form or another over the past 2.5 years of LBC’s existence, I’ve touched on each of Turek’s points:
1. Traditional marriage is beneficial to the public welfare.
2. Homosexual behavior is destructive to the public welfare.
3. The law is a great teacher; it encourages or discourages behavior and attitudes.
4. Legalization of homosexual marriage would encourage more homosexual behavior, which is inherently destructive. It also would weaken the perceived importance of traditional marriage and its parenting role, thereby resulting in further destruction of the family and society itself.
5. The law should endorse behaviors that are beneficial and restrain (or certainly not endorse) behaviors that are destructive.
6. Therefore, the law should endorse traditional marriage and it should restrain (or certainly not endorse) homosexual marriage.
I’d hate to reinvent the microchip, but it may be time for me to write a definitive “why I think homosexual ‘marriage’ will destroy the foundation of society” post. Some will balk, but I believe certain behaviors should be stigmatized, discouraged, and restrained, as I’ve argued many times.
————————————————————————————————————————-
Happy 666 Day!!!
Before I get started, let me lay it out. Spiritually speaking, I am commissioned to tell unbelievers that they are sinners under God’s judgment.
My “job” isn’t to point out particular sins, but simply to let people know the consequences of sin and to share the Good News that Christ is the Savior who pays the penalty for our sins.
Practically (physically, carnally?) speaking, I honestly don’t care who is sleeping with whom or what they do, and I wish homosexuals weren’t so eager for us to know. What do you want me to say? Good for you! Knock yourselves out! Leave me alone already. By the way, the painting is an interpretation of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by Victorian artist John Martin. The painting’s title, appropriately enough, is “Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.” Beautiful rendering, isn’t it?
For background, read Genesis 18 and Genesis 19.
Now, on to Lawrence v. Texas (2003), a case “they” said would begin the push for homosexual “marriage.” Do you feel up to reading a couple of Supreme Court cases? Good. 
Bear with me as I give you the gory details. Tyron Garner (left) and John Lawrence (right) were a couple of consenting adults doing whatever they do. In response to what was probably a false domestic disturbance complaint, the police arrived at Lawrence’s home and “caught” them doing whatever, and both were arrested and convicted of homosexual sodomy, which was a criminal act in Texas at the time. Both claimed the law deny them Equal Protection because the Texas law discriminated against homosexuals.
The court told them to get lost, citing Bowers v. Hardwick (Georgia law against homosexual sodomy was not unconstitutional. “The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.”).
Lawrence and Garner appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District, and the full court affirmed their convictions. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied review. The Supreme Court got the case in 2002. The court overruled Bowers, holding that the Texas sodomy law violated Lawrence’s and Garner’s due process rights.
The court discarded Bowers like so much dead weight, reasoning that:
- Laws against homosexual sodomy reached beyond the mere act to prohibiting the freedom to enter into relationships of one’s choice;
- Laws against homosexual sodomy did not have “ancient roots” in America, as claimed in Bowers because early laws were aimed at non-procreative activity, not homosexual activity per se, and sodomy prosecutions often involved “predatory acts” between adults and children, or men and animals;
- Bowers had been inconsistently applied and was the subject of “substantial and continuing” criticism. No court had detrimentally relied on Bowers as there had been a pattern of nonenforcement;
- Citing the dissent in Bowers, the court contended that just because a “State’s governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice” and that non-procreative sex is a form of liberty protected by due process.
The Lawrence court also cited Griswold v. Connecticut, a case which struck down a criminal law against using contraceptives. In this seminal case (no pun intended), the court found that the law intruded upon “marital privacy.”
Bottom line: Consenting adults can do whatever they want to and with each other.
In theory, I don’t have a problem with this, but when homosexuals want to tear up the foundation of society — traditional marriage and the family — I take great issue with it. I will continue speaking out against homosexual “marriage” as often and as loudly as I can.
In fact, I hope my words travel the air waves. There’s a possibility I may appear on FOX News to talk about the Federal Marriage Amendment. I will defend the rights of states to decide this issue but vehemently attack with the idea of homosexual “marriage.”
“They” say the Fourteenth Amendment gives homosexuals the right to marry.
1) What do you say? Explain your reasoning. I’d especially like to hear from lawyers and/or people familiar with constitutional law.
2) Do you hold the same opinion about civil unions?
Sources:
- Case summary
- Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law
- Background on Lambda Legal’s Supreme Court Case Challenging Texas’s “Homosexual Conduct” Law
Related posts:
- Federal Marriage Amendment: Bone for the Base Dogs
- The Unconstitutionality of Brown v. The Board of Education
Christian bloggers and 666: Jollyblogger, Oh How I Love Jesus…
