“The story of America's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community is the story of our fathers and sons, our mothers and daughters, and our friends and neighbors who continue the task of making our country a more perfect Union.” Thus begins President Barrack Obama’s May 31 proclamation declaring June 2011 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.  His proclamation, like a tree falling in a deserted forest, landed so so silently that no one even noticed.  But the homosexual community was surely delighted and evangelicals might have been incensed - had they known the nation was celebrating this special month in honor of homosexuality in all its variety.

The opening words of Obama’s proclamation hit close to home for me because this is the story, in part, of my youngest sister’s life.  She was among those who have attempted to create a “more perfect union” by favoring homosexual couplings to heterosexual ones.  By joining a four person confederacy of two lesbian females and two homosexual males - each pair claiming identity as married couples - they attempted to start just “one big happy family.”  Desiring children, however, this foursome opted for sexual relations between my sister and her domestic partner’s biological brother (was he my sister’s then presumed brother-in-law?) to produce children when neither of their respective unions offered any hope of reproductive potential.  Enough heterosexual conjugal activity occurred between these homosexuals (go figure) to allow this “creative alternative” to produce two daughters before my sister succumbed to cancer in June 2009.  Suffice it to say that my experience of this Frankenstein’s monster of a man-made marriage fell far short of anything that I would consider a “more perfect union” or a happy family.

Before you cluck your tongue and imagine this could never happen within your extended family, consider the more recent governmental activism promoting the homosexual agenda.  On June 24th, the New York legislature approved that state’s Marriage Equality Act. This makes New York the sixth state where so-called homosexual weddings (I’ll call them “counterfeit marriages”) will be legally institutionalized: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, (and the District of Columbia).  New Jersey does not allow for same sex marriages but does permit same sex civil unions that convey many legal rights similar to those extended to heterosexual marriage partners. Thus “domestic partnerships” are increasingly being judged worthy of special recognition under the law.  Interestingly, the New York statute does not require residency for same sex partners to be wed.  Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, expressed particular concern over that aspect of the Marriage Equality Act and said, “I guarantee you this action by the New York State Assembly and Cuomo has already signed it will bring same-sex marriage to a house near you."  My sister’s scenario might well become a more frequent story in our increasingly decadent society.

On the surface it seems strange to have proponents the homosexual lifestyle demand not just the general acceptance of their sexual orientation but now also the recognition of that alternative lifestyle as equal in every respect to heterosexual marriage.  To demand affirmation of their perspective when they so relentlessly deny the right of others to cling just as tenaciously to differing values is truly hypocritical. The governmental demand for our society to embrace these counterfeit marriages is not simply an appeal for more tolerance but a totalitarian imposition of a minority’s interests on the majority of Americans whose minds and hearts are governed by faith and values that are overtly offended by the issue and whose conviction about the evils of homosexuality are equally sincere.

Put another way, homosexual activists argue that it is absurd for society to make any attempt to “legislate morality” by opposing alternative lifestyles, but in championing the cause of these counterfeit marriages, they are effectively arguing for society to choose instead to “legislate immorality.”  As the momentum of this special interest group grows and as more states succumb to this assault on traditional family values, I believe it is imperative for Christians to understand how they could and should be responding to the issue.

As a place to begin, the writer of Hebrews counsels believers in Jesus to “hold fast to their confession” of faith and the truth of God’s word.  The Greek root translated by our English word “confession” is the word “homologeo” which means to speak the same thing (homos, "same," and lego, "to speak").  The Greek notion of “confession” means to offer one’s assent, or to be in accord or agreement with another.  In the modern English vernacular, we associate the word “confession” primarily with an admission of guilt for wrong doing.  James 5:16 employs this connotation when the apostle urges his readers to “confess their sins to one another.”  But a New Testament understanding of “confession” goes deeper than merely acknowledging guilt. Confession goes beyond saying “I did it and I was wrong” (an open admission of guilt) to also include saying “God said it and he is right” (a statement aligning our lives with God’s revealed word in the Bible).

So, in the broader sense of the term, what must a biblically informed confession on this emerging issue in our society maintain?  I suggest four points are necessary if we are to stay true to the Scripture.  Specifically, we must hold to our confession by maintaining a  commitment to the following perspectives:

Marriage has been defined by God and cannot be redefined by man 

God ordained marriage and defined it himself when in Genesis 2:24 Moses wrote under the Holy Spirit’s guidance, “a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.”  This act of God in giving Adam and Eve to one another to be husband and wife established marriage as a divinely designed heterosexual union between one man and one women for life.  This foundation for marriage has provided an uncontested pattern for creating new families in all societies since the creation account was recorded in Genesis and heterosexual marriage has remained the basic building block for society in every culture in every era.  This is a reality that has gone uncontested for millennia - until now.  As a starting point on this subject then, we must align ourselves with God’s definition of marriage and refuse to accept an alternative rendering proposed by proponents of these counterfeit marriages.  God has determined what relationships constitutes a marriage in his eyes and we have no latitude to disagree with him, to redefine the institution of marriage, or to demonstrate a level of tolerance for the opinions of men as somehow reaching beyond God’s purview as the one who alone is Lord over all.

Sexual relationships outside of marriage cannot be legitimized by human rationalizations or government legislation

The fall of man in Genesis 3 introduced sin into human experience and with sin an alienation between God and man.  With the disruption of our vertical relationship with our Creator came a more general disruption of horizontal relationships among human beings and between mankind and creation as a whole.  One reflection of that horizontal disruption is the perversion of the “one flesh” relationship reflected in sexual intimacy between human beings which God permitted only within a heterosexual marriage. The divinely ordained and heavenly blessed sexual relationship between a husband and a wife has been distorted from the time of the fall such that all manner of sin has attended human sexual expression. 

As God’s word says in 1 Timothy 1:10, “⁸ But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, ⁹ realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers ¹⁰ and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.” 

Romans 1:22-32 adds credence to the general denunciation of homosexuality as one specific sin among many others by asserting that “same sex” sexual expression is a notable evidence (but certainly not the only evidence) of the kind of foolishness that abounds and masquerades as wisdom among men when they refuse to acknowledge God as the sovereign ruler of their lives.  As a consequence of rebellion such men, Paul goes on to say, are given over to depraved minds and degrading passions, and in the end they defile themselves pursuing their own perverse appetites.  As Romans explains, the “worldly wisdom” that would support acceptance of homosexual lifestyles and that would assert the propriety of counterfeit marriages is an expression of foolishness and sin, a characterization that is not diminished by governmental approval - whether manifest in legislation, in judicial action, or by constitutional amendment. 

Even recognition of homosexual relationships by church authorities as an acceptable alternative lifestyle (as has been forthcoming in some mainline denominations) does not trump God’s clear declaration that homosexuality is a sin.  Asserting a claim to equal rights under the law does not make the sin of homosexuality less sinful.  This is part of the confession we must maintain unashamedly if we are to remain aligned with God’s word on the matter.  This reality will not be popular with political and moral progressives in America but it does honor God’s word and his truth as expressed in the bible.  The bottom line is that those who claim allegiance to Christ are not free to condone what God would condemn.

We cannot legislate morality and we should not legislate immorality

The minds and hearts of men are not controlled very effectively by rules and regulations - whether they are the laws of God expressed in the Bible or the laws of men made administered under any system of government.  The law of God we are told in Scripture, was itself not given to make men sin less but rather to help them recognize their sin more.  That is why 1 Timothy 1:9 quoted above says straightforwardly that the “law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious” - in short the law was intended to impact sinners by helping them see their sin clearly.  The law was meant specifically to openly expose the sinfulness of man for what it is.  As Paul writes in Romans 7:13, the law was given “in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become utterly sinful.”  If the law of God does not have the power to restrain the sin of men but rather reveals it and even intensifies it (see Romans 7:7-8), how can we hope to have the laws of men and societies perform a reforming function more effectively?  The laws of men merely dictate the sinful behaviors that will result in a societal consequences meted out in fines, incarceration, and even potentially in capital punishment. 

Not all sins deserve public attention and punishment.  But some do and always have.  Murder certainly does.  So do a variety of sexual sins - incest, rape, child molestation to name a few.  Neither homosexual nor heterosexual fornication generally merit these kinds of legal restraints and I am not recommending such here.  I only mean to point out that some sins deserve public attention and proscription while others do not.  Similarly, some virtues deserve public support as we see with the favorable attention and support the laws of the US lend to marriage, to home ownership, to entrepreneurial business initiatives, to investment, to charitable giving, etc.  Some vices, on the other hand, deserve public condemnation or discouragement as we have seen with penalties or taxes imposed with respect to cigarette smoking, drinking alcohol, littering, polluting the environment, or to the proscription of drug use and gambling in most jurisdictions. To propose that it is a wise move for our society to lend public support to private vices is absurd and it seems to me that endorsement of counterfeit marriages fits in this category. 

To reiterate the point made above, we cannot legislate morality and we should not legislate immorality. We should not provide legal sanction for the sin patterns promoted by any special interest group in our society.   To protect and promote practices which God characterizes as perverse, to make them not just tolerable but foundational to our national ethos, is to promote chaos in our culture and it should be avoided.  In this respect again, the demand for our society to embrace counterfeit marriages is not an appeal for tolerance but a totalitarian imposition on the minds and hearts of people who are compelled by God to hold fast to their confession of biblical faith and to a Scriptural definition of sin.  Embracing homosexual unions with matrimonial trappings diminishes the institution of marriage by removing the promise of reproduction as an underlying value in marriage,  by distorting the unique covenant relationship God ordained for a man and a woman, by confusing the relationship between Christ and the church which is mysteriously portrayed in Christian marriages, and by pretending that the sin inherent in homosexual unions can be legitimized by a simple marriage ceremony.  Promoting same sex unions also increases the potential for indecent exposure to sexual perversion at too early an age and may even bring children under the influence of demonic spirits which can be involved in the practice of homosexual sin. 

Shakespeare was right when he said that a rose, called by any other name, would still smell as sweet. But we are wrong to presume that a sinful relationship called by any other name somehow no longer remains offensive to God or to his people.  Homosexual unions called by some other name just don’t pass the smell test.  As Shakespeare also said, we should be aware when it becomes apparent that “something is rotten in Denmark.”  And this ploy to drape homosexual sin with a robe of respectability alerts us that something is going terribly wrong in our society.  Same sex unions should remain offensive to followers of Jesus because they are an abomination to our Lord - no matter what they are called.  An attempt to legislate immoral relationships simply does not invest them with moral virtue and it is foolishness to think otherwise.

Marriage needs to be constitutionally defined as the union of one man with one woman 

 It is clear that some laws have always been necessary in relation to marriage because this is a unique institution that has the most dramatic impact on society because it is the means by which new lives are best introduced into the world and through which children are best socialized in preparation for their participation in life as responsible adults.  It is in the home, ideally with a mother and father that life begins and, as Chuck Swindoll has suggested, it is in such a home that “life makes up its mind” about values, morals, faith, world view, customs, propriety and impropriety.  The sexual union in marriage is intended to be the usual context that produces children.  The one flesh relationship between husbands and wives is intended by God to reproduce offspring which are literally the joint reflection of the individual biological make up of the respective parents, united through reproduction, in the “one flesh” DNA of the child.  Children are designed not just to share their parents’ chromosomes, but also their parents’ sense of character and convictions about God, family, country and a myriad of other life lessons. 

Marriage therefore creates a mutual claim of both parents to have the right to raise their children together. These rights of parents must be protected by law because of the threat of of kidnapping and human trafficking, and because of the custody conflicts that arise through divorce.  Other laws relating to marriage, touch on inheritance privileges, survivor’s benefits, and property ownership, on income taxes liabilities, and so on. The inevitable legal significance of marriage makes it imperative that there be a clear national understanding of what constitutes a legitimate marriage relationship.  To make this definition a “states rights issue” opens the door to 50 different interpretations, and promotes incredible confusion as we have already begun to see just in the last two years.  

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed by Congress in 1996 under the Clinton administration.  This act defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman and specifically did not require any one state to endorse or to accept a different definition of marriage if such were to be adopted by another state jurisdiction.  In July 2010, the definition of marriage asserted by DOMA was declared unconstitutional by a Federal court and in February 2011, the Obama Justice Department announced it would not defend the statute by making an appeal.  Such instances of judicial fiat by which Federal judges over-rule with equal ease both federal and state legislation and even the expressed will of voters who have passed constitutional provisions defining marriage in a manner consistent with DOMA (see California’s experience with Proposition 8 in 2008) has created a call among conservatives for a Federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.  In the current climate, this would appear to be the only plausible option if we are to stem the tide of the impending chaos that could come about if America chooses merely to allow everyone to do what is right in their own eyes with regard to the institution of marriage.

Conclusion

Because Christians are urged by the Scriptures to hold fast to their confession of faith, and because their confession requires both an acknowledgment of sin as God defines sin, and an alignment with righteousness as God defines righteousness, Christians must be prepared to stand unashamedly for the truth as the Bible reveals truth.  Doing so will not be easy and may even engender persecution if standing in a Biblically defensible position on homosexuality is later declared to be categorized as “hate speech” by those sympathetic to the homosexual community’s cause.  This is not to say that persecution is an expected judgment for our nation’s increasing embrace of homosexuality.  As Romans 1:24 makes clear, the wrath of God is already revealed in judgment when God gives men over in “the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves.” 

The growing popular acceptance of homosexuality (and other perverse sexual appetites) is an indication that the wrath of God is already being released upon us.  This makes our choice to stand courageously for the truth all the more important.  I hope this article will help members of Generations to think through this issue more clearly and to know how to respond articulately as they encounter the call for a redefinition of marriage from their friends, neighbors, their political leaders and their co-workers who are too easily surrendering to the tidal wave or foolish thinking that is assaulting traditional family values and traditional families in America. Let’s hold fats to our confession and maintain heterosexual marriage as the “more perfect union” God had in mind when the first human family was created.