The Marriage Amendment:
Both Sides Have It Wrong
by Doug
Newman
|
|
When I was growing up somewhere in the swamps of Jersey, I had a
friend who said the following whenever an issue was blown out of
proportion: “Do you have to make a federal issue out of it?” |
|
 |
|
And if
no one is paying attention to the Constitution now,
what makes proponents of the Marriage Amendment
think anyone will pay attention to their amendment? |
|
|
Such was my reaction when I first heard about the proposed
constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union
of a man and a woman. The text of the amendment reads as
follows:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union
between a man and a woman. Neither this constitution nor the
constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be
construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents
thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
While this seems harmless enough, there is plenty wrong with it.
Its proponents deem it The Only Solution to the dual problems of
judicial activism and the gay agenda. If you oppose it they will
label you -- with all the intellectualism of Al Sharpton --
pro-gay, anti-God and all manner of other diabolical,
anti-American things.
Add this to the coming election and you have a perfect recipe
for a long, hot, mind-numbing summer. In Macbeth, the lead
character calls life “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and
fury signifying nothing.” The summer of 2004 will feature the
sound and fury of endless idiots, signifying nothing.
Let me be blunt: homosexuality is a depraved and perverted
lifestyle. The thought of going at it with one of my own
positively makes my stomach do 360s. Christianity and numerous
other faiths condemn it. It is a lifestyle fraught with peril.
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. However, no matter
what I say about homosexuality and those who practice it, many
others will call me pro-gay, anti-God and all kinds of other
unfounded names.
TOP
There is a lot about the Constitution, amendments thereto and
about the Bible itself that these folks do not understand.
Hence, they are just as wrong as those who would have the state
sanction homosexual marriages and force everyone to recognize
them.
Activist Judges Let us begin with the question of activist judges. For decades,
there has been much ranting about “activist judges legislating
from the bench.” Numerous constitutional amendments have been
proposed in response to this. These proposals have dealt with
issues such as abortion, school prayer, flag desecration, the
Pledge of Allegiance and, now, gay marriage.
The Constitution contains remedies for judges who overstep their
bounds. Article 3, Section 2 spells out the cases in which the
Supreme Court shall have original and appellate jurisdiction
“with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the
Congress shall make.”
Congress has the power to limit the
authority of the courts. It is high time that we stopped whining
about activist judges and demanding that our legislators read
their job description.
Article 1, Sections 1-10
in the US Constitution relate to the establishment of congress
Article 3, Section 1
(Article
3 Sections 1-4 of the US Constitution deal with Judicial
authority) of this job description states that, “The
Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold
their offices during good Behavior.”
Judicial appointments,
contrary to popular myth, are not lifetime appointments.
Congress may impeach rogue judges. Why are they not doing it?
Another myth is that judicial decisions have the force of law.
|
They only have this clout because several generations of
Americans, in their abject ignorance, have given the courts such
power. The Bible calls on Christians to resist ungodly
authority. (See
Daniel 3,
Daniel 6, Acts 4:19 and Acts 5:29).
Why are Christians not leading the resistance against court
rulings on things like school prayer and the Pledge of
Allegiance? Why are they not demanding that their states simply
ignore Roe v. Wade? This would be far easier than amending the
Constitution. |
|
|
Acts 4:19
But Peter
and John answered and said to them, "Whether it is right
in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God,
you judge."
Acts 5:29
But Peter
and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to
obey God rather then men"
TOP |
|
FORCING LAW
The Declaration of Independence states that “governments long
established should not be changed for light and transient
causes.” With this in mind, the framers of the Constitution made
it very difficult to amend. To pass constitutional muster, an
amendment must be approved by two-thirds of both houses of
Congress plus the legislatures in three-quarters of the states.
Thousands of amendments have been proposed. Only 27 have
succeeded.
Homosexuality is no “light and transient” matter. The renowned
British historian Arnold Toynbee pointed out that, “Of the 22
civilizations that have appeared in history, 19 of them
collapsed when they reached the moral state America is in
today." Toynbee died in 1975, long before anyone foresaw the
influence that the gay lobby exercises today.
ALTERNATIVES TO AN AMENDMENT However, there are other – and better – remedies than
constitutional amendments. And if no one is paying attention to
the Constitution now, what makes proponents of the Marriage
Amendment think anyone will pay attention to their amendment?
TOP
Much of the current uproar about gay marriages stems from events
in places like San Francisco and New Paltz, New York. The mayors
of these towns have caused uproars by issuing marriage licenses
to same-sex couples.
“We cannot have this!” cry the traditionalists. “Marriage
licenses should only be issued to couples consisting of one man
and one woman.”
THE HISTORY OF MARRIAGE LICENSES What is their basis for this belief in the need for a marriage
license?
Marriage licenses – documents conferring the state’s blessing on
a marital union – have no biblical basis. There is no scripture
mandating such authorization for marriage. In
Genesis 2:24, when
God ordains marriage, He says that “Therefore shall a man leave
his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and
they shall be one flesh.” Neither Genesis 2:24 – nor any other
Scripture – states that this union can only be official with a
piece of paper from the local magistrate.
During the late 1960s, it was common for couples who shacked up
out of wedlock to say that “marriage is just a piece of paper.”
This is what we – including about 99 percent of Christians –
have reduced marriage to in the modern age. Today, Christians
and conservatives insist on the need for the government to issue
a document before a marriage to be genuine. They, too, have
"redefined" marriage.
TOP
Matt Trewhella pastors the Mercy Seat Christian Church in
Milwaukee. For years, he has been marrying couples without
licenses. He has some fascinating things to say about why
Christians should not obtain a marriage license.
Pastor Trewhella quotes the Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition
of a license as "the permission by competent authority to do an
act which without such permission, would be illegal." Why do we
need permission from the state to participate in something
ordained by God? Also, when you obtain a license to marry, you
give the state unbiblical authority over your marriage and over
your children, as well as placing yourself under all sorts of
immoral laws. You may read Pastor Trewhella’s entire message
here.
Pastor Trewhella goes on to give a brief outline of the history
of marriage licenses in America. Marriage licenses were not
issued in America until the mid-1800s. In 1923, the federal
government passed the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act.
It was not until 1929 that every state had marriage license
laws. Is it merely a coincidence that the demise of the
traditional family in America only took place after we gave the
government the authority to regulate marriage? I don’t think so.
TOP
BENTON COUNTY
Big government groupies – this includes Republicans, Democrats
and most pastors – will always seek big government solutions.
The proposed marriage amendment is just such a thing. It may
make its proponents feel good, but it will solve nothing. It
will merely intensify a trend – government regulation of
marriage – that has been going on for decades.
Benton County, Oregon, the home of Oregon State University, is a
pretty liberal place. On March 24, Benton County commissioners
did the right thing, albeit for the wrong reasons: they stopped
issuing marriage licenses. According to one commissioner, the
ostensible purpose of this action was to “uphold Oregon's
Constitution's anti-discrimination provisions.”
Tim Nashif, of the Defense of Marriage Coalition stated the
following with regard to the Benton County decision: "We are
happy Benton County is not going to violate the law by issuing
illegal marriage licenses, but we are perplexed as to why they
would not issue legal licenses."
Here we have a classic example of the contemporary confusion
over what defines marriage. Since the Bible defines marriage, a
license (i.e. permission) from the secular authorities is not
necessary.
TOP
THE OPTIONS LEFT What then shall we do?
If two men or two women want to shack up and call it marriage, I
cannot forcibly stop them. Utopia is not an option. However,
calling it marriage does not make it marriage. Calling a book a
telephone does not make it a telephone. Calling a dog a cat does
not make it a cat.
In a free society, which America has not been for many decades,
no one would be compelled to recognize such a union as a
marriage. No employer would be required to pay benefits to your
same-sex significant other. No insurer would be required to
write life insurance if your same-sex partner was a beneficiary.
No landlord would be required to rent to two people of the same
gender if he thought they were living immorally.
A few years ago, a well-known evangelical Christian broadcaster
commented that if gay marriage were to become legal, schools
would be required to teach your children that there was nothing
wrong with it. In a free society, you would not be required to
send your child to such a school, or even to pay for it through
taxes.
Both sides in the debate over the proposed marriage amendment,
as portrayed by the media, are wrong. Those who advocate gay
marriage are wrong for openly promoting a perverted and perilous
lifestyle.
Those who propose a constitutional ban on gay marriage are also
wrong. They only intensify the problem by putting the kingdom of
man before the Kingdom of God. From the Garden of Eden until
about 150 years ago, marriage was a covenant made before God.
The state had nothing to do with it. It is only when the state
got its tentacles all over the sacred institution of marriage
that it -- as well as the traditional family in general --
started to come apart. Surprise!
It all reminds me of a quote attributed to Beatle drummer Ringo
Starr: “Everything the government touches turns to crap.”
SUBMIT
OPINION
|
