Today,
there is a lot of oxygen being “sucked-up” on both sides of the issue of
same-sex “marriages.” There are those
who just think it’s wrong; that it is contrary to the Creator’s design; that it
is biblically chastised; that it threatens society as we know it. While others say it’s natural, and that homosexuals
should not be denied the opportunity to happily marry the person they love, and
be afforded the same entitlements granted to heterosexual marriages. The debate uses tradition, personal experience
and logical reasoning … on both sides of the issue. One side calls the other intolerant and
homophobic; while the other is called perverted and immoral. There’s not a whole lot of middle ground on
this subject. And because “we the
people” are so divided, we appear more than willing to let the government
decide. Even persons of conviction
preferred not to decide … as evidenced in the recent “Minnesota nice” outcome
of the vote for a Minnesota Amendment to the State Constitution defining
marriage as “between one man and one woman.”
I would
suspect that everyone knows someone for whom this is their sexual preference or
orientation; and for that reason, are reluctant to express themselves publically;
and, therefore, prefer to let the legislative or judicial branches of government
“make the call.”
While for
some it is a matter for the government to resolve; for others it is a matter of
personal preference; and still others it is a matter of principle. For me as a
Christian, I must come from a Biblical worldview, which says I must think on “… whatever is true,
whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely,
whatever is admirable …” (Philippians 4:8)
So, seeking to address this matter with truth, let’s examine several of the arguments expressed by the advocates of same-sex “marriage.”
I. It is a civil right of same-sex couples to marry.
In order to gain power, the gay-rights movement has sought to ride the civil rights train. Using words like “rights,” “discrimination,” and “tolerance,” the homosexual movement has successfully convinced many to believe their cause is just and the right to practice openly-homosexual behavior should be permitted to climb the platform atop the civil rights pedestal. However, a person’s sexual preference is not a civil right and has nothing in common with the civil rights movement of the twentieth century.
The federal law known as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was part of a landmark legislative attempt to remedy discrimination on account of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The Act prohibits discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation; it bans discrimination in public facilities and in public education; it prohibits discrimination against recipients of federally assisted programs; it addresses discrimination in the workplace. This Act laid the foundation for future civil rights laws that were later adopted by several states, including local governmental subdivisions such as municipalities. An understanding of the historical background and reasons for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is important when considering adding any new class of persons to a protected civil rights category. The two driving forces behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964 arose primarily out of discrimination against African-Americans and, secondarily, out of discrimination against women. The Act prohibits discrimination against individuals on account of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” All five categories have at one time or another been the subject of no less than five constitutional amendments.
No one can seriously argue that African-Americans did not suffer rampant, widespread discrimination. Blacks were forced to use separate drinking fountains and restrooms. They were prohibited from staying in motels or from patronizing restaurants. African-Americans (and other people of color) were prohibited from voting until the states ratified the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Those of Korean, Japanese, Jewish, and German descent also faced discrimination following World Wars I and II. Women faced similar discrimination. They were prohibited from voting until the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. Like African-Americans, women were also excluded from the job markets and from places of political influence. The widespread discrimination against Blacks, women, and other people with particular national origins undeniably resulted in blatantly direct employment discrimination which excluded them from the economic marketplace.
Race, color, sex, and national origin share common immutable characteristics. (An immutable characteristic serves to identify the protected class.) A person’s race, color, sex, and national origin are unchangeable characteristics. One cannot transition from one category to another. A person is either born African-American or Caucasian, male or female. There’s no such thing as an ex-African-American. The ancestry of a person is fixed at birth.
Religion is the sole category within the Civil Rights Act that does not share the pattern of an immutable physical characteristic as do the other four categories. However, the characteristic of immutability in terms of religion is rooted in the 1st Amendment, and indeed, predates that Amendment. The drafters of the 1st Amendment considered the freedom to believe in God and the free exercise of religion to be a sacred right, which may not be alienated by any sovereign government. The 1st Amendment affords special protection to religion, in part, because of the history of religious oppression. This special protection was codified in the Civil Rights Act.
The matter of whether a person’s sexual preference meets the immutability requirement is not debatable. The practice of homosexuality is a matter of choice. In contrast to the immutable characteristics of race, color, or national origin, a person’s sexual preference is not static; it is an ever-moving target and, as such, can never be considered immutable. Fluidity of one’s sexual preference and the lack of any evidence establishing its immutability precludes defining a protected class based on sexual preference.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel
No comments:
Post a Comment