Times They Are A-changin'

So a majority may have decided that marriage is actually the union of a man and a woman and it is not the union of anything else and a majority may have voted that their state constitutions will reflect just that, but times are changing. If the shifting tide of public opinion hasn't overturned that, either the legislature or the judiciary has ... or will. Currently 19 states and the District of Columbia have redefined "marriage" to include same-sex unions. Only 3 of them were by popular vote. Eight were by State legislature and 8 others by court decisions. Of the rest, 31 states have defined marriage as it has always been defined and hold either constitutional amendments or state laws or both to keep it that way. Most of these are either in the courts defending these positions, facing repeals already, or about to be. The Washington Post says that there is no state in America that has not either allowed same-sex marriage or has had the standard, historical, longstanding, traditional definition of marriage definition challenged in court. Ten states have had their definition declared unconstitutional, pending appeal, and the rest are being challenged. Your vote on this issue doesn't count. You will accept new definitions and you will like it.

So what? So what if marriage is redefined? So what if they change things around? I mean, they're not undefining it, right? That is, it still includes the union of a man and a woman, doesn't it? So why do you care?

On the surface it may look like nothing changes for traditional marriage supporters, but this would be a naïve perspective. You can't rip out the foundation of a building and expect it to continue standing as it always has. So what can we expect?

If "marriage" is now defined as "two people who love each other and want to commit to each other", we're at a different place. Almost immediately the question arises "Why two?" On what shaky ground do we base the prohibition of three or four or more? Most pro-marriage folk argue that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, but history suggests that this isn't necessarily the limit, so defending it today as such is questionable. And to avoid the accusation of a "slippery slope" argument, it must be pointed out that last December a federal judge declared that Utah laws criminalizing polygamy were unconstitutional. It's not a slippery slope argument if it actually happens.

Next, when "marriage" no longer means "man and woman", then polyamory is around the corner. Canadian courts have already heard arguments on it and American courts expect the same. Without the undergirdings, then, of the historical, longstanding, traditional definition, the edifice of marriage shifts again.

So, having ruled out "man and woman" and "one" -- one man and one woman -- as definitive for the term, marriage, there remains no basis for monogamy. The fact that many anti-marriage advocates (those who call same-sex unions "marriage") overtly make this claim ought to be an eye-opener. The fact that many in the homosexual world openly admit that monogamy is outdated in their view and "marriage for life" is pointless ought to be a wake-up call. You can't go down this path without shredding the entire structure.

With the historical, longstanding, traditional definition of marriage out the window, you also will have to consider the eternal concept of family as unsupportable. It has always been known that a family works best when a children have a mother and a father and that, when they don't, it's a problem, not an asset. But today's redefinition of "marriage" coupled irrevocably with the redefinition of gender means that "father" and "mother" are fluid terms and of questionable necessity. What's wrong with "father and father" or "mother and mother"? How is the traditional concept better? So the certainty that children are better off with a loving mother and a loving father than anything else is out and children will suffer the consequences.

For Christians, there is more. When God created us, "male and female created He them" (Gen 1:27). God defined marriage as "a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24) and Jesus confirmed it (Matt 19:5-6). The exclusivity of male and female marriage in Scripture cannot be avoided. Paul wrote, "Each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband" (1 Cor 7:2), and there is no room for anything else in that. And why did God institute the union of a man and a woman as marriage? For "godly offspring" (Mal 2:14-15). So God has laid down a definition -- man and woman -- and a purpose -- godly offspring -- and it is not possible to fit "same-sex unions" into any of that. Of course, you can ask Phil Robertson (no hero of mine -- just an example) what the world thinks of God's view of the topic (1 Cor 6:9-10). It is "homophobic", "hateful", "anti-gay", "bigoted" ... you can fill in the list for yourself. So if you believe in the truth of Scripture and the sufficiency of Scripture, then you will be a problem in this new world of "marriage" that doesn't mean what they think it means. And how could you not be a problem? You're a follower of an archaic God who hates the homosexual and an archaic tradition that the Holy Spirit would lead His own into the truth when clearly He never did. The enlightened "believer" today knows that history has always been wrong, the Church has always been wrong, tradition has always been wrong, the Bible has always been wrong, and if you hold to all that Church and Bible and history and orthodoxy stuff, you're an idiot and a threat.

There is one more thing you lose when we go down this path. The Bible tells of the classic story of David and Jonathan, two men who loved each other. The Bible says that when the rich young ruler asked Jesus what he had to do to inherit eternal life, Jesus "loved him" (Mark 10:17-21). We are commanded to love one another. But in this new climate that connects love and sex and does so without regard to morality, one important thing you will lose will be the ability, regulated by outside forces, to love one another. If you do, you will be regarded as homosexual. If you deny it, you will be regarded as homophobic ¹.

What do you lose when you redefine marriage?

- A basis for monogamy, either in terms of marriage to one person or in terms of sexual monogamy -- fidelity to one person.

- A basis for definition. Marriage can be two people of the opposite sex or same sex or more than two. It can include incestuous relationships and perhaps not even be limited to humans.

- A basis for preference to have a mother and a father for children.

- A reliable Bible, followed by Christianity (since a reliable Bible is required to have a basis for Christianity) and ending up with religious freedom (if being a Bible-believing Christian is your aim).

- The freedom to openly, biblically love someone of the same gender (you know, as we're commanded) without the accusation of being homosexual.

Oh, yeah. Times they are a-changin'. Don't expect it to be pleasant. Progress is not always positive. Don't expect this to be.
________
¹ Note: This is not speculation. There are already voices out there saying that David and Jonathan were gay, were "in romantic, committed, sexual partnership". (I could give the link, but I will not.) There are already voices proclaiming that Jesus was gay. Don't think you will be immune.