The recent Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage through the United States has angered millions of Americans because of this left-wing decision. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman, which is by its nature ordered toward raising children and providing unity between and the wellbeing of the child and the wife. Same-sex marriage or gay marriage is totally different. The advocates argue for the union between two men or two women, denying the physiological, biological, and psychological differences between men and women. Marriage between a man and a woman can produce a child that allows our civilization to exit and persist. Marriage is a cornerstone of a family. Families are the foundation of civilization, and the proponents of the homosexual agenda are trying to destroy the foundation of our civilization. The main goal of gay activists is not to have many same-sex marriages, but their goal is to destroy the institution of marriage. Gays argue that the government should allow them the right to visit their partner when they are sick in the hospital; so the government should change the laws and let them visit their partner, but not redefine marriage. Some of the gays argue that they should have the same benefits as traditional couples do in marriage, but that argument does not give the justification to redefine marriage. Again, we can provide equality as a societal law to make sure they have rights as well.
Actually homosexuality was not prohibited in the United States before the Supreme Court ruling; gays continue to have partners, and some states offer civil unions, so the Court does not need to redefine marriage. It should let the citizens have the opportunity to vote on a Constitutional amendment in their state whether they should redefine marriage or not. There may be other social and political contracts, but civilization survives when the family survives. Traditional marriage provides a moral and legal structure for children. Yet, some gays argue that some marriages end up not having kids. However, if a couple chooses not to have kids or cannot have kids, it does not go against the purpose of marriage.
When marriage is redefined, then all sorts of new relationships will occur, so where do you draw the line and limit the boundaries, for example legalizing polygamy? We are one step away from eighth or ninth grade students receiving lessons on gay sexual behavior because of the intense homosexual agenda. Is the next step the right to marry a young child, a sister or brother, a dog, or multiple spouses? Already such cases exist, a fact that can be verified by a simple Google search. It raises the very important issue of religious liberty, for example, throwing some doubt on the rights of religious schools, churches, and humanitarian organizations to retain their tax exemptions, and private businesses could also be impacted if they hold to traditional beliefs. As a society we have placed certain limits on marriage, but give everyone equal rights to marry under specific conditions. When we redefine marriage, we are going to run into chaos in society. Each person has equal rights, but redefining marriage is not about equal rights but about adding special rights to Constitutional law. Christians already draw the distinction between judging a person and judging their sinful behavior, so why does a politically driven agenda demand a certain treatment for one sector of society?
Marriage is a more than a strategy between men and women to raise children, as my good friend Patmei Ruivivar argues in her column in the Mindanao Times. But it is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law. It is the fabric of society, which holds society together, and so the struggle is not just about same sex marriage but also about an attack on family. It is true that children who grow up with their biological, married mother and father do better in so many ways. A large amount of social science study data supports this conclusion, and children have a right to both genders. Gay marriage ignores the child’s best interest because a child will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. One party who has no blood relations with the child will raise him. This kind of ruling would not be the end, but only the beginning of gay activists, because the gay activists have momentum, the media, the money, corporations, and the politics of pop culture.
I believe there are non-negotiable values, marriage being one of them. I do not think social conservatives will support a candidate who will agree to redefine the traditional definition of marriage. The Republican Party in the U.S. is having a hard time dealing with the rapidity of the 21st century social change. The Republican Party was ready to mobilize the voters for victory in the 2016 election against the Obama Care, but this month the Supreme Court for a second time stabbed the heart of the Republican Party: President Obama’s health care law and the ruling to give same-sex couples the right to marry. However, this may be good for the GOP to motivate its most passionate socially conservatives to turn out and vote. Many conservative voters are waiting to see how the men and women who want to be the Republican Party nominee for President will respond to the Supreme Court ruling about same sex marriage.
If the Republic leaders compromise their core principles such as family, freedom, and Faith and do not take a firm stand on same-sex marriage, then they will not be elected as the next President of the United States. I believe the Court decisions will energize the conservative voters to elect the next President of the United States in 2016 from the Republic Party and remind the voters that electing another Democrat President in the White House will mean that the Supreme Court will be dominated by left-wing activists. But, the decision will also give more reasons to Christians voters to go vote and to make sure that in 2016 they will have someone who will defend American values. Also, a poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe that same-sex couples should have the same marriage benefits as traditional couples and 56 percentage under the age of 46 support same-sex marriage. This shift has in part resulted from a media blitz covering the issue and thereby normalizing it as news anchors denigrate those who hold to traditional values. More social conservatives will vote to make sure their voice and opinions on social issues will be better represented. If more evangelicals had voted in the last election, then Obama would not have been re-elected President. But the problem is that Republicans are already divided on this issue There is a group of conservatives who favor gay marriage called Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry who have lobbied Republican politicians to make them accept gay marriage. This grassroots group already has campaigns in key Presidential election states such as Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
Some of the Republican hopefuls are trying to avoid telling their stance on social issues, such as on same sex marriage; instead they are focusing on the economy and foreign policy. The problem with the Republican Party is that the neo-cons and the libertarians took over, and they are very liberal when it comes to social issues. They are only conservative on economics and the degree of government involvement.
Therefore, same-sex marriage continues to divide and shape the Republican Party and American politics. This year we are going to have very interesting elections in the United States. Some of the Republican Presidential candidates like Wisconsin Governor Scoot Walker argued that the Court decision was a grave mistake and wanted a Constitutional amendment to reverse it. But another Republican candidate Former Governor Jeb Bush tried to appeal to the moderate and center conservative voter, saying he wished the Court would have allowed the states to make this decisions, and we should love our neighbors and respect them. However, Huckabee responded to the Court decision saying that the standard of all truth is the Bible. The United States is moving to the left. It has leaped leftward on social issues, leaving the Republicans out of touch and with a shrinking base of social conservatives. Social conservative Republican voters want their leaders to fight hard for American values, such as a traditional marriage’s being the fabric of society.
An elected Republican President should pass a Religious Freedom Restoration Act or First Amendment Defense Act to protect and to prevent discrimination against people of faith and those who hold a traditional belief on marriage, not allowing the public to redefine them the same as racists. Homosexuals already have the right to live as they choose, but this same respect must be given to those who oppose same sex marriage.
The Court has ruled against history, against tradition, and against law, saying that marriage must change. The Supreme Court is not God, and it is not the final word in the American Constitutional system. The Supreme Court, comprised of human beings, sometimes get things wrong. It was wrong about racism, in the case involving slavery with Plessey v. Ferguson. It was wrong about the value of every human life with Roe v. Wade. And now it has gotten marriage wrong. For the existence of human history marriage has been between one man and one women, a union we all depend on to make new life to have children to grow up with a loving father and mother. We can rewrite human law, but we cannot rewrite human nature, or the laws of nature and the nature of God.
God is sovereign and His design for marriage has always been between a man and a women. Ultimately, no court can change that truth. Each person has equal rights, but redefining marriage is not about equal rights but about adding special rights to Constitutional law. Christians already draw the distinction between judging a person and judging their sinful behavior, so it is not a matter of discrimination.
Dr. Aland Mizell is President of the MCI and a regular contributor to Mindanao Times. You may email the author at:aland_mizell2@hotmail.com
