Same-sex marriage goes to the Supreme Court

By Barrett Duke
Mar 28, 2013

This week the United States Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Both sides stated passionately why they believe they are right. It is now up to nine unelected judges to decide the fate of marriage for our nation. My friends, if ever there was a time for prayer, this is it.

Listen to the audio of this commentary. (MP3)

Marriage is the foundational building block of society. In marriage men and women learn to form a social bond that helps them not only live with each other but also within the broader society. It is also the relationship where the next generation is prepared for its future responsibilities in society. Children learn from their parents the differences between men and women, and how to relate to them. They learn basic values like commitment, conflict-resolution, sharing, sacrifice, respect, and many others, without which society cannot flourish. Same-sex relationships by their very nature cannot do this as well. It takes an engaged father and mother to fully demonstrate these crucial values.

A family participates in the March for Marriage on the National Mall. Photo credit: Doug Carlson

Same-sex marriage even drives a wedge between the institution and child-bearing. Children do not come into all heterosexual marriages, but it is clear the relationship is designed for that purpose. When marriage is defined without any thought of children, they will no longer be considered a normal part of the purpose of marriage. Currently, forty percent of our country’s children are born outside of marriage. If childbearing is no longer a fundamental purpose of marriage, even fewer children are likely to be born into those relationships. Marriage will be about the two people who are living together. Children will be an afterthought, at best.

Same-sex marriage will also undermine our country’s ability to regulate marriage at all. If the Supreme Court determines that marriage is a civil right, it will need to be available to everyone. That’s the very definition of a civil right. Those who desire to form other kinds of relationships will be allowed by the courts to do so under civil rights law.

If homosexual couples have the right to marry because they cannot form loving bonds with anyone of the opposite sex, how does the nation prevent other relationships? For example, if a mother and son say they cannot find anyone else they can love and form a committed bond with, how can society tell them they cannot marry if the right to marry is based on personal preference? And don’t think society will be able to stop marriage between family members because of the potential for genetic problems. Remember, same-sex marriage will already have destroyed the link between marriage and child-bearing. Or if a man and two women declare they cannot be happy unless the three of them share in a socially accepted committed bond, how will society tell them they cannot? The courts certainly will not.

The definition of marriage isn’t all that’s at stake with the Supreme Court’s decision. God defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It is not a human invention. How does a nation restore itself to God’s blessing if it goes so far astray on such a crucial matter?

The Justices will issue their decision by June. In Job 38:36 God says He is the One “Who has put wisdom in the innermost being” and “given understanding to the mind.” Join me in praying every day that God will give these nine men and women the wisdom and understanding they need to uphold His design for marriage. The future of our country is in their hands. May God guide them to decide well.

Listen to the audio of this commentary. (MP3)

Further Learning

Learn more about: Family, Marriage, Sexual Purity, Homosexuality, Citizenship, , ,

You May Also Like

LIFE DIGEST: Gosnell ‘snipped’ many, jury told

By Tom Strode - Mar 20, 2013

A former abortion clinic worker told a jury March 19 she “couldn’t give you a number” of how many times Kermit Gosnell killed babies outside the womb by cutting their spinal cords.

Adrienne Moton’s testimony came in the trial of Gosnell, 72, who has been charged with seven counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of viable children who were killed after delivery and a count of third-degree murder in the death of a Virginia woman who died during a 2009 abortion.…

Read More

Putting virtue into practice (Part 2)

By Hugh Whelchel - Apr 9, 2014

For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love.…

Read More

Letter to Boy Scouts of America re: policy on homosexuals

By Staff - May 15, 2013

On May 15, 2013, Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, sent a letter to Wayne Brock, chief scout executive of the Boy Scouts of America, and Wayne Perry, president of the BSA, expressing “strident opposition” to a proposed resolution to eliminate the organization’s ban on admitting for membership youth who are open or avowed homosexuals.…

Read More