The Battle Lines Have Been Drawn
A commentary by Paul Suckling
United Church of God pastor, Worcester, Mass., and Portsmouth, N.H.
The war with Iraq isn't the only fight going on involving Americans.
In Massachusetts a different kind of war looms on the horizon, one that
began last Nov. 18 when the Supreme Judicial Court of the state determined
that the Massachusetts Constitution did allow for homosexuals to marry
and have all of the rights of a marriage. To disallow it, they determined,
would be discrimination.
Since this ruling the storm clouds have been gathering on both sides
of the argument. Some 500 ministers of various religious groups have
signed on to give their moral support to this decision. Many lawyers
are in favor, as are lesbian and male homosexual groups from around the
country. Naturally there is huge opposition to this dramatic change which,
at its heart, comes down to redefining marriage.
However, an even bigger issue is emerging: Did the Supreme Judicial
Court (the equivalent of a state Supreme Court) have the right to interpret
the Massachusetts Constitution this way? As Ronald Crews, spokesman for
the Coalition for Marriage, told a cheering crowd, "Unelected judges
have usurped the power of the legislature in the case of marriage." He
went on to urge, "Let the people vote on the definition of marriage."
The Supreme Judicial Court is deeply divided on the issue. Their decision
was by a 4-3 vote, which that means four unelected judges are redefining
marriage for an entire state.
The Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, said: "We've heard
from the court, but not from the people. The people of Massachusetts
should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society
as the definition of marriage."
Although the lead lawyer representing the homosexuals had a meeting
with Governor Romney recently, she emerged from his office and told the
press he is a "very pleasant person, but frankly he just doesn't
get it." However, the governor has clearly stated that marriage "is
the foundation of human society, and that is something that the people
should decide, not one justice."
And so, with arguments raging on both sides, the Senate President, Robert
Travaglini, convened a constitutional convention on Feb. 11 and promised
that a vote will be allowed on a proposed amendment to define marriage
as only between a man and a woman. He has the support of the 38 states
that have already passed legislation defining marriage as being between
only one man and one woman.
Philip Travis, chief sponsor of the so-called Defense of Marriage amendment,
made this observation: "It is not a religious issue, but a moral
issue of creation, nature and changing the rules of marriage. Marriage
is defined in every dictionary, and I've looked in 11 of them, as the
union of a man and a woman. I'm not changing anything. The homosexual
community is changing."
The amendment that the state legislature voted on says: "It being
the public policy of this Commonwealth to protect the unique relationship
of marriage in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and
welfare of society and the best interest of children, only the union
of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in
Massachusetts. Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage."
Before this historic vote took place, Concerned Women for America president
Sandy Rios said: "The eyes of the nation are on you today—for
almighty God's sake, let the people vote."
Well, votes took place, but with no final results. Another state constitutional
convention will try again.
But we must realize that there is more to this battle than the legislature
or the voice of the people and an amendment to a state constitution.
It is a battle against the Word of God. The Bible makes it extremely
clear that God's opinion of homosexual behavior is that it is a sin.
God says this in both the Old and the New Testaments, and on several
different occasions. Yes, we shouldn't discriminate against the sinner;
rather, we should love the sinner and hate the sin!
The scriptures tell us that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).
Jesus Christ came to pay the penalty for the sins of the world and to
offer the gift of eternal life. Mankind should turn away from sin.
The Supreme Judicial Court is telling God what ancient Israel told Him
3,000 years ago when they asked the prophet Samuel for a king to rule
over them. Samuel was very upset that the nation was rejecting him as
their leader and looking to the standards and systems that other nations
around them were using. God told Samuel that "they have not rejected
you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them" (1
Samuel 8:7).
It's the same today when a state or nation turns its back on the revealed
will of God and puts in jeopardy an institution that God Himself established
at creation. He created Adam and Eve and gave them to each other—thus
establishing the very first marriage.
Placards held up by young people stating, "Let my two dads get
married" and "Let my two Moms get married" no doubt had
their influence on the debate in Massachusetts, but God won't change
His standards and His mind because of cardboard placards.
Nor will He be influenced by editorials such as the one in The Boston
Globe written by an American Baptist minister. Peter Gomes, who,
although the "Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and Pusey
Minister in the Memorial Church at Harvard University," had the
gall to write, "If the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court
in [this case] is 'judicial tyranny,' let there be more of it." I
find that astounding! Has Gomes ever read what God says about homosexual
behavior?
As a minister of the United Church of God, I believe the Bible teaches
that the Supreme Judicial Court of Heaven has spoken clearly and decisively
on this matter.
As Dr. James Dobson said in a recent article, ". . . anthropologists
have noted that no human society, ancient or modern, primitive or civilized,
has ever sustained itself after altering this model [one man and one
woman in marriage]. Whether such altering is done in response to cries
for 'tolerance' and 'fairness' is beside the point: Men, women and children
all do better in healthy, traditional families."
Where does all of this stop? Can an individual who claims to be bisexual
now demand that he or she may marry two people now—one from each
sex—so that he or she can have true equality under the law? What
nonsense!
The Massachusetts legislature reconvenes on March 10 to reconsider this
important issue.
As Bette Midler sang in a popular tune years ago, "God is watching
us." |
