The Battle Lines Have Been Drawn

Feb 25, 2004
6 minutes read time

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...

Print
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."
Mitt Romney
Homosexuality
declining morals and values
Choosing a Mate
Marriage and Family
Character

Course Content

Default profile image