It is interesting to follow the mental gymnastics used by those defending the morality of homosexual sex. This is especially true when attempting to deny the clear condemnation of it in the Bible.
Sara Boesser writes her My Turn article defending same-sex marriage that there is no credibility on the part of the people who base their opposition to homosexual marriage on Biblical prohibitions because they "radiate Biblical non-compliance themselves." As proof for her contention, she lists a number of Biblical prohibitions that our society violates. She refers to these issues as "Biblical taboos."
We need not resort to Old Testament or early church cultural issues to prove that we do not comply with Biblical admonitions. As Christians we do not see homosexual acts as taboos, but sins. We need only look to the Ten Commandments to see that we fail in fully living up to God's directives. In other words, we are all sinners.
Using the criteria set forth by Ms. Boesser, no one could speak out against the moral issues of the day. We couldn't condemn murder, rape, child abuse, etc., because we "radiate Biblical non-compliance ourselves." It is disingenuous to suggest that only the sinless may address the homosexual marriage issue. We all have the right to express opinions as to what is or is not good for our society and to work to protect our society from harmful influences.
The problem with same-sex "unions" is that it makes a mockery of marriage. Recognizing homosexual marriage by our society gives a stamp of approval upon homosexual sex that is basically disordered. Acceptance of sodomy poisons the atmosphere for healthy families of which marriage is the foundation. Health families are necessary for a healthy society.
There is plenty of evidence to support a claim that our society is in trouble. Rulings over the past 50 years by activist courts have played a large part in fashioning a society that is not family friendly. Leading the way is a U.S. Supreme Court that seems intent on destroying any visage of traditional moral values in the name of freedom and privacy. The rulings on prayer in schools, pornography and abortion have been disastrous. A new low in morally bankrupt rulings was the Court's 1973 Roe vs. Wade abortion ruling when that court discovered a constitutional right to kill the most defenseless member of the human family - the child in the womb.
More recently, the Supreme Court ruled that sodomy is a private right. Based on that ruling, there is every reason to fear the outcome of any decision that the court might make relating to homosexual marriage. In fact, they have surrendered any moral or logical basis upon which to deny constitutional protection for any type of sexual activity, including incest.
The court has not hesitated to overrule the judgment of the majority as expressed through state legislative processes. In many instances the judges simply ignore strongly held moral beliefs of the people upon which the laws were based. They abandon any pretense of interpreting the meaning of the Constitution and brazenly substitute their own beliefs. While truth and justice is not always found in laws passed by the majority of the people, it is a much better bet than nine "super judges" with unlimited power to change laws with the stroke of a pen.
- Sidney D. Heidersdorf is a member of Alaskans for Life. He lives in Juneau.