By Douglas V. Gibbs
As the Supreme Court hears arguments regarding gay marriage as it relates to California's Proposition 8, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the whole premise of what is going on has been lost in the mix.
The supporters of gay marriage consider their opposition to be anti-gay marriage, and see the pro-traditional marriage groups as trying to force these people from being able to have equal access to the "right" to be married.
The rhetoric and funding of the homosexual agenda is powerful, and has even members of the GOP jumping ship.
The language used, and the arguments being used, hides what is really at stake.
From a Christian point of view, homosexuality is a sin, but Christians also argue that they have no intent to outlaw gay sexual behavior. I don't approve of people voting democrat, either, but I don't think that should be outlawed. I would like to see people move away from such a damaging voting behavior, but forcing them to not be able to vote that way, would make me no different than the statists of the liberal left trying to force me to pay for people's birth control, or them trying to force us to accept gay marriage despite our religious or moral beliefs.
A number of those supporting gay marriage claim they don't want to force churches to marry gays. They just want the State to recognize gay marriage for legal and financial reasons.
When viewing this topic through the lens of the Constitution, we realize that the federal government has no authority to dictate anything regarding marriage, but the issue is also not prohibited to the States. Therefore, based on the Tenth Amendment, marriage is a State issue, which means DOMA is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has no business taking the Proposition 8 case because it is a State issue, and therefore this whole mess should have ended when the California State Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8.
In all of the arguments, however, there is a third option that has been ignored. My question is, "Why is government involved in marriage in the first place?"
Shouldn't the churches exist in a manner that businesses do, competing for parishioners? In other words, it should be up to the churches on if they will perform ceremonies for gays, or not. If they do, they will reap the benefits, or the consequences, of their decision in a manner similar to the free market. Churches that hold to biblical truths may grow more than churches abandoning God's Word. Churches will survive or die based on their actions, just like businesses.
It is my argument that it is a church issue, not a government issue. If people want civil unions, that is a whole different argument. When it comes to the legal aspect, lawyers can always draw up papers separately.
By government getting involved in marriage, it allows this kind of battle to arise. It allows the pro-gay crowd, whose goal is to destroy marriage, and the church, to claim marriage to be a civil right. If marriage is a civil right, and the courts rule in favor of gay marriage, it enables them to call it a constitutional right. And if marriage is a constitutional right, it will enable gays to demand churches marry them, or be sued for violating their constitutional right. It is a way to force government into the churches, and destroy the churches by forcing them to change their doctrines away from the Bible, or fail to exist because of the onslaught of lawsuits.
It is coming. Pretty soon, perhaps sooner than many of you think, the church will be under full assault, and the Bible will be under the same attack that our firearms are right now.
This has nothing to do with marriage, and everything to do with destroying yet another group that opposes the liberal left.
As Karl Marx put it, "The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism."
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Supreme Court tackles gay marriage, as advocates line up for historic argument - Fox News
Supreme Court gay marriage cases could set stage for dramatic societal changes - Yahoo! News
Karl Rove: "I could" imagine a GOP Presidential Candidate Supporting Gay Marriage - Yahoo! News
The Republican Party and gay marriage: Will more Republicans follow Rob Portman's example and support same-sex unions? - Slate Magazine