Jerry Newcombe
Four reasons why the Supreme Court should not redefine marriage
By Jerry Newcombe
The Supreme Court is slated to rule on the subject of same-sex "marriage" this term. Here are four questions I want to ask same-sex marriage supporters:
1) If the Supreme Court says that it is okay for a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman, then how can they stop there?
Once they open Pandora's Box, how can they say that polygamy is unconstitutional? The Supreme Court already ruled on that. Utah, a state founded by Mormons, could not be accepted in the Union until there was the promise that they would not practice polygamy, Reynolds v. United States, 1878.
If the Supreme Court rules to "redefine" marriage beyond one man-one woman, then how can they say a man can't marry his sister, or a mother her son, or a man and his dog, or two men and one woman? How can they legally draw a line? Proponents of same-sex marriage howl at such questions, but three men just "married" in Thailand the other day.
2) How do you prevent legalizing same-sex marriage from erasing religious liberty?
America began for the most part as various Christian groups fled persecution in their home country. And now in a nation created for religious liberty that has provided religious liberty for all, regardless of creed, shall Christians be persecuted again?
Already where same-sex marriage is being accepted, it is becoming illegal as a florist, a baker, a photographer, etc. to decline providing one's artistic services (if you perform them for heterosexual weddings) to same-sex weddings. Conscience be damned. What's next? Ministers, priests, and rabbis to have to perform such "weddings" or risk losing everything?
To borrow an argument from my colleague John Rabe: Could you imagine the uproar if the government tried to force an African-American printer to use his artistic skills and shop to produce fliers for a KKK rally, despite his objections because of his conscience?
Legalizing same-sex marriage effectively makes those who hold to traditional values second class citizens, especially when the forces of "tolerance" insist on hauling anyone who disagrees into court.
If the Supreme Court says yes to same-sex marriage, they will be defying the First Amendment to the Constitution, which spells out in writing that we have the right of the "free exercise" of religion, in order to grant rights nowhere found, but manufactured, so that they cater to currently prevailing sexual mores and the bullies who propagate them.
At that point, why even pretend that their decisions are based on the Constitution?
3) How do you deal with the fact that homosexuality is not immutable?
For the record, there are thousands of Americans alive today who are former homosexuals and former lesbians – freed from their sin by Jesus. There are groups all around the country still active in helping people deal with all this, www.restoredhopenetwork.org. And there are many ex-gays who have changed through psychological means, unrelated to religion.
Being homosexual is not an immutable trait. Indeed, even those who argue for the alphabet soup of genders we are now expected to recognize often tell us that sexuality is "fluid." When you involve marriage, you are involving the law – marriage codifies a relationship into law. But what if somebody is gay one day and not the next? Sexual anarchy leads to legal anarchy.
4) Why are the voters of this country so marginalized?
In a recent interview I did with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, he notes that even though same-sex marriage is now legal in some 37 states, only in three of those states was it voted in by the people. In two of them, it was voted by the legislatures, the people's representatives. With all the rest of the states, it only became legal by judicial fiat.
Even now, 61 percent of Americans oppose same-sex marriage by judicial fiat.
Generally, when the people have had the chance to vote on this issue, they have voted – even in liberal states – overwhelmingly in favor of marriage being defined as between one-man and one-woman. Should we change the Constitution from "We the people" to "We the judges"?
If you say that only bigots reject same-sex marriage – which is the means by which some are losing their jobs today – then was President Obama a bigot through mid-2012, when he said that he thought marriage was between one man and one woman?
Commentator Bob Knight said years ago that if homosexual couples wanted to express their love in public ceremonies, that's their prerogative. But if you call it "marriage," then that impacts all of us since marriage involves the law.
In short, I oppose same-sex "marriage" because I am in favor of freedom – freedom guaranteed in the Constitution.
© Jerry Newcombe
March 12, 2015
The Supreme Court is slated to rule on the subject of same-sex "marriage" this term. Here are four questions I want to ask same-sex marriage supporters:
1) If the Supreme Court says that it is okay for a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman, then how can they stop there?
Once they open Pandora's Box, how can they say that polygamy is unconstitutional? The Supreme Court already ruled on that. Utah, a state founded by Mormons, could not be accepted in the Union until there was the promise that they would not practice polygamy, Reynolds v. United States, 1878.
If the Supreme Court rules to "redefine" marriage beyond one man-one woman, then how can they say a man can't marry his sister, or a mother her son, or a man and his dog, or two men and one woman? How can they legally draw a line? Proponents of same-sex marriage howl at such questions, but three men just "married" in Thailand the other day.
2) How do you prevent legalizing same-sex marriage from erasing religious liberty?
America began for the most part as various Christian groups fled persecution in their home country. And now in a nation created for religious liberty that has provided religious liberty for all, regardless of creed, shall Christians be persecuted again?
Already where same-sex marriage is being accepted, it is becoming illegal as a florist, a baker, a photographer, etc. to decline providing one's artistic services (if you perform them for heterosexual weddings) to same-sex weddings. Conscience be damned. What's next? Ministers, priests, and rabbis to have to perform such "weddings" or risk losing everything?
To borrow an argument from my colleague John Rabe: Could you imagine the uproar if the government tried to force an African-American printer to use his artistic skills and shop to produce fliers for a KKK rally, despite his objections because of his conscience?
Legalizing same-sex marriage effectively makes those who hold to traditional values second class citizens, especially when the forces of "tolerance" insist on hauling anyone who disagrees into court.
If the Supreme Court says yes to same-sex marriage, they will be defying the First Amendment to the Constitution, which spells out in writing that we have the right of the "free exercise" of religion, in order to grant rights nowhere found, but manufactured, so that they cater to currently prevailing sexual mores and the bullies who propagate them.
At that point, why even pretend that their decisions are based on the Constitution?
3) How do you deal with the fact that homosexuality is not immutable?
For the record, there are thousands of Americans alive today who are former homosexuals and former lesbians – freed from their sin by Jesus. There are groups all around the country still active in helping people deal with all this, www.restoredhopenetwork.org. And there are many ex-gays who have changed through psychological means, unrelated to religion.
Being homosexual is not an immutable trait. Indeed, even those who argue for the alphabet soup of genders we are now expected to recognize often tell us that sexuality is "fluid." When you involve marriage, you are involving the law – marriage codifies a relationship into law. But what if somebody is gay one day and not the next? Sexual anarchy leads to legal anarchy.
4) Why are the voters of this country so marginalized?
In a recent interview I did with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, he notes that even though same-sex marriage is now legal in some 37 states, only in three of those states was it voted in by the people. In two of them, it was voted by the legislatures, the people's representatives. With all the rest of the states, it only became legal by judicial fiat.
Even now, 61 percent of Americans oppose same-sex marriage by judicial fiat.
Generally, when the people have had the chance to vote on this issue, they have voted – even in liberal states – overwhelmingly in favor of marriage being defined as between one-man and one-woman. Should we change the Constitution from "We the people" to "We the judges"?
If you say that only bigots reject same-sex marriage – which is the means by which some are losing their jobs today – then was President Obama a bigot through mid-2012, when he said that he thought marriage was between one man and one woman?
Commentator Bob Knight said years ago that if homosexual couples wanted to express their love in public ceremonies, that's their prerogative. But if you call it "marriage," then that impacts all of us since marriage involves the law.
In short, I oppose same-sex "marriage" because I am in favor of freedom – freedom guaranteed in the Constitution.
© Jerry Newcombe
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
