In The Defense Of Marriage

American Catholics Call All To Defend Marriage And Reject Notions Of Bigotry

In a Jan 12th, 2011 release, the American Conference Of Catholic Bishops released a statement calling on all Christians and all people to defend the traditional views of marriage as being between one man and one woman as well as reject the notion commonly promoted by the homosexual extremists that those who oppose gay marriage are bigoted. Outlining the problem as being beyond the Catholic Church and its agenda, the latter part of the statement said:

"For example, in New Jersey, the state cancelled the tax-exempt status of a Methodist-run boardwalk pavilion used for religious services because the religious organization would not host a same-sex "wedding" there. San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social service contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex "domestic partnerships" in its employee benefits policies.Similarly, Portland, Maine, required Catholic Charities to extend spousal employee benefits to same-sex "domestic partners" as a condition of receiving city housing and community development funds. 

In short, the refusal of these religious organizations to treat a same-sex sexual relationship as if it were a marriage marked them and their members as bigots, subjecting them to the full arsenal of government punishments and pressures reserved for racists. These punishments will only grow more frequent and more severe if civil "marriage" is redefined in additional jurisdictions. For then, government will compel special recognition of relationships that we the undersigned religious leaders and the communities of faith that we represent cannot, in conscience, affirm. Because law and government not only coerce and incentivize but also teach, these sanctions would lend greater moral legitimacy to private efforts to punish those who defend marriage."

In essence the statement introduces the notion that the government, by redefining marriage, as President Obama has committed and vowed to do, vicariously become agents supporting religious discrimination. In


addition to the cases that are outlined, none of us forget the recent reversal of fortunes that the Catholic Church received in Illinois by the Department Of Child & Family Services (DCFS) when over $24 Million of child placement contracts reversed. So not only is there a monetary element involved, but at heart and issue and greater moral, religious and social element also.

The Domino Effect 

The conference states, and rightfully so, that redefining marriage, does not simply have an effect on marriage and how couples interact with one another, but has an effect on almost all other aspects of life even for citizens and institutions who are otherwise neutral on the issue:

"These conflicts bear serious consequences.They will arise in a broad range of legal contexts, because altering the civil definition of "marriage" does not change one law, but hundreds, even thousands, at once.By a single stroke, every law where rights depend on marital status—such as employment discrimination, employment benefits, adoption, education, healthcare, elder care, housing, property, and taxation—will change so that same-sex sexual relationships must be treated as if they were marriage.That requirement, in turn, will apply to religious people and groups in the ordinary course of their many private or public occupations and ministries—including running schools, hospitals, nursing homes and other housing facilities, providing adoption and counseling services, and many others."

Far from being the only group speaking to many of these same things, The Family Research Council has been speaking truth in every venue as much as possible. In his his article, "Same Sex Marriage Would Lead To a Push For Polygamy" Peter Sprigg stated the following regarding the redefinition of marriage:

"Changing the natural definition of marriage would amount to a declaration that procreation is unimportant, and that children do not need a mother or father. This would inevitably lead to a further deconstruction of marriage and the family-and fewer children being raised by a married mother and father-at a time when those institutions should be strengthened instead."

So here another social ill and the further disintegration of the family. I don't believe that any rational human will affirm that having a family or family values are not good. I also don't believe any rational person will say that  having strong parents isn't a good thing. 

The "Trickle Down" Promotion Of Sin

We've heard of the economic strategy of taking care of those at the top of the economic ladder with the assumption that their success will filter down to those at the bottom of the economic ladder. This is called "trickle down economics". A product of the Reagan era, this strategy is the source of much debate and protest and promises to be a hot campaign issue in the 2012 election. 

The "trickle down" approach is being used by those who want to change morality also. With no supportable evidence, gay right advocates assert that two fathers or two mothers in place of a father and a mother (specifically a male and a female) in a family are just as beneficial in child rearing as any other arrangement. Of course this is a myth. An unproven position promoted by the most liberal in effort to support the sin of homosexuality and to manipulate public opinion. The "trickle down" begins within the highest ranks of the United States governmental circles. In fact in a speech to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Obama outlined:

"My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians whether in the office or on the battlefield. You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognized relationships between two men or two women, are just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman." ~ President Barack Obama 10/10/2009 to The Human Rights Campaign

So there is ample evidence that we have governmental leadership committed to the destruction of the traditional family unit and traditional family values that underpin it. This is without question and an argument against which no rational opposition can be leveled. Here are a few more ways in which our government under President Obama's leadership is trying to promote gay unions and ultimately redefine marriage:

• President Obama pushed for the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” in his first State of the Union address, and followed through to sign the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 into law. On September 20, 2011, the discriminatory law known as ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ was finally and formally repealed.
• President Obama has expressed his support for the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation that would uphold the principle that the federal government should not deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and legal protections as straight couples.
• The President signed the certification stating the statutory requirements for repeal of DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) have been met, ending the discriminatory law that undermines our military readiness and violates American principles of fairness and equality.
• The President issued a Presidential Memorandum directing the HHS Secretary to ensure that those hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid funds will give gay and lesbian patients and their families the compassion, dignity and respect they deserve in difficult times, as well as widows and widowers with no children, members of religious orders, and others whom otherwise may not have been able to receive visits from good friends and loved ones who are not immediate relatives, or select them to make decisions on their behalf in case of incapacitation.
• President Obama signed a memorandum expanding federal benefits for the same-sex partners of Foreign Service and executive branch government employees.

This is a systemic problem within the government itself, because President Obama has also instructed The Attorney General of the United States to not defend the law enacted by Congress, The Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) claiming that in his opinion (their opinion) DOMA is unconstitutional. Although the full brief can be found HERE The following is part of what was stated:

"After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the president has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination." ~ US Attorney General Eric Holder 2/23/2011 DOJ Letter to Congress

Further, with the assistance and efforts of his appointee, Secretary Hillary Clinton, our President has used the US State Department to proliferate the gay agenda allowing Secretary Clinton to proclaim that "gay rights" (including the right to marry and establish a family under the approval of the state) "are human rights once and for all", (Hillary R. Clinton June 2010 -parenthesis added)  Proudly promoting its own record, The US Dept. Of State, representing the US Government's official position, continues to consistently speak in favor of the proliferation of gay rights and the gay agenda. At this moment it is decisively clear what position our government takes both nationally and internationally on the issue of gay marriage and the redefinition of marriage to include gays.

In response to all of this, in June 2011 US District Judge Thomas Donovan, a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge for the Central District of California, was the first to oppose DOMA calling it unconstitutional in a ruling on the joint bankruptcy of a gay couple married in 2008. At the conclusion of his ruling he stated:

"In the court's final analysis, the government's only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land … in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society," 

Out of 24 of his peers, 19 signed on with his assessments regarding the issue in what was called an "unusual show of empathy"  and consensus for the ruling and finding of a judge. Here even in bankruptcy, marriage and traditional values were attacked and those who uphold traditional values are basically called undeserving bullies by this judge and his peers.  

The Church Is The Hedge

Amazingly, even with as much talk as there is regarding the issue, there is yet much ignorance to dispel as it pertains to the knowledge of why marriage should be preserved and why those that want to redefine marriage should be opposed. Many organizational churches, including my own Church Of God In Christ, appears to be more enamored with the personality and the accolade of political leaders, rather than with what these leaders are setting forth in real time, and what they actually believe. If these leaders are not held accountable, then anything, as we have seen, is subject to happen. Within this Grand Ole Church, it will take an act of The General Assembly to set forth the official position of the church because leaving it in the hands of Bishops elected by democratic process has proven to be a shambles. 

In a greater context what will the church do and how will it respond? Will the church simply gloss over this issue as another issue of personal choice and preference? Or will the church make a stand to speak to power to preserve the culture? Some think that there is no moral harm in any of it, and that the church shouldn't do anything but preach and teach to itself. However what of the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18? If the church does not visibly stand for issues and oppose evil, the church cannot possibly preach and teach the gospel or fulfill the Great Commission, and that is the only purpose and objective of the church. 

The questions that are posed are of a very serious nature. These issues, centering around how we live and what we value, simply can't be shouted and danced away. These issues can't simply be glossed over by crowds and conferences, neither can "seed offerings" relieve our personal, individual or collective responsibility to preach truth to this dying world.  

To their credit, the Catholic Church, in spite of all that it has been and is being criticized for, is certainly willing to make its voice known in a clear way regarding the issue. I wonder will we make our voices known also? I can only hope that the church will arise. 

Blessed!