"The Truth About Same-Sex Marriage"
Neil Stitt
"I would say, if I could say this to the powers that be, do what you need to do to take and grant the rights to the homosexual community, but don't mess with marriage! It's not necessary!"
Presented on February 13, 2005
As we look at this subject, "The Truth About Same-Sex Marriage", let me quote first of all Francis Schaeffer who said,
"There is a "Thinkable" and an "Unthinkable" in every era. One era is quite certain intellectually and emotionally about what is acceptable. Yet another era decides that these "certainties" are unacceptable and puts another set of values into practice. On a humanistic base, people drift along from generation to generation and the morally unthinkable becomes thinkable as the years move on."
When I was entering ministry in 1980, Reverend Bob Gould came and spoke at my induction service. He preached from 1st Corinthians 14, verse 8, where it says,
"For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle?"
And Bob Gould at that time took and raised a cry of the dangers of the uprising of secular humanism. That it was taking and basically would undermine all of the values that we cherish in our society. And he took, and he said very clearly, he said that this is an enemy that needs to be faced. I believe that he was right, and I believe that what we are seeing in our society today is the end result of a process that has been going on for many years in our society.
Now I want to say a couple of things before I launch into this message. First of all I want to say that I am going to be preaching primarily about marriage and the danger of redefining it. And only secondarily am I going to be speaking about homosexuality. I think it's very important that you make that distinction. And I think that its also very important that while I'm on the subject, to think clearly about how we as Christians approach the homosexual community. I think that there is a grave danger that we take and paint all of those in the homosexual community with the same brush. In the church, we don't like when liberals and evangelicals and fundamentalists and whoever are all painted with the same brush. We don't like it, and we shouldn't do it either.
There is a radical fringe in the homosexual community that is pushing many things like this same-sex marriage issue. The vast majority probably could care less. I think we need to remember that, particularly as we deal with people that have homosexual tendencies. I think that it is also very, very important, let me just say this while I'm on the subject, that we remember that homosexuals are people first.
My thinking was radically changed on this when I actually had a neighbor; I have neighbors who are homosexual. All of a sudden I realized that these people are not just a class, that want to be classified by their sin, but these were my neighbors. These are people with the same struggles that we all have. These are people who need my help occasionally, just like my other neighbors need my help occasionally. These are people who need the love of Jesus as everybody else does. And I think that it's important that we stop and say that.
Now it's possible today, that there are some of us even here today that are struggling with homosexual tendencies. And I want you to understand that does not take and mean that God does not love you. That doesn't mean that we don't love you. It means that you've got issues that you've got to deal with, as do we all do - as we come before a holy and loving God. But, I also want to encourage you that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is still able to reach out to you, and to each and every one of us. But first and foremost, let's be very careful about taking and primarily classifying people by their particular sin. Would you like it if you were known by your greatest struggle and your greatest sin? Remember these are people first. Having said that let me now take and look at this whole issue of same-sex marriages.
1. First of all, marriage is God's idea.
And what I'd like to do is just take a quick review of the creation story and just draw out a couple of simple little points. Genesis 1 verse 26, it says, "Then God said "Let us make man in our image"".
It is the fact that we were created in the image of God, that's what separates you and me from animals. And we need to remember that. We were made uniquely in the image of God. Genesis 2 verse 22 says this:
"Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib He had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man."
Now as we read this we need to understand that this is a powerful statement about our sexuality. What God did was that he separated femininity from masculinity, forming two separate individuals. Now each individual would have a powerful implanted desire, and that desire would ultimately be - to be reunited in an intimate oneness. Sexuality lies at the heart of who we are as people. Our desires are rooted in creation. They are intended to be expressed in a love and unity between man and woman. Our sexual desires are ultimately a yearning for completeness. That tells us how powerful sexual desires really are. In Genesis 2:24, we see where this is to go;
"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become on flesh."
That word "one" should catch our attention. It refers to the sexual union. Marriage brings with it a unity in humanity that is unlike anything else in the world. The only other place this oneness is found is in God Himself, who is described as "One God", but is three persons. As we come and look at this, we need to understand that the original purpose of marriage was to actually mirror God to those around us.
These verses also show to us the moral context for sexual intimacy. "Leaving father and mother". What that leaving represented was a public social ceremony, an event that could be celebrated. We see out of this that marriage is God's idea. It is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman and God. It is not merely a contract that can be broken like a business arrangement. But there is one other thing we need to understand about marriage as God intended it.
Marriage is intended to be a procreative relationship. In other words, out of this union there can come children. Now not all couples have children, but it is the nature of marriage to result in children. Two sexes, when they come together can bring about a new generation. And what we also discover is that this relationship is the right and best environment for children to be raised in.
Now not all marriages work out. We are living in a world that is fallen, after God made this first statement about it. But from the very beginning God's plan was one man and one woman under God. When there are troubles in marriage, it does not mean that we should drop the ideal. But it means that we should go back and fix and work on our marriages.
Out of this I say, that marriage is not a human idea, it is a sacred idea. All cultures and all religions have some form of ritual by which they recognize and acknowledge the union of a man and a wife. For millenniums marriage has been defined as a loving union of a man and woman under God. There is no one, including those lobbying for same-sex marriages that are saying that there is anything wrong with marriage as we know it. The question then is, if this basic institution, which has served society so well through history, why do we want to mess with it now? Why do we want to enter into a social experiment out of which we have no concept of the long-term ramifications?
I would say, if I could say this to the powers that be, do what you need to do to take and grant the rights to the homosexual community, but don't mess with marriage! It's not necessary!
2.So where is this going, and does it really matter?
I have heard this so many times, and it seems to be the mindset of many of us, that if there are some people that want to engage in same-sex marriage - what difference does it make to me? It will have no affect on the rest of us. I would encourage you to think about it this way.
Suppose you were on a large boat and you were say going across Lake Winnipeg and there is someone in the boat, who says and insists that they have the right to drill a hole in the bottom of the boat on their side. Of course, you argue with them but they plead that we need to be tolerant. Then they go on to say this, "We are not asking you to drill a hole on your side of the boat. As a matter of fact, we're not asking you that you come and help us drill holes on our side. All we're asking is the right to drill holes on our side of the boat if we feel like it."
The we say, "Okay I guess that's fair."
It won't be too long before you realize that drilling a hole on one side of the boat affects the other side. And I think it's the very same way in this issue of same-sex marriage. Let me give to you four reasons why I believe this is an issue of great concern, and we don't absolutely know the long-term ramifications. But I think there are some things that seem fairly obvious to be concerns.
i.) Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples will further weaken marriage in general.
You see Canada is not the first country to have this kind of legislation. There are not many, but there are some in Europe. France and the Netherlands now have legislation that basically allows for same-sex marriage. Basically in these countries, the passage of this legislation has wrought destruction on marriage itself. In France, they have what is called "civil solidarity pacts". They were created so that the homosexual community could file joint tax returns, but in the name of fairness they were made available to all people. And because the pacts are easier to enter and exit, and they impose fewer requirements legally, many in fact most heterosexual couples are entering these rather than taking and entering into a state of marriage.
The problem is that these flimsier systems, which allow for cohabitation, still take and they are a weaker system and the average cohabitational relationship lasts only five years.
David Frum said this,
"The argument over gay marriage is only incidentally and secondarily an argument over gays. What it is first and fundamentally is an argument over marriage - gay marriage will turn out in practice to mean the creation of an alternative form of legal coupling that will be available to homosexual and heterosexuals alike. Gay marriage, as the French are vividly demonstrating does not extend marital rights, it abolishes marriage and puts a new flimsier institution in its place."
Gene Edward Veith said this,
"Under the emerging framework, there will be no difference between a married couple, a homosexual couple, or a couple in a temporary sexual relationship. As many advocates are putting it, "What difference does it matter to the government or an employer whom you are having sex with?" This sort of reductionism - a spouse is nothing more than a sex partner, so a sex partner is the same as a spouse - misses the point of what marriage is and what its role in society amounts to. As this happens, marriage increasingly becomes unnecessary"
Add to this the reality if anybody can be coupled together in marriage, it takes away any sense of the specialness of this. Why bother getting married anyway? And there's enough of that thinking in our world already. I suggest the redefining of marriage will further weaken marriage in general.
ii.) The redefinition of marriage will negatively impact children.
Now words can be defined differently, but historically the word "family" has always been understood as a 'man and woman' who care for their own children. All cultures of the world have the concept of family. Now some families admittedly are bigamous, some are even polygamous, but all families have a sense that children belong to the parents that gave them birth. There seems inherent in us that there is a connection between a parent and a child.
Sarah McLanahan is a Sociologist, said this:
"If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children's basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it would also provide a system of checks and balances that promote quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to make sacrifices for that child and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child."
It would seem when sociologists say that: "This is how we would design it", it would seem even though we may not like the designer, we all wear the designer's label.
We must ask ourselves the question what being raised by a gay couple might mean for children. And in all honesty, it seems that many are very silent on this issue. It's as if nobody cares for the children. Now we cannot be absolutely conclusive on this one, but I think we need to stop and think about it. As we change, if we change the definition of marriage, there is a huge possibility it will change society's concept of parenthood. Think this one through. A homosexual relationship in and of itself cannot produce children, and yet their desire is still to have children. Besides adoption, there are only so many alternatives. And out of this there will come an increasing pressure to produce "buy and sell children" on the black market. You don't have to be a futuristic idiot to stop and realize that that is a potential reality.
I believe that if we allow the redefinition of marriage, it will only further confuse young people's sexual identity and it will ultimately erode their values. Studies confirm that boys who have been raised without fathers have higher rates of impulsivity and anti-social behavior. Further studies show that children have a better chance at success when both mother and father are present within their home. In 1987, a study of violent rapists showed that 60% of them came from single parent homes, and 75% of teenaged suicides come from broken homes. It shows that when girls raised without fathers are shown to be sexually active sooner in life and at higher risk of having children out of wedlock. When we put all of these things together can we deny the need children have for both a mother and a father.
Think with me of the impact if this is passed as law, that same sex marriages are equal to our current definition of marriages. Teachers in public schools will be required to teach same-sex marriages as an equal alternative. Think of the impact on young people who already struggle with their sexual identity.
Tammy Bruce in her book, "The Death of Right and Wrong", exposes the agenda of the left. Now, Tammy Bruce is pro-abortion. She is a lesbian-feminist, and she was the Past President of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization of Women. But she witnessed firsthand haw the group that she was involved with drifted from it's original purpose of fighting for the rights of women, and degenerated into an organization that sought to undercut all distinctions between right and wrong - in order to voice their own amoral agenda on society. She is worth listening to in what she says. She points out this:
"For the radicals, it is not a matter of accepting homosexuality but rather it has everything to do with eliminating the lines of decency and morality across the board."
She goes on to say this:
"Today's gay activists have carried the campaign a step further, invading children's lives by wrapping themselves in the banner of tolerance. It is literally the equivalent of the wolf coming to your door dressed as your grandmother. The radicals in control of the gay establishment want children in their world of moral decay, lack of self-restraint, and moral relativism. Why? How better to truly belong to the majority (when you're really on the fringe) than by taking possession of the next generation. By targeting children, you can start indoctrinating the next generation with the false construct that gay people deserve special treatment and special laws. How else can the gay establishment actually get society to believe, borrowing from George Orwell, that gay people are indeed more equal than others? Of course, the only to get that idea accepted is to condition people into accepting nihilism that forbids morality and judgment."
Now in this, there are always some interesting allies that come forth. I never thought I would quote Hilary Clinton, but in her book "Everyone Needs a Village", this is what she says:
"Every society requires a critical mass of families that fit the traditional ideal, both to meet the needs of most children and to serve as a model for other adults who are raising children in difficult settings. We are at risk of losing that critical mass in America today."
iii.) The redefinition of marriage to include same sex couples will undermine religious freedom.
Now those of you who have followed this in the news know that churches have been guaranteed protection. I am not so sure that we really can believe that. Already, two months ago, I was sent in the mail the new registration forms for performing marriages. No longer do they talk about "a husband and wife". No longer do they say "bride and groom". All they say is partners. Jeff and Tania wherever you are, if we do your marriage and if this legislation keeps on going, you won't be "man and wife" you'll be partners. And so would anybody else.
Marriage commissioners in our land, in our congregation, have already been told that their licenses will be revoked if they refuse to take and perform same-sex marriages. Many of us have been witness and privy to what happened when Camp Arnes refused to allow a homosexual group to use their facilities. I was told after I preached this in the first message that the battle is still ongoing, this is probably two years at least down the road. I would predict at the very least churches who refuse to perform same-sex marriages will be involved in endless lawsuits.
Now the idea is portrayed by our Prime Minister and the whole Liberal Party as being ridiculous. But that's why I particularly appreciate, and again you find unlikely allies, I appreciate that Newfoundlander Rex Murphy - who the day that this legislation was brought into the Parliament, he spoke and this is what he said, and I'm going to quote to you:
"But the churches and religious people have a stake in this debate. They are rightly concerned that the passage of same-sex marriage legislation may evolve into an insistence that they, the churches, will be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies once marriage has been redefined.
Take no comfort from the government's assurances that this will not be so, for it was the Liberal government's own Justice Minister in 1999…"
And if you remember, this isn't Rex Murphy speaking now, but if you remember in 1999 by a vote of 216 to 55 the MP's across the land expressed the will of the people of Canada to protect the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. And then they said they would take all necessary measures to preserve that definition. Well anyway back to Rex Murphy,
Then Justice Minister "…Anne McLellan, who during a debate on the very issue of marriage declared emphatically and unequivocally, I quote, 'Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same-sex marriages.' Minister McLellan was on a roll that day, for she went on, and I quote again, 'I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.'
Five years later, this government today introduced legislation which revokes every syllable and even the spaces between the syllables of the Liberal Justice Minister's assurances. Today's legislation by the Martin government is not just an assertion of a new right. It is potentially the reduction of an older one. Religious liberties are as dear to Canadians as civil ones, and the minefield before the government now is the narrow path between them and as to where that path may lead. Well, as McLellan's words demonstrate so potently, government assurances on this topic just aren't enough."
And so, what I'm saying is there's real reason to question whether our religious freedom will be honored.
Equally disturbing is our own Prime Minister, while allowing backbenchers a "Free-Vote" is insisting that Cabinet Ministers and Secretaries, which represent over 70 seats, they have to vote the party-line. Add to this the reality that although the Supreme Court gave general assurances that the rights of the religious would be protected; other statements indicate that protection would be conditioned on circumstances. Look at this statement that the Supreme Court gave. They said:
"In the absence of unique circumstances, about which the court will not speculate, the rights of churches will be protected."
But notice it's in "other than unique circumstances", the guarantee of religious freedom to not perform same-sex marriages contrary to the religious belief - is only guaranteed in certain circumstances. But certain unique circumstances could overrule that. In some certain unique circumstances we could be forced to do what in the scriptures' teachings is wrong.
The spokesman for the Justice Minister Erwin Cottler himself said the issue is not decided, and the courts will rule on a case-by-case basis. Can you see the writing on the wall? Imagine if I refused to do a wedding that violates the clear teachings of scripture. We as a church could be sued. We could lose our charitable tax status. We could be even be possibly shutdown.
Let me be clear on this. I believe that many in the gay community would uphold the right of the church to refuse to marry a gay couple. But I am also convinced that there are others in that community who would challenge at the first opportunity they get. I find it offensive that we are being called to be 'intolerant' when we are not refusing anyone the rights that they already have. But rather that we are facing the very real possibility that we will lose our religious freedom and the privilege of extending the love of Jesus to our community. Why? For seeking to preserve the tradition of marriage that has been around longer than our courts and even our country.
iv.)If we redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, it will further trap people with homosexual tendencies in the Gay lifestyle.
Now remember again that the radicals do not represent the whole. By in large the radicals in the gay movement, we probably are not going to influence them much. But the majority, the majority might even leave the gay lifestyle if they thought they could. But they are being continually told that their problem is in their genes. And thus they feel trapped. They feel trapped by the misinformation that our society is giving them. They don't even look for deliverance. They don't look for help because "It's just the way I am".
Now remember this. No matter what you see on television, the gay community is a hurting community. When you hear their stories of brokenness and heart ache, when you understand the abuse that has often taken place in their lives, 80% of lesbians were molested or mistreated by men - we understand that their hatred for men in many instances is what drove them into this lifestyle in the beginning. But, once in it's very difficult to break out. When we hear of the ugliness of sex without commitment, without love, without caring. We begin to recognize that this truly is a hurting community. Many of them are compulsively acting out to cover their pain.
Now, in the States a number of years ago, I think it was ten years ago, the gay movement lobbied the American Psychiatric Society to take and make it a violation of professional conduct for any psychiatrist or counselor to take and seek to help a person in a homosexual lifestyle come out of that lifestyle - even if the person requests it. Now to my understanding, that was defeated. But my fear is this. If we extend the privilege of marriage to the gay community, it will only further entrench in their minds that there is no help for them and that there is no hope for them. That this is the only way that they can be.
3.What is my responsibility as a Christian citizen?
Let me just begin by thinking historically. In ancient Rome when the church was young and Emperor worship was required, it was required of the citizenry of Rome at the pain of death. In other words, if you didn't worship Caesar you could be put to death. Christians understood that by calling Jesus "LORD", they were entering the political world of their time. They could not afford to make a neat separation between their personal faith and their public political philosophy. To say Jesus was 'LORD' was not just something that sounded nice in a testimony, it was something that put them in the coliseum. And yet they professed, and they lived 'Jesus is LORD'.
What does GOD ask of us at this time? Let me read to you first of all First Timothy 2, verse 1, where we are told,
"I urge then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession, and thanksgiving be made for everyone - for kings and those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth."
The first thing that I believe we need to do, is we need to pray for those who are in authority over us. And if you note, in our praying for those over us - yes it is that we can live a quiet and holy life. But we also see that the heartbeat of God is that all people would come to a knowledge of the Savior. God wants us to pray for those who are in leadership over us that they too might be saved. But also that the people of our community might come to Christ.
Folks, on Wednesday night, we are having a Concert of Prayer here at the church. It's gonna start at 6:30 and I want you to know that you're invited, but I want to encourage you that one of the things that you can do - yes in fact you are mandated by scripture to take, and be praying for those who are in authority over us - and this is a good time to do it. When we come together on Wednesday night, one of the issues that we will be praying into is this same-sex issue. And we'll be praying for those in leadership over us. I want to invite you to come. We will also be celebrating communion together, and I just think it will be important. I want to encourage you, whether you come Wednesday or not, you can pray. This is something you can do. This is something God asks you to do. It's a way you can make a difference on this issue.
Let me also read to you First Peter chapter 2,
"Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that thought they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day He visits us. Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right."
Let me give you a few suggestions from this. First of all, keep an eternal perspective on things. It's very easy in the midst of difficult issues to lose perspective. Remember this. This world is not our home. In this scripture we are told that we are aliens and strangers here. I don't want to frighten you here today. I don't want you to start to feel sorry for us as Christians, poor me. No. What we're doing today is seeking to inform you and challenge you to be a good citizen. I do not believe that we should be panicking on this issue. I think that we need to believe that God is in control, and he will still build His church even if we lose our charitable status. But I think we need to take and do everything we can in the mean-time to seek to take and be able to preserve what we have been given.
Third, live the life God wants you to live. God's primary means of changing society is not through the courts or legislatures, it is through changed hearts and lives. God wants to impact the hearts of people through you and me. He has called you and me to be 'salt and light' in this world. He's not calling us to champion a moral assault on our community. He is not calling us to take and walk out there with billboards, sandwich boards and taking in lobbying on this issue. But He is calling us to take and be 'salt and light' which brings out the true flavor and the true meaning of life. I believe on this issue that the best way of taking and demonstrating to the world that the present definition of marriage is the best, is to work hard at our own marriages and to be examples not only to our own children but to our neighbors, of what a happy marriage is all about. Change comes best by example and not by force.
Fourth, we are called to be stewards and good citizens, Now our attitude toward this should not be one of rebellion, but in respective ways and through the avenues that have been made available to us, we should take and make our concerns known. That is appropriate, that is right, and as a matter of fact that is our responsibility. The only time Christians are not required to take and follow the governing authorities is when the governing authorities violates the law of God. And we are poor citizens if do not exercise our rights to express our voice and voice our concerns on this issue at this time.
This is what I would encourage you to do. Yes I encourage you to pray., but I also encourage you to write or call your Member of Parliament. I went to see my MP Friday. He actually wasn't there, James wasn't there, and I ended up seeing the person who's running the office in Selkirk. He told me how close this race potentially is. It could be decided by two or three ridings, it could be that close. Now that tells me something. That tells me that every one of us needs to recognize that what we do or don't do will make a difference on this one. He also told me this, and he's not sure, but that bill is up for a second reading and that may well happen this week. He said after it's had it's second reading the vote could be called. Now he also said there's a number of other scenarios that might happen, but that potentially means that this thing could be potentially decided this week. That tells me that yes we can make a difference but that we do something and we need to do something now.
What I would encourage you to understand is that if we stay silent on this issue, silence will be understood by the political leaders of our land as consent. They are truly hoping that churches will just take and roll over and play dead. Once we've lost on this one, there'll be no regaining it. Consider taking and writing your MP; going and visiting them; phoning them…
…Speak primarily as a private citizen. Speak primarily affirming the present definition of marriage, and that you would conduct yourself with grace and respect. You need to reflect the love and righteousness of Jesus Christ on this issue. May they know us by our love, even when we take issue, and not by our poster signs. Let me pray for you as you consider what God would have you do this day, for this issue which will affect all of our future. You understand that this is an issue that you can make a difference on but you have to choose to make that difference.
I want to encourage you that God loves you. He wants what's best for you. And He wants to work through you. And he wants to make a difference through you even on this issue at this time.