Friday, May 22, 2009

Same-Sex Marriage and Interracial Marriage

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
UPDATE. We continue to wait out the 5 day period in which anyone can contest Referendum 71. We are told that we will be required to print the entire text of SB 5688, which is about a hundred pages, on every petition. Clearly the printing expense will be significant. Thank you for your financial support.

Same-Sex Marriage and Interracial Marriage

Isn't banning homosexuals from marriage just like banning interracial marriage? I've heard that and so have you.

In the discourse of the public debate about same-sex marriage, in nearly every case, if you oppose same-sex marriage, you are marked as homophobic, mean-spirited and bigoted.

Same-sex advocates often point out how interracial marriage was banned because of prejudice and ignorance, drawing comparables to those who oppose homosexual marriage today.

"We," they say, "are struggling against the same civil rights bigotry as African Americans and other ethnic minorities have experienced."

But are they?

This tone is reflected in the media, almost without exception, including in my discussion with Ken Schram on KOMO radio earlier this week.

And this is the tone that is asking people to, "Decline 2 Sign Referendum 71"---a new campaign from Equal Rights Washington. Most of the rhetoric from the "homosexual rights" side suggests or infers that if you oppose same-sex marriage, you are doing so because you are bigoted and you hate homosexuals.

You are prejudiced.

Not so.

People of faith can oppose homosexuality and it's advancement to deconstruct society by redefining marriage, without hating anyone, including homosexual advocates or those who practice it.

Here's why and why also, ethnicity is different than homosexuality.

There's been a fundamental shift in the debate over homosexual rights over the past number of years. The rhetoric has been changed to accommodate the advocates.

As homosexuals have purposely shifted the rhetoric, it has made any moral objection or criticism, even that given out of concern for the good of individuals or society seem unloving or cruel.

Mark Steyn, a writer and social critic, and not necessarily a supporter of our position on marriage, made an interesting point in 2003 in a Chicago Sun Times article titled, "There's No Stopping Them Now." He noted a simple shift in the words and language of the homosexual movement, and credited this shift with a rapid advancement of their agenda.

Senator Ed Murray, without identifying it, referred to this power shift in an interview with the Seattle Times just last week.

Steyn says that historically, moral concern for sexual activity between two persons of the same sex was identified as sodomy---an "act". An act, he says, is what it is.

Then Steyn explains in the late 19th century the act was re-described as a condition of certain persons, and was termed "homosexuality"---a condition a person was in.

A few decades ago he says homosexuality was upgraded again and now refers to a person's identity, so now we identify people as being "gay" or homosexuals.

Steyn writes:

"Each formulation raises the stakes. One can object to and even criminalize an act; one is obligated to be sympathetic toward a condition; but once it's a fully-fledged, 24/7 identity, like being Hispanic or Inuit, anything less than whole hearted acceptance gets you marked down as a bigot."

This is the basis of the case for homosexual marriage. Homosexuality is not genetic and is not equal to ethnicity.

SB 5688 and its cousins from the past few years were never really about domestic partnerships, but a carefully planned strategy of incremental steps to marriage. SB 5688 is marriage. Even the Seattle Times editorial board said, "give them the name" following the passage of the bill.

Senator Murray explained that concept to the Times only a few days ago and also said that the conversations with the public were going very well. He suggested the more homosexuals talked with the public, the better they understood the gay agenda and were willing to support redefining marriage.

He is saying that time is on their side because they have reframed the conversation.

Two thoughts.

First, their case is framed on a false premise. They have redefined the words of the public discourse, leading people to a false conclusion. You can reject the acts of homosexuality and the effort to enshrine them into law without hating the person or people. Remember homosexuality is an act. It does not equate with race or ethnicity.

Secondly, if time is helpful to advance the homosexual agenda, why would people who say they oppose homosexual marriage also be suggesting that we should wait a year or two to address a bill that provides for same-sex marriage?

If you have been persuaded to step back and not support Referendum 71, waiting for a better political time, please reconsider. There will not be a good time politically to address this issue.

If you feel empathy toward people and their families and are conflicted about denying or taking something from them, keep in mind that there are reasons why natural marriage has been honored and given special considerations. Marriage is not simply about people who love each other, but it is about providing a genetically connected mother and father to birth and raise children, caring and providing for the next generation. Should we reject the wisdom of history regarding marriage as being only between a man and a woman?

And should we compromise our belief in very clear biblical teaching on the matter of homosexual acts, in the spirit of trying to be fair and good?

Clearly we should not. However, that is not the true question. The proper question is, "Can I oppose the acts of homosexuality and its advancement in our culture without hating or rejecting a person?"

Yes. You can do both. You can reject the acts of homosexuality and their advancement, while caring and praying for those who commit the acts.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.