My Friday column — “What if I’m wrong about God?” — prompted an
outpouring of thousands of letters.
Most of them were positive. Some of them were negative. Others, like
the one I will address today, were mixed in their reviews of my central
Mark Gibb of League City, Texas, writes with thanks for
WorldNetDaily, which he considers “an indispensable source of news and
opinion that is based on an ethic of reason and factuality.”
“However,” he writes “I take exception to an assertion you made in
your article. … You stated the following: ‘When we pass laws against
murder, however, we are legislating morality — just as surely as when
we pass laws against homosexual marriage or abortion-on-demand.’ …
“Most political philosophers would agree that there has to be a moral
starting point or justification for government power and laws that flow
from that power,” he continues. “The simplest moral justification is
that laws are passed to prevent or punish someone for violating someone
else’s rights. In other words, there must be a victim. If there is no
victim to complain that they have been wronged, then it becomes the
government’s job to seek out and right ‘wrongs’ that it perceives to
have occurred. This can lead to an arbitrary and tyrannical application
of government power, and, in fact, we see this all the time with own
“So I submit to you that outlawing homosexual marriage has nothing to
do with outlawing murder,” Gibb writes. “I ask you to identify the
victim in a homosexual marriage. Moral choices that don’t involve
violating someone else’s rights need to be made in the hearts of
individuals, for if we aren’t given the freedom to choose right from
wrong, then any pretext of liberty we maintain is a sham.”
Mr. Gibb’s thoughtful comments bring us right back to another point I
have made over and over in this column — that without God there are no
Rights are inalienable privileges bestowed upon us by God. Without God
and His Word, who could definitively say that murder is wrong? It would
simply be one subjective view versus another. Our immutable standard is,
like it or not, the Bible.
With that in mind, let’s address the challenge Gibb offers on
homosexual marriage. He contends that there is no victim in a homosexual
marriage and, therefore, it is not a suitable issue for public policy
debate in a free republic or for action by a government supposedly of
the people, by the people and for the people.
Can we take this seriously? I don’t think so.
There are a great many people in this country who would contend that
there might not be one specific victim in a homosexual marriage but that
the very concept of homosexual marriage would degrade the 6,000-year-old
institution of heterosexual marriage — the very cornerstone of
Since God Himself is the author of the institution of marriage, as we
read in Genesis, and nowhere in His Word countenances any form of
homosexual behavior, clearly the very concept of homosexual marriage is
an affront to God and His people.
No one’s rights are denied when society refuses to create a new
institution of homosexual marriage. There is no right abrogated.
Marriage is an institution created specifically as a union of one man
and one woman for the purposes of companionship and child-rearing. It is
also the most fundamental structure of government — complete with its
own hierarchy and order. It is the family, interestingly enough, that
eliminates the need for a powerful civil government and, therefore,
secures freedom. Almost all human needs are provided best by the family.
When the family breaks down, that’s when government increases its power
to fill the vacuum.
Think about it. If marriage is merely a cultural phenomenon — a
man-made institution — then there could be no legitimate limits placed
upon it. Why not allow brother and sister to marry? Why not allow group
marriages? Why not allow marriages to animals or inanimate objects?
Let’s face it. No society sanctions such relationships because of the
traditions begun in the Garden of Eden.
But, again, what if I’m wrong about God? Suppose He’s not in the
equation? My central point remains the same. If we live our lives as
believers — people who expect consequences for actions, accountability
from ultimate authority, we will be, individually and as a society, far
better off than otherwise.
Would anyone honestly prefer to live in an “anything-goes” society,
governed only by the terror of the state? That’s the alternative. For
there is no self-government outside of a moral society living, as best
it can, by the central tenets of God’s law.
Without God’s order, the world is little more than a moral cesspool.
That’s why it is in our collective best interest, even for atheists and
agnostics, to live like believers and pray they are wrong.