This week, New York’s highest court ruled 4-2 to uphold the state constitution, barring same-sex marriage. In addition, the Georgia Supreme Court reinstated a voter-supported ban on same-sex marriage this week.
These were important victories for traditional marriage proponents, but this battle continues to rage, largely because activist judges across the country have decided to thwart the will of voters to legislate their own “morality” from the bench.
New York’s Court of Appeals reviewed four appeals made by homosexual couples and ruled that the parties have no right to obtain marriage licenses from local officials.
However, state supreme courts in Washington and New Jersey are now considering similar same-sex marriage cases. Other states with marriage cases in lower courts will almost certainly see those cases arriving at their respective state high courts in the months to come. Meanwhile, Massachusetts has predictably become the fist state to legally permit same-sex marriages.
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest homosexual-rights organization, said the New York court utilized “archaic reasoning” to reach its decision.
“Every couple in a loving and committed relationship should be able to obtain the legal protections that only come with marriage,” lamented Joe Solmonese, president of HRC. “We know that the struggle for equality is never quick or easy, but history has taught us that with determination, debate and devotion ? the side of progress ultimately prevails.”
That means we can expect an acceleration of activity in our nation’s marriage wars.
But I have a question: If “every couple in a loving and committed relationship” should be afforded the right to marry, then do we not need to also allow bigamists, polygamists, Man-Boy Love Association members and all others in “alternative” relationships to marry? And if we do not afford them the same right, who are we to bar their inclusion into a diverse society?
Of course, this is a nonsensical argument, but no more so than the attempt by homosexuals to gain the right to marry.
Defining the battle
Liberty Counsel, an affiliate ministry of Liberty University, is one of the most visible legal organizations fighting for traditional marriage in America. The organization has been active in every one of the New York cases since they were filed and has filed legal briefs defending traditional marriage before the court of appeals.
Mathew D. Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, responded to the New York ruling, saying, “We are pleased that this latest attempt by the homosexual agenda to radically redefine our culture has been stopped dead in its tracks. The court of appeals agreed with millennia of human history regarding traditional marriage.”
I agree with Mr. Staver that marriage is distinct from other personal relationships.
“The marital union of a man and a woman,” said Mr. Staver, “uniquely contributes to the continuing well-being of men and women, to society, to children and to the state. To recognize marriage between people of the same sex would result in the abolition of male and female by making gender irrelevant, and the abolition of gender would have devastating effects on children.”
That is the ultimate societal outcome if we sacrifice traditional marriage in our nation. In all seriousness, gender will become indistinct and our children will be taught in school to be completely nebulous in terms of their own gender.
We have already seen initial moves to eliminate Mother’s Day and Father’s Day in one New York school because “families in our society are now diverse and varied.”
There is no end to the slippery slope of same-sex marriage.
Coming next week
I urge readers to keep Liberty Counsel in their prayers. Next week, on July 10, Mr. Staver will be presenting oral arguments before the California Court of Appeals in defense of California’s marriage laws.
This is essential work that Mat, his wife, Anita, and their team are doing, and I’m thankful that God has placed this team at the forefront of the marriage wars.
Related special offer: