Last week, the Supreme Court of New Jersey handed down a decision that ordered their state Legislature to change its marriage laws to ensure that homosexual couples receive the same benefits and privileges that married couples receive. Even though the Court admitted that it could not locate a “fundamental right” to same-sex marriage in the state constitution, it nonetheless ruled that “the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our State Constitution.” In other words, in the name of “tolerance,” the New Jersey Supreme Court rewrote the marriage laws of the state.
Unfortunately, the New Jersey Supreme Court is not the first to redefine marriage. This moral slide in the law began in 2003 with a U. S. Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Court ruled that “liberty protected by the [U.S.] Constitution allows” individuals to commit sodomy, even though 17 years earlier in Bowers v. Hardwick the Court had emphatically stated that the Constitution contains no such right. The Bowers Court had explained that the whole history of the law was against such immoral acts, but the Court in Lawrence ignored that history, in part because a decision by the European Court of Human Rights approved of sodomy. Later the same year, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an infamous opinion in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health in which it ruled that the Massachusetts Constitution gives homosexuals the right to marry. It quoted from Lawrence for support of the unprecedented decision.
The apparent willingness to accept sodomy and same-sex marriage, or the benefits thereof, as constitutional rights is not restricted to the judicial branch of government. Even some executives of state and national government have demonstrated their willingness to comply with such illogical reasoning. The governor of New Jersey, John Corzine, voiced his immediate approval of the state Supreme Court’s decision by stating that he would sign into law such legislation when the New Jersey Legislature complied with the Court’s demands.
On Sept. 25, 2001, following his appointment as ambassador to Romania by President Bush, Michael Guest became the first open homosexual to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve in such a position. Earlier this year, President Bush appointed an admitted homosexual, Mark Dybul, as the next U.S. global AIDS coordinator. At the swearing-in ceremony, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed her honor and delight at having the opportunity to give Dybul the oath in the presence of his parents and “his partner, Jason.” The Senate confirmed his appointment in August of this year.
Despite the acceptance of the homosexual agenda by leadership in both political parties, the overwhelming voice of the people of our country is against sodomy, same-sex marriage, and special rights for homosexuals. In 1992, the people of Colorado passed an amendment to their state constitution that denied special rights to homosexuals. The U.S. Supreme Court struck it down in 1996 in the egregious Romer v. Evans, but the ruling could not quell the will of the people. To date, 20 states have approved amendments to their constitutions defining marriage to be solely between a man and a woman, all of which have been passed by sizable majorities of the people. Eight more states are due to vote on such amendments this November, and the results are expected to be similarly overwhelming.
The importance of marriage to society and the dangers inherent in a homosexual lifestyle can hardly be overstated. Marriage is the building block of society and the basis for social and economic stability. Marriage between a man and a woman is an ordinance of God, but sodomy was deemed an abomination by the Creator, whose plan for mankind and succeeding generations was clearly stated in Holy Scripture. His design for our lives was recognized by men and women for centuries in practice and in law.
Activist decisions in the name of “tolerance” by judges and executives of both state and federal government should not be tolerated by the people. Such decisions undermine the will of the people and open the door for even more deviant moral relationships. Same-sex marriage and sodomy are, simply stated, a slippery slope to polygamy and incestuous relationships.
It is time for leadership of both parties in Congress to take action to prevent the further destruction of our morality. “It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. … Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?” Those words stated by George Washington were true in 1796 when he gave his Farewell Address, and they are true today. The foundation of the fabric of our nation is being shaken, and only those who would restore our moral foundation deserve our vote on Tuesday.