Why has nearly every culture in the world, since the beginning, had the good sense to recognize and foster marriages between one man and one woman?
There are several reasons:
- Jews and Christians believe it is a God thing. Genesis tells us that God created Adam and Eve as a model for the family structure. Jesus affirmed this in Matthew 19:4-6, when He said: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
- Marriage between one man and one woman works.It is an institution that is tried and tested. It forms the cornerstone of a self-governing society and economy. There is no other model you can point to in the history of the world that more naturally meets the needs of people, civilizes a society and reduces violence and oppression.
- Lastly, and quite apart from the divisive spiritual and economic issues that divide people, there’s the issue of child-rearing. There simply is no good alternative to raising children outside of the one-man, one-woman family. It protects children. It provides male and female role models for them. It’s simple common sense.
Nevertheless, there are powerful cultural and legal forces working overtime in Western societies to relegate the ideal institution of marriage to the ash heap of history.
Things are moving quickly now, but the process for dismantling marriage has been under way for some time.
It began in earnest with a structural change in laws that made divorce easy. The concept was called “no-fault divorce.” If a man or a woman wanted a divorce for any reason, it would be granted. Divorce had always been around, but there were laws that discouraged it, made it difficult, required “grounds.” That all changed in the 1960s and 1970s. And divorce skyrocketed.
The result was a dramatic increase in poverty mostly for women and children. The state would have to step in with programs to provide the “safety net” the family structure previously offered. (Few recognize, even to this day, how the government was empowered through this act of counterfeit compassion.)
Then came “the women’s liberation movement.” The feminists insisted that marriage was, by design and nature, an oppressive, paternalistic institution. The slogan “marriage equals rape” comes to mind. Women were discouraged from thinking about marriage as a natural desire and goal for their lives.
Then came “the gay liberation movement.” We were told that what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms was nobody else’s business – certainly not the government’s. Homosexuality was “normal,” whereas it had previously been seen as a pathology or, worse yet, a sin. Not only was it normal, it was genetic – and impossible to reverse. From there, people’s sexual proclivities and habits became everyone’s business – especially the government’s. Laws against homosexual behavior were struck down by courts.
And then came, just as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had warned in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case overruling anti-sodomy laws, something new under the sun – “same-sex marriage.” When Scalia wrote his dissent in the Lawrence case, suggesting it would lead directly to homosexual marriage, polygamy and incest, there was raucous scoffing and ridicule from the progressives. Because, at that time, not even the most radical homosexual activists had dreamed up such ideas.
Where are we today?
- Same-sex marriage has been legalized in 18 states and the District of Columbia.
- Those with still cling to the notion that homosexuality is sin are prosecuted for their “bigotry” for simply refusing to participate in such ceremonies as photographers, cake makers or officiators.
- Last month, Utah District Judge Clark Waddoups effectively ruled in favor of polygamy in the case of Kody Brown and his concubines, who appear in the reality TV show “Sister Wives.”
It’s worth point out that Utah was only permitted to become a state in 1896 when it officially renounced polygamy.
Technically, however, polygamy is still illegal. But it’s only a matter of semantics now. If a man can persuade several women to shack up with him and have children, it’s OK – as long as he doesn’t refer to those women as his wives. You can still only have one woman as a wife, but you can cohabitate with as many as you like. Presumably the same applies to a woman who chooses to have a brood of men living with her.
But how long do you suppose this situation will last?
If “same-sex marriage” is about freedom of choice, why would that choice be limited to couples? Where did the notion of marriage as an institution between couples come from? Did it not originate with the same “archaic” religious principles that have been blown to smithereens by “same-sex marriage” laws and court rulings?
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, what of the children?
Does anyone consider the effect this kind of social experimentation will have on the unfortunate kids who are being treated like guinea pigs?
There is a better way. It’s found in Genesis 2:24. It’s found in Matthew 19:4-6. It’s found in Mark 10:7. It’s found in our consciences if only we would listen.
Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact [email protected].