The topic of discussion for this Freedom Friday is the fact that marriage is finally being discussed openly. GOP presidential candidates are being quizzed about where they stand on marriage and the family. The GOP debate in
, a state that has legalized same-sex marriage, brought a lot of questions about marriage. Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum repelled MSM attempts to portray their marriage views as bigotry here. There was extended debate about marriage here. When Newt Gingrich was grilled in an interview, he turned the table on the media and asked "Why aren't you asking about Obama's bigotry?" Gingrich also responded to CNN bias against religious liberty here. New Hampshire
A group of religious leaders - Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical, Jewish, Lutheran, Mormon, and Pentecostal - have joined together in defending marriage and religious freedom. This group has recently published two open letters to the public. The first letter was dated December 6, 2010, with the title "The Protection of Marriage: A Shared Commitment." The second letter was dated January 12, 2012, with the title "Marriage and Religious Freedom: Fundamental Goods that Stand or Fall Together." Both letters can be found here.
I have written several articles on my blog about marriage and the family. One was written more than a year ago and is entitled "Why Marriage Is Important." Another was written in April 2010 and is entitled "Doctrine of the Family." My most recent one was in November 2011 and entitled "Family Proclamation."
I firmly believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and has been since the time of Adam and Eve. I agree with the religious leaders who wrote, "The promotion and protection of marriage - the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife - is a matter of the common good and serves the wellbeing of the couple, of children, of civil society and all people. The meaning and value of marriage precedes and transcends any particular society, government, or religious community. It is a universal good and the foundational institution of all societies. It is bound up with the nature of the human person as male and female, and with the essential task of bearing and nurturing children."
I also believe that using the word "marriage" to cover same-sex sexual relationships will have serious consequences. "These conflicts bear serious consequences. They will arise in a broad range of legal contexts because altering the civil definition of "marriage" does not change one law, but hundreds, even thousands, at once. By a single stroke, every law where rights depend on marital status - such as employment discrimination, employment benefits, adoption, education, healthcare, elder care, housing, property, and taxation - will change so that same-sex sexual relationships must be treated as if they were marriage. That requirement, in turn, will apply to religious people and groups in the ordinary course of their many private or public occupations and ministries - including running schools, hospitals, nursing homes and other housing facilities, providing adoption and counseling services, and many others."
Religious organization will face lawsuits or be forced to drop services. If they are successful in avoiding civil liability, they will face governmental sanctions such as withdrawal of government funds or other benefits.
To use an old adage, changing the civil definition of "marriage" would open a Pandora's Box of trouble. The term "marriage" should describe the relationship between one man and one woman. Other relationships should be given different names. It is obvious that the union between one man and one woman as husband and wife must be promoted and protected. We must defend marriage or suffer the consequences!