5/7/12 at 11:46 AM 1 Comments

Debating NC Marriage Amendment

text size A A A

Tuesday night, May 1, 2012, I found myself at the Mecklenburg County Commissioners Meeting in Charlotte. They were debating whether or not they supported Amendment One (Marriage Protection Amendment) to the North Carolina State's Constitution.I know, I was thinking the same thing you probably are now, "what does the County Commission have to do with the State Constitution?". For this reason, I scheduled to speak to the commission and did so for three minutes.

I was most interested in Commissioner Dunlap's response to those of us that encouraged them to support Amendment One. He said, "If you’re worried about gay people threatening your marriage, then you have a real problem." He didn't get the point of why we were there. Obviously, the entire commission didn't get the point, and therefore voted to 5-4 to Oppose Amendment One.

Commissioner Dunlap's response provides a clear glimpse into why morals are declining so rapidly in our culture today. At the heart of his comment is complete and total selfishness. He thinks that if something doesn't threaten your current safety then it should not be considered a threat. His comment lacks wisdom and the ability to see that by not protecting the biblical/historical definition of marriage it erodes the moral fabric of our society. If we are going to continue as a nation we must preserve and protect the most sacred institutions of society, specifically marriage & family.

The commissioner is right, opposition to Amendment One does not threaten my marriage today. But it does, however, threaten future generations. The loss of our generational mindset is what grieves me most about our leaders today. We need to remember what William Bradford, the first Governor of Plymouth Plantation, said about their generational vision: Last and not least, they cherished a great hope and inward zeal of laying good foundations, or at least of making some way towards it, for the propogation and advance of the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in the remote parts of the world, even though they should be stepping stones to others in the performance of so great a work.

I also find it very interesting that President Obama is now opposing Amendment One here in North Carolina. To be honest, it’s none of his business how North Carolinians define marriage. This issue is far too important for him or a small group of legislators or judges to decide, so it’s up to the people of our state during the early voting and on May 8, 2012.

Same-sex marriage is already banned in the state of North Carolina. The proposed measure, however, would simply add the ban to the state constitution. The amendment reads,

"Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State".

It’s a shame that we have slid so far south of traditional values in this country that the very bedrock of society, the family unit, cannot even be defined as it truly is. The reason our founders didn’t define it was probably because the thought of marriage as anything but between a man and a woman was absurd to them.

John Adams, our 2nd US President, wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1813

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

The Christian principles that Adams referred to are both universal and societal. Societal moral principles, such as marriage & family, are as eternal and immutable as universal principles, such as the patterns of the sun. The only difference between the two is that we have a choice to believe and uphold societal principles, yet we have no choice but to believe universal ones. Marriage between one man and one woman is as fixed as the sun rising in the East and setting in the West, but some don’t believe that anymore.

Trying to redefine a moral principle is like trying to redefine the pattern of the sun…it’s absurd. The biblical/historical definition of marriage is unchanging. The only thing that is changing, however, is our reliance upon God’s standards. At one time, our founders, like John Adams, confessed total reliance upon these standards. Yet today, our leaders can’t run fast enough from them. This exodus is producing a corrupt society, and, unless you have your head buried in the sand, the evidence is pretty clear.

For the men on the other side of this vote, I’ll say a couple of things: You’ll never find the love of a father in the arms of another man. The emotional hurt that you’ve experienced can only be healed through a life-giving relationship with the very one that created you. You are a precious gift of God. I encourage fellow North Carolinians to love and embrace you as a person. Redefining an eternal principle will not heal the hurt you’ve experienced, only correctly relating to the one that created the principle will.

I recently received an invitation for the Independent Tribune newspaper to share my thoughts on NC’s Amendment One vote. I have included my Q&A here:

Q:What is your position on Amendment One and why have you taken that position?

A:Marriage is between a man and a woman. It is clearly the way humans were designed, and the fact we’re even talking about re-defining marriage alarms me to the reality that we’ve lost our moral compass. Ethical standards are unchangeable the same way universal standards are unchangeable. For instance, the definition of marriage was defined by God the same way the pattern of the sun was defined by God. Both are unchangeable.

Q:How does a gay marriage harm others, in your opinion?

A:The family is essential to society as a whole. The design of the family – man/woman covenanting together for life, reproducing children, caring for and nurturing them to maturity, etc – is the thread that connects the world together and has provided the very basis of society since the beginning of time. To simply redefine this because of one small group of people would be to erode this thread.

Q:What would you like to say to readers who say the Bible doesn’t explicitly say that homosexuality is a sin, and the comment that the section about laying down with animals and man actually refers more to the cleanliness issue of the time?

A:I have attached a few scriptures that talk to this point.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
Romans 1:26-27 – “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

Q:What would you like to say to readers about the argument that if this law passes it would deny a certain group their right to be married?

A:What is the standard and where is the line drawn on what “certain groups” can or can’t redefine ancient definitions for their specific benefit?

Q: Some Christians I interviewed said Jesus loves everyone and that homosexuality is not a sin and there are passages in the Bible that shows Jesus showing kindness to outcasts?

A: Jesus does love everyone. He loves them as a loving father, and, like a loving father, He refuses to allow his children to harm themselves with sin. He was kind to a woman caught in adultery because those that condemned her were religious hypocrites. The important thing to remember is that after He rebuked those men then He looked at the woman and said, “Go and sin no more.” In other words, Jesus sided with Truth and not one particular sinner over another. His kindness to her was based on truth and did not simply gloss over her sin, rather it held the standard of truth to both the woman and her accusers. This is very important in this debate over homosexuality. Many, unfortunately, that condemn homosexuality are themselves hypocrites. Jesus doesn’t like this. In the Leviticus passage above it says that death is the consequence for homosexual sin. This is how detestable this type of sin is to God. However, Jesus came and took the consequences of this sin upon Himself on the cross. Homosexual sin is covered by the blood of Jesus the same way stealing is. The only difference today is that homosexual sin carries with it an agenda, other sins do not. Homosexuality demands acceptance, and the blood of Jesus cannot forgive sins that are no longer sins. The blood of Jesus cleanses sin.

Q: In your own words, what would happen, if Amendment One doesn’t pass and gay marriage is allowed to occur?

A: Today, if we redefined how many inches were in a foot we would weaken every structure built-in America moving forward. In 20 years the only buildings or houses left standing would be those built prior to 2012. In the same way, if we redefine marriage it would weaken the very moral structure of society. In 20 years the only marriages left standing would be those that held to God’s original standard.

Q: What would you like to say to readers about the argument that if Amendment One passes, it could change domestic violence laws, like it did in Ohio, that could allow prisoners to be released because they weren’t married to their victims?

A: It would be as ironic as legalizing abortion while charging drunk drivers with double homicide when pregnant mothers are killed in drunk driving accidents.

CP Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author(s).