There is such a thing as a slippery slope. In terms of upending the concept of traditional marriage–a union between one man and one woman– that slope began with Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. This was the case that struck down sodomy laws in Texas and thirteen other states. While I question the idea of the government having any jurisdiction in what goes on between consenting adults in their own homes, this case opened a true Pandora’s Box. Those who support homosexual marriage say that there will be no further definition of marriage other than to allow homosexual couples to marry. However, that does not seem to be the case. Yesterday World Net Daily posted a story showing a situation that should give pause to all of us.
The story reports:
Norman MacArthur and Bill Novak, father and son, though not biologically, will soon be husband and … whatever, reports the Patch of Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
The pair, both in their 70s, have been together for 50 years and registered in New York City as domestic partners in 1994. But when they moved to Pennsylvania, they discovered their domestic partnership wasn’t recognized, and legalized same-sex marriage was nowhere on the horizon.
…When the United States District Court declared unconstitutional Pennsylvania’s marriage laws prohibiting same-sex marriage unconstitutional in 2014, Novak and MacArthur wanted to tie the knot in marriage, but their earlier legal gambit now became an obstacle. Pennsylvania law doesn’t permit marriage between parents and children.
…So, a week ago, the father and son’s Petition to Vacate Adoption Decree was approved, and the pair simply became two single men now allowed to marry.
So let’s look at this. They were not actually father and son, so they were able to dissolve that relationship in the courts. However, what would happen if a parent and child wanted to marry? Could the parent disown the child and proceed? Homosexual marriage redefines the traditional definition of marriage. To people who hold a Biblical view of homosexuality and of marriage, it is not acceptable. To people who simply believe in tradition, homosexual marriage in not acceptable. There are two possible answers here that might make things a little more palatable for both sides–one is to simply make marriage a civil matter and let the churches perform whatever marriages they choose (no penalty to churches who do not want to perform homosexual marriages) or to give civil unions the same legal rights and benefits as marriage. Neither is a perfect solution, but I believe both are fair to each side of the argument.
The gay community needs to understand that there are people in our society that simply do not condone what they are doing–just as they often do not condone the practice of Biblical Christianity. Equal under the law is not a concept that allows people to randomly sue other people who do not share their views. Unfortunately our society has forgotten that. We have had thousands of years where marriage was between a man and a woman. This has been an important building block of our civilization, and I believe we tamper with that building block at our own risk.