Why Bother?: Why Some Christians Aren’t Fighting Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

BreakPoint with Chuck Colson ^ | June 23, 2004 | Chuck Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

Things just don’t add up. The polls tell us that a significant majority of American voters oppose same-sex “marriage.” Yet congressmen and senators tell us that their phones aren’t exactly ringing off the hook over this issue. In fact, they’re hardly getting any calls on the subject at all—not even from Christians. What’s going on?

One explanation might be that, for many secularists who oppose same-sex “marriage,” it’s just not that big a deal. The general public often shies away from controversial social issues, especially during election years, and no one wants to seem judgmental, after all, in today’s “tolerant” environment.

But what about Christians? What’s our excuse for staying silent?

I think some don’t really believe this is such a critical battle. To them I can only say—wake up and pay attention. This issue has the potential to redefine and, ultimately, to destroy the institution of marriage in this country—and with marriage goes the family. You can’t ignore this.

But there are other Christians who recognize the importance of the battle over same-sex “marriage” but are still not speaking up. For many of them, I think the problem is a lack of faith.

Now, that may sound harsh, but I can’t think of a better way to put it. A lot of Christians—even some of our most prominent leaders—seem to have succumbed to a “What’s the use?” attitude. They believe that the cultural climate has turned so much against us that we’ll never be able to stop the advance of same-sex “marriage.” And they have heard that we don’t have the votes to pass a constitutional amendment in this session of Congress—so they don’t even want to urge the House and Senate to vote. Some Christian commentators have sounded a defeatist note.

I understand the need to be realistic about the odds we are facing—yes, it’s a tough fight. But it’s quite another thing to believe that because we don’t have the votes today, there’s no reason to fight.

I worked in the U.S. Senate between 1956 and 1960. We fought hard for civil rights bills—against entrenched segregation. Every year the bills were blocked by filibusters. But we kept fighting year after year. So did leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., and others. By 1964 the voting rights act was passed.

And what about Ronald Reagan, whom we honored just weeks ago—the man who led us to victory in the Cold War? He dared to demand that the Berlin Wall be torn down when almost no one else thought it possible. It took years, but it happened.

Remember, too, Wilberforce and his campaigns against slavery. He had only a handful of votes when he started, but he trusted in God. He battled year after year in the Parliament, and twenty years later, an overwhelming majority voted to end that horrible villainy.

The Senate has, I’m happy to say, scheduled debate to begin the week of July 12. Maybe there aren’t the votes there this year to pass a constitutional amendment, but that’s no excuse not to start the fight. We need a great national debate so we can make our case. And maybe we’ll lose this year—maybe next year we’ll lose again. But we’ll come back year after year—until we win. Like the cause of abolition, our cause is just. And if we trust in God, I believe that during the coming public debates, the public will see this as a great defining issue. And when they do, the pressure will be on recalcitrant congressmen to come our way.

I say let the debate begin. Let us engage the battle.

[Nowhere Man]

Very well said. I don't see anything here that I can really disagree with though I do hope that you're wrong about our collapse.

I often wonder about it myself, I remember my father talking about such a collapse as far back at the early 1970's. I don't know, maybe America as we know it has "jumped the shark," like you, I hope not, but seeing what has been going on, I have a few questions that need answered. I'm not ready to give up the fight though but if it happens, it happens and maybe afterward would be an opportunity to rebuild, but we are getting ahead of ourselves here. One of my hobbies is "alternate history," science fiction, and speculating on the future, so yes, I do think about these things from time to time.

I take some comfort in the fact that we tend to see all of the bad and sometimes overlook the good. Believe it or not, there are many good people out there and they're not as visible as the bad.

True, it's like the idea where "man bites dog" is news, deviancy and abnormalcy (like President Harding with "normalcy," I think I made up a new word B-)) do make the news and I would have to say being in topic, homosexuality is abnormal so there ya go. There are plenty of good people out there I have seen and I am convinced that there will be some way things will be set right, collapse or no collapse, but it seems like we are going through a lot of flak now. The trouble is that we have these judges who thinks God died and left them in charge and are making laws, that's where the trouble resides along with a willing media where they believe "anything goes."

[Nowhere Man]

Yep, some state governor needs to clap one of these idiots in irons, and then when he gets press flack, say "So, if these guys make the laws, do individual mayors get to start passing out assault wepons if they disagree with state gun laws?" Then sit back and watch the fur fly...

My thoughts exactly. Or maybe if I become a mayor, township supervior, etc., I was thinking about passing out amateur radio licenses on my own, no code tests, no tests at all (I'm an amateur radio operator) heck, why stop there, how about broadcast licenses too, I'll allow the US versions of the 100,000 to 500,000+ watt AM stations that are in Mexico and Cuba. I'm sure if I did that, the Feds (the FCC) would shut my butt down so fast, it would make my head spin. Why don't that do that with these renegade mayors with the homosexual marriage licenses?

A side note, I've heard of a case where a man with a yacht laid claimed as all international waters are part of his micronation, "Oceanus," and his idea was to pass out amateur radio licenses so "he can get international recognition from other countries." I've read about it in the "People's Almanac #2" (1978). Interesting read on the efforts of varous breakaway micronations, sort of like the idea some Christians want to do with South Carolina.

[Badeye]

"I figure it this way, if gays want to experience the joy and wonder of divorce, marriage tax, etc etc etc....let em have it.

Translation: "This house of sticks really sucks, let's move over to that straw house right quick.""

Concern with what any particular "little pig" is doing inside their own home is.....curious, to say the least.

[ArGee]

A simple answer: Don't send your daughter to places where she will mingle with people who do not share your values.

Were it always that simple.

My daughter is now 18 and will be standing up for herself in these circumstances. Thus far, "Mommy Dearest" has stayed away.

Shalom.

[FreedomHammer]

'Same-sex marriage' contributes, in much the same way as divorce and unwed single parenting, to laying low marriage, and more importantly the family itself, as we know it. Our children need stable foundations on which to build their lives, and family is of prominent importance in that foundation. By continually redefining and softening those basic foundations, we succeed only in placing our children and therefore the future of our culture at undue risk in order to indulge our lust and selfishness. We should think long and hard before depriving our children of a mother AND a father; no matter what the reason.

We have to apply some honest foresight in order to really understand how all of this is going to affect marriage. Consider this article posted today ...

---

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1158844/posts
Male Marital Outlook Linked to Upbringing
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
NEW YORK - While most single young men aspire to marriage, about one-fifth are deeply skeptical of the institution...
The survey, released Wednesday by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, found that the men with negative attitudes were far more likely than the rest to have been raised by a divorced parent in a non-churchgoing family. ...

---

Our children learn by what they see modeled in adults, just as we learned what was modeled for us when we were children. Our culture has been working for quite some time now, wittingly or unwittingly, at bringing down the institution of marriage. If adult males now are skeptical of marriage because of the example set for them through divorce and faithlessness, then consider honestly what affect further weakening and redefining is going to have on our young sons when they're of age to start a family.

I apologize for not being more eloquent in explaining this than I have been. I hope my comments have been of some use, though I really suggest listening to Mr. Prager.

[Know your rights]

the intrinsic value of a home to its current occupant is lowered not a whit by a neighboring mobile home

Then why do they have restrictions on where they can be placed?

Because they're concerned about resale value.

The intrinisic value of something is how it appears in the public eye, not the eye of the occupant.

I disagree. The intrinsic value of my Christian marriage has nothing to do with how it appears in the public eye; if the public came to scorn Christian marriage its intrinsic value would be unaffected.

[Know your rights]

Here is the original Holland article in the Weekly Standard. Over here is an article by the same author (Hoover Institute research fellow Stanley Kurtz) on the effect of same-sex marriage on the family structure and culture in Scandinavia. And lastly, he discusses Dutch experience again in This National Review article.

Thanks for the links. Kurtz makes a very persuasive case.

[Know your rights]

"...before someone says something foolish like, "No one has explained to me how this will hurt my marriage," "

Oops, too late. A foolish person in post #7 already asked it.

Get treatment for your reading disorder. Post #7 asks nothing of the sort:

"Much as I'm opposed to gay "marriage," I've never seen this claim [that gay "marriage" has the potential to destroy the institution of marriage in this country] adequately defended (and it's usually not defended at all, but simply asserted)."

[BureaucratusMaximus]

Not to be defeatist...but, too little too late.

This "Christian" nation has already accepted birth control as mainstream (including most Christians) which, IMHO was the first step in disrespecting God's miracle of life. (i.e. no matter how you try to spin it...birth control is playing God) Next came abortion, the acceptance of homosexuality, now its gay "marriages". Next up is the acceptance of pedophilia, pedophiliac marriages, polygamy, and beastiality.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

I posted before reading your post. I left out easy divorce. Most excellent comments.

[robertpaulsen]

A rose by any other name ....

[Know your rights]

"My marriage" doesn't equal "the institution of marriage."

[N. Theknow]

Obviously you are either a libertarian, enamored of the homosexual agenda or hopelessly obtuse.

[Know your rights]

The intrinsic value of my Christian marriage has nothing to do with how it appears in the public eye; if the public came to scorn Christian marriage its intrinsic value would be unaffected.

Obviously you are either a libertarian, enamored of the homosexual agenda or hopelessly obtuse.

Obviously you prefer name-calling to reasoned debate.

[horatio]

I'm going to guess that you don't have any children. One thing that being a parent changes in people, is that they have more concern for the future. It matters what happens in the world. The most intimate connection a human has to the future of the race is one's own child. Saying that the impulse to influence and protect the future through one's progeny is a "so what"...just tells me you already gave up

Nice, except that's not what you originally said.

You originally posted: Theoretically, your estate could be dissipated among people who have no blood relation to you whatsoever within 2 generations if gay marriages are upheld.

To which I replied: So what? That happens now. People adopt, decide not to have kids, or blow the inheritance before it can be handed down.

I agree that children are important, and I agree that parents' primary responsibility is the welfare of their child. But I don't consider what my children decide to do with my money after I'm dead to be that important. Even if they decide to leave it to persons who "no blood relation to (me) whatsoever."

[GVnana]

But I don't consider what my children decide to do with my money after I'm dead to be that important. Even if they decide to leave it to persons who "no blood relation to (me) whatsoever."

That's too bad because one of the largest incentives we have in life is securing a better welfare for the future than the one we have in present.

But since you won't be around to see it, I guess it doesn't matter.

[horatio]

No, the best thing we can do in life is guarantee our children a better opportunity in life. We shouldn't hand them anything on a platter - it kills initiative and self-reliance and does them no favors.

You still haven't addressed my point - don't care much for adoption, do you?

[GVnana]

don't care much for adoption, do you?

That's a silly assumption since I have an adopted brother.

[Mr. Silverback]

Concern with what any particular "little pig" is doing inside their own home is.....curious, to say the least.

Opposing a change in marriage law is not the same as caring what goes on in someone's bedroom. In fact, there is little to connect them.

Allow me to elaborate on my analogy: Families are the material societies are built from. We used to have a brick house. Then we had the sexual revolution and made it all about the gratification and comfort of consenting adults (rather than the protection of children) and we moved to the stick house: Hideous divorce laws, epidemic illegitimate birth, rampant STDs, amorphous family structure, etc. Now some people look around, say "Wow, this stick house is already made of such bad material, I'll bet we'd be better off in the straw house." Yeah, great idea.

I am little concerned with any particular humping options that the little pigs Adam and Steve may employ privately in their own bedroom. Their behavior is none of my business. A major change in marriage law is 100% my business, because I have to live in the society these social engineers are trying to remake in the image of Canada.

My concern is not with the sexual activities of the piggies. My concern is with the wolf at the door. Civilizations that screw up the family get eaten.

[horatio]

So why are you bothered by the fact that your kids might will the money you leave them to people who are "no blood relation to you whatsoever"?