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.

[GVnana]

Your missing a few words and concepts. I never said that.

[horatio]

Okay, here's the entire text of the original post:

 

To: Mr. Silverback

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

And I believe this is a large, but unspoken motivation among the gay activists. It's just covert destruction.

37 posted on 06/23/2004 10:30:05 AM EDT by GVgirl

 

I read that as saying that you don't want your estate to be spread among people with whom you do not have a blood connection. You even call it "destruction."

My response was twofold:

First, that blood relation is not the only family that's important (I have aunts and uncles whose families are entirely comprised of adopted kids, meaning their estates will most certainly be spread amonst people not of blood relation), and

Second, that who your kids leave their money (and whatever remains of yours) is totally out of your control anyway.

Now, I'm willing to concede that I may have misintrepreted your meaning. Nuance tends to be lost in posts, and I might have jumped to conclusions. Would you care to explain it in detail?

[GVnana]

Gawd! Not really. But.

If you are saying that I cannot approve of adoption because I caution that abandoning procreation as the primary form of familial identity will undermine the family, destroy incentive for the conservation of wealth and create apathy for the welfare of future generations you are wrong.

[horatio]

Nope, of course you can have both opinions. I just think you're wrong.

Fair enough?

[GVnana]

OK. I'm wrong. You have a good one.