Doing Your Own Thing

As you heard Mark Earley report on this broadcast last week, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court called for the state legislature to endorse same-sex "marriages," the judges claimed that they were doing this in the interest of family stability. The court's decision reads, in part, "Civil marriage anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable relationships over transient ones. It is central to the way the Commonwealth identifies individuals, provides for the orderly distribution of property, [and] insures that children and adults are cared for and supported whenever possible from private rather than public funds." In other words, the court has equated gay "marriage" and traditional marriage by implying that both of them can do all of these things equally well. The fact is that the court's decision undermines family stability rather than strengthening it. As Maggie Gallagher, author of several books on marriage, points out, "For thirty years, the sexual revolutionaries have said, 'Heck, kids are resilient; the important thing is that you do what makes you happy.' By rewriting the laws of marriage, the courts have essentially carried this logic to the ultimate conclusion: Marriage is whatever the adults want. People have a right to conduct a great social experiment on children because, well, adults want to do it, and doing your own thing is the new law of the land." Gallagher is right. If we define marriage as "whatever the adults want," the result is harm for children, society, and for the consenting adults. This the advocates of gay "marriage" refuse to concede. They ignore two things: the fundamental differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships and the nature of marriage itself. Same-sex "marriage" advocates often conveniently fail to mention the high rates of promiscuity in even the most "committed," so-called, homosexual relationships. Numerous studies have shown that homosexuals simply look at their relationships differently -- one well-known study discovered that only 4.5 percent of homosexual respondents in "committed" relationships had been faithful. The redefinition of marriage to include relationships with such high rates of infidelity will reshape the way we see all marriages. And this leads directly to the other point: Same-sex "marriage" advocates fail to understand marriage. It is not simply a union of two people. It is the union of one man and one woman, who by nature complement and help to fulfill each other, and who in most cases are capable of having children without resorting to a third party. Marriage is not something that can be made to look like whatever we want. To play around with the definition of marriage is to risk grievous consequences to families and society. It also poses a risk to religious believers who cannot condone same-sex "marriage." Already some local councils in the Netherlands are insisting that government officials perform same-sex "marriage" ceremonies, regardless of the officials' religious beliefs. This battle is, in my opinion, the Armageddon of the culture war. Please call us at BreakPoint (1-877-322-5527). I want to send you some information about the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment so you can share it with your friends and use it as a basis to call your congressman and senators right now. They're deliberating what to do, and the president is about to announce his position. This is the time for Christians to be heard. For further reading and information: Read the decision in Goodridge v. Massachusetts here. William F. Buckley, Jr., "Does Marriage Matter?National Review Online, 25 November 2003. Maggie Gallagher, "Goodridge decision comes down hard,", 19 November 2003., edited by Maggie Gallagher, provides a forum for arguments about marriage. is a pro-marriage website that provides useful links and commentary on the debate over marriage. BreakPoint Commentary No. 031119, "Leave It to the Courts." Read President George W. Bush's statement on the Massachusetts decision. Visit BreakPoint's Sanctity of Marriage resource page. Read the text of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. Call 1-877-3-CALLBP to request the "Speak the Truth in Love" resource kit ($25), which includes various articles and CDs on marriage, as well as a booklet titled, "Homosexuality: A Thoughtful Analysis." You can also request a complimentary "Marriage Amendment Information Packet." The goal of One Hundred Thousand Ministers is to enlist at least 100,000 ministers of the Gospel nationwide to affirm: Yes to Man and Woman in Marriage: No to Same-Sex "Marriage." We only say "no" to something because of the prior "yes" rooted in the Gospel. Learn more about this effort. Dr. Michael Easley, "The Wrath of God," sermon delivered November 9, 2003, at Immanuel Bible Church. (An audio version is available here.) Tony Perkins, "Protect traditional marriage," USA Today, 18 November 2003. Stanley Kurtz, "Who Is Goodridge Good For?National Review Online, 19 November 2003. "The Left at the Altar," editorial, National Review Online, 19 November 2003. Hugh Hewitt, "Just Say 'No,'Daily Standard, 20 November 2003. Cal Thomas, "Marriage redefined,", 18 November 2003. Marilyn Gardner, "Where gay unions are legal, what lessons?Christian Science Monitor, 20 November 2003. This is the article that talks about the experience of government officials in the Netherlands. Steven Waldman, "A Common Missed Conception,", 19 November 2003. The editor of examines religious believers' perceptions of same-sex "marriage." A few of Waldman's statements are problematic, but he does make some important points about the marriage debate. Charles A. Donovan, "The Dogcatcher's Coat," BreakPoint Online, 17 July 2003. Roberto Rivera, "No Other Kind," BreakPoint Online, 22 October 2002. Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage (Doubleday, 2000). Call 1-877-322-5527 to order ($25).


Chuck Colson


  • Facebook Icon in Gold
  • Twitter Icon in Gold
  • LinkedIn Icon in Gold

Sign up for the Daily Commentary