Assaults On The Definition Of Marriage
To The Reader’s Forum:
The rapid unrelenting assaults on the definition of marriage understandably make many concerned. Where and when will it end?
A violent demonstration in the 1960’s called Stonewall erupted in New York City marking the dawn of the homosexual movement. Then, after persistent protests, the American Psychiatric Association in 1974 removed homosexuality as a mental disorder. Theologically-liberal seminaries and pastors rationalized and endorsed homosexual behavior. As the public pushed back, advocates for homosexuality retorted, “It’s a private matter. Stay out of the bedroom.” It wasn’t long before the matter went public. They cried, “Discrimination.” They demanded government protection on the basis of a special category called “sexual orientation.” Then, they arm-twisted the military to drop “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Their demand was met, but it didn’t stop there. They sought official approval of their relationships through civil unions, but even that wasn’t enough. So-called “marriage equality” became their new mantra and wormed its way into states for gaining marriage status. Now, their demand of striking down of DOMA is achieved.
Politicians are coming out left and right saying that their position on marriage has evolved. It begs the question: when does marriage stop evolving?
Does it stop evolving when homosexuals go to court to force a church to marry them, since they know that clergy must conduct every ceremony with a license from the state which defines marriage different from God?
Does it stop evolving when bisexuals who seek wedlock with each sex start shouting “marriage equality” like the homosexuals have?
Does the evolution stop when the polyamorous demand marriage? If a consenting group, whatever the size, wants to marry, what’s to stop them from mimicking the homosexuals in claiming that it’s a relationship of love?
Marriage evolving is nothing new. It started with Lamech in Genesis 4. Today, those siding with the evil of Lamech say marriage evolves. but into what?
In an 1814 four-volume legal work, Sir John David Michaelis stated, “For if [the vice of homosexuality] once begins to prevail, … it must thus soon lose all its shamefulness and infamy and become fashionable and the national taste; and then … national weakness … [must] inevitably follow; not perhaps in the very first generation, but certainly in the course of the third or fourth.” On the steps of the Supreme Court, supporting the counterfeit definition of marriage, an advocate dressed as a devil proudly waved a sign saying, “I bet Hell is fabulous.” Can the slope get any slipperier than that?
Rev. Mel McGinnis,