Why Not Same Sex Marriage?

God in the hands of angry sinners

The re-classification of homosexuality and its implications for the dismantling of Christianity in America

There is something happening here!

Unless you have been in a deep sleep for the past 30 years, you are no doubt aware of the fact that there has been a huge “coming out” party in America with seemingly no end in sight. By “coming out” we are not referring to the debutante ball. We are referencing the apparent nationwide acceptance of what is called “alternative sexual lifestyles and preferences.” In short, the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender minorities in this nation, perhaps the world, have come out. They are vocal, they are organized and they are aggressive. What do they want? They want social acceptance, an end to ridicule, special recognition in courts of law and respect. They have positioned themselves in the media as beleaguered minorities and gained entrance into the mainstream of Hollywood and the entertainment industry. Their goal is nothing short of full acceptance and the right to display their sexual preferences publicly and privately. Are they succeeding? Yes they are. To wrinkle your nose these days at this kind of behavior is to invite a lawsuit based upon discrimination. Those who think there is something awry here may find themselves in jail faster than one can say “civil union.”

Uneasy with it all?

Perhaps you are a heterosexual and a bit unsettled by all of this. Perhaps you feel something is not right. Perhaps you are only attracted to the opposite sex. Maybe you cannot conceive of being attracted sexually to someone of your own sex. Maybe you have asked the question “Is having sex with a member of the same sex wrong?” Perhaps you feel that it is wrong. But maybe you are considering it may only be wrong for you. Maybe it is right for others. Perhaps you wonder, “Who am I to judge?” Possibly you ask a series of questions, “What am I to feel?” “Should I change my feelings?” “Can I change my feelings?” “Can I change my mind?” “Should I change my mind?”

Back to basics

To help answer these questions, we need to consider the culture in which we live. The question as to whether it is OK for people of the same sex to engage in sex with each other is a question of ethics, morals, rights and wrongs within any given culture. Every culture has rules or norms. A culture could not exist without a sense of what “ought” to be and what “ought not” to be. Imagine a culture where rape, murder and cheating were all considered OK. It would not last too long. Imagine a culture where the only law was that there would be no laws. This culture also would be doomed to failure. That all cultures have a ‘right’ and a ‘wrong’ way of doing things is a given. The real question is, “Where do cultures get their ‘right’ and their ‘wrong’?

There are really only two choices to consider when we talk about the origin of what “ought” to be done. One option is that values, morals and ethics are given to mankind by an absolute Law Giver. The whole idea of right and wrong stems from the revelation of God. The other option is that morals, norms, values and the “oughts” of society come from a consensus of opinions within the culture. There are, in this case, no absolutes because there is no absolute Law Giver.

Picture a society where what “ought” to be done and what “ought not” to be done is decided by a popular vote or perhaps an opinion poll. This is the case of the United States of America. Polls and votes win elections and put folks in power to produce laws which govern behavior. Polls and votes are generally a reflection of people’s personal opinions. These opinions could change with the wind, or with each succeeding generation, as society changes its mind about things. For instance, we can envision some generations where gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders are considered “ in” and many generations where they would be “out”. It would all depend on whatever the majority thinks or feels at the time. If opinions determine laws and policies, it is not hard to imagine a society condemning and penalizing practices which their children will eventually endorse. Everyone should know that one opinion is no better than another. This goes for generations as well. Furthermore, in this kind of culture, the group which generates the greatest public sentiment can sometimes influence laws, morality and societal norms. Morals and values based upon feelings will always be subject to change.

But, even in a culture where consensus rules, it is self evident that everyone has an opinion of what “ought to be” from some source. Where do people get their opinions? Generally, they come from feelings and a personal sense of fair play. Most often, what one feels is the best, or right, or the most advantageous thing to do is the source of ethics. Increasingly, whatever the majority of society feels is right, becomes right! Whatever society feels is wrong, becomes wrong. These ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ are only as permanent as the next poll or election. People can change their feelings.

In today’s culture there seems to be no sense in arguing for anything as absolutely right or absolutely wrong. There are no such things. Every law and every rule and every penalty for non-compliance to a rule appears subject to change. The only thing for certain, oddly enough, because of the inherent contradiction in the Statement itself, is change. Change is certain. So, on the question of whether one “should” be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, there is really no answer of permanence. There are only opinions as to whether this is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Some are honest enough to admit that, in their minds, there is no right or wrong. Things simply are a matter of fact. Any moral “should” or ethical “ought to be” is based upon feelings. If we feel that something is good, it is good! But even the word good is relative and strictly the handmaiden of feelings and opinions.

Given this context, ‘acceptable behavior’ varies from one poll and election to another. The word ‘acceptable’ implies only a relative moral approval based upon a standard of today, not tomorrow. Given this way of determining morals and ethics, one can see where there is no ultimate standard of right and wrong, that the word moral is dependent upon the times. The times determine morality. Morality does not determine the times! Do you see the point? This is called relativistic value structuring. Everything is relative and nothing is for sure. Ironically, those who hold to this, perhaps the majority, are certain that there is nothing certain.

The heterosexual dilemma!

By in large, the heterosexual community appears to be split as to whether the practice of homosexuality is immoral. Many heterosexuals, who are opposed to homosexuality, have had to swallow hard the fact that their feelings against homosexuality have been more than matched (overmatched?) by other heterosexuals who feel differently. When you take into account the homosexual vote, the public sentiment appears to be in favor of the homosexual community. The reality may be that heterosexuals who object to homosexuality are losing the battle against homosexuality because other heterosexuals, who feel differently, out-number them!

Be this as it may be, we need to ask the question, “Why would any heterosexual be offended at the practice of homosexuality?” Is there a good reason? Some heterosexuals may be content to say that, “in their opinion, homosexuality is wrong.” To some, opinion is all that matters and that is good enough. But in reality, this opinion does not mean much to the majority who disagree. All folks are in agreement that homosexuality is different but many feel it is not necessarily morally wrong. But in any case, it will not do to say, “They are wrong because I just feel they are wrong.” This line of reasoning gets us nowhere. The majority appears to have said, “We are right because we feel we are right.” This is a stand-off. Some are content with this and wish to campaign with the “We just feel” argument until they get more numbers than their opponents. We know this to be a mistake. This approach is anti-rational and only produces a different kind of relativistic society. It does not solve the problem of trying to establish a morality based upon feelings and polls!

So, what is the point?

The point is that there is no valid reason for heterosexuals to object to homosexuals in the absence of absolute values. At best, the objecting heterosexual may say, “I just feel homosexuality is immoral or wrong or illicit.” But this will only “win” the day when there are more who “feel” this way than those who “feel” that homosexuality is OK. If this is all that can be said, all argument is meaningless. The feelings and opinions of the pro-homosexual majority may prevail today but not tomorrow. But what is not answered is the question, “Who is right?” In the absence of any absolute morality, opinions based upon feelings will win out. But who is right? The loser is the one who does not have the vote, the polls or the sentiment to overcome his equally relativistic opponent. But who is right? Even if heterosexuals, who oppose homosexuality, should win public sentiment, what will they say? Most likely they will be left with the “I just feel that homosexual behavior is wrong” arguments. We can hear the chorus of boos by those who feel differently. They will say, “Wait until next time!” But again, who is right? For now, there are more folks affirming homosexuals, transgenders and bi-sexual than those censuring them. The affirmation votes are drowning out the reproach votes and they are carrying the day! But who is right?

There is more at stake here than meets the eye

Heterosexuals who disapprove of homosexuality must decide whether their dislike for homosexual sexual practices can be substantiated and defended on moral grounds that have something other than their feelings and opinions as a base. This is the challenge of those who wish to see an end to the advances made by the homosexual community. Their argument must center on something more solid than, “I just feel.” It is sheer madness for two opponents to argue that they are right based upon nothing but their own feelings. This leads to a dead end and a dead culture.

Also, if the heterosexual advances purely pragmatic arguments against the homosexual agenda, he will surely lose. Why? Because there is not one practical reason that cannot be answered by the homosexual community. From the inability to procreate to the proliferation of the HIV virus, the homosexual community has a practical answer. They counter with adoption and safe sex. They counter with ‘moral’ homosexual practices. They counter with advanced medical treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. They counter the relativistic practical thrust objections with relativistic practical answers of their own. And, remember their opinion is as good as others!

Moral base to the rescue

Now we come to the big deal in its entirety. The big deal with the homosexual community is that they are in violation of the revealed will of God. The revelation of God is the court of last resort. God is the final arbiter. But appealing to the revelation of God can only make sense if one is willing to give up relativism and embrace a biblical absolutism when it comes to ethics. Let us explain. The Christian accepts the Bible, interpreted normally, as the Word of God. Imbedded in the Bible is the norm or rule of life for God’s people and by extension to His creation. The Bible clearly denounces the practice of homosexuality. It does not merely denounce the “abuse” within the practice. It denounces the practice itself. Hence, Christians can say, with absolute confidence, that homosexuality is immoral and should be shunned. It should not have a respectable place in society because the behavior itself is sinful and therefore self-destructive. It is offensive to God and outside the boundaries of sexual expression for His creation. His judgment will be felt on all who practice homosexuality and endorse it. When we say “self-destructive”, we mean that those involved in such relationships are denying God and choosing destruction eternally over and against the revealed will of God. We acknowledge that there are reams and reams of materials available that show the negative impact of homosexuality on the lives of those involved and the corresponding effects on society. But, like the proponents of clean needles, those who see these statistics argue that open acceptance will enable the homosexual to come out of the underworld and clean up the negative side of things. Pragmatic arguments will not carry the day. For every disease -infected, multiple -partnered, drug -abusing homosexual there is a happy and productive, law- abiding, loving homosexual couple living in tranquility as productive members of society.

The dilemma for those who just feel it is wrong

However sympathetic one may be with the feelings and opinions of those who have concluded that homosexuality is inappropriate, feelings will not avail. Here is the question. “What do you stand upon other than your own opinion?” If you have nothing to stand upon except your own opinion, you will lose the scrimmage with homosexuals today and the war of trying to establish a sustainable morality. Without an appeal to a higher infinite norm and judge, your opinion is only as good as the next man’s. Hence, you are guilty of the exact thing you wish to condemn in your neighbor. You may wish to condemn his opinion. But in reality, you are playing his game. Using an opinion to condemn an opinion is hardly the stuff of quality societies. It means nothing in establishing cultural norms. Opinion based upon feelings versus opinion based upon feelings gets us nothing.

Ultimately, this kind of thinking sinks morality into the pit of relativism. In today’s world, the “idea” which gets the most votes determines what is moral. But this is relative ethics which leads to a bankrupt society. For instance, if enough people feel that sex with animals, or sex between adults and young children is OK, then this is precisely what will be legal. But what is legal and what is moral is not the same. It was not against the law to kill Jews in Germany in 1940 and it is not against the law to kill a seven month old baby in the womb in America in 2000! Why? Because the moral relativists who oppose such things are not as many as the moral relativists who extol such things! Yet, all Christians oppose both kinds of killings based upon absolute moral ground set in the revelation of God.

A clear and cogent call

So, first things first. Let us throw off moral relativism and stand on eternal moral norms given by the revelation of God. This and this alone will win the day. Why? Because what “ought to be” is always the best and the right thing to do when it is given by the revelation of God. When God determines what “should” be, it is safe and secure and healthy. It is not self-destructive. It is the best for individuals and for society. Living by God’s moral precepts produces character, strength and a proper world view. Deviation into values based upon feelings produces decay and death. It is that simple. The moral precepts of God, which are binding upon Christians, are found throughout the New Testament in the teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles. They are the standard for New Covenant Christians and the basis of all moral and ethical decisions. By extension, they are binding on all of God’s creation. This includes those who do not believe in Him. God has spoken in His Son. His Son has spoken of God. Moral absolutes have been given.

While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to Him!" Matthew 17:5

What then has the revelation of God said to the homosexual community?

In unambiguous terms, the Word of God condemns the practice of homosexuality. The Word is straightforward and clear:

For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. Romans 1:25-27

But why?

It is often argued that there are no apparent practical reasons why having sex with the same sex is detrimental to anyone. So, why should it bother God so much? What is the big deal? Why has the revelation of God spoken so clearly against it?

The great exchange

In the above portion of the Bible, where homosexual behavior is condemned, there is a stream of thought which begins with the rebellion of the created order against the Creator. Part of that rebellion is worshiping the creation (sun, moon, stars, rocks, earth, planets etc.) rather than the Creator (God). A prominent portion of mankind is said to have exchanged the truth of God for a lie. This exchange is important. The order of things demanded by God is that He be worshiped and not His creation. However, to avoid being under a Sovereign moral authority, mankind began to worship inanimate things which offer no check to man’s desires. Hence, the exchange was made. We still have this exchange today as mankind worships anything but God. Man does so in order to satisfy his twin needs to worship something (spiritual aspect), and to have total moral freedom. The Bible goes on to explain that part of the exchange is in the moral sphere of sexual behavior. Women are said to have exchanged (same word) the natural (God- prescribed) function of their bodies for the unnatural (para phusin) use of their bodies. The Bible is clear that an exchange has been made. The result is that both men and women perform acts of sex which are clearly called kathekein or simply immoral. They are outside of the way things “ought” to be as determined by God. Notice that the first exchange is to reject the knowledge of God and the second is to pursue a course of action which God declares para phusin or outside of the natural order of creation! The bottom line is that this is God’s world. We are His creation and God sets the moral boundaries. Mankind, in humility, should receive this and act accordingly. It does not. The result is insurrection and resistance to the revelation of God.

Battle on two fronts

This article is written to help those who arrive at ethical and moral foundations based upon “feelings” to realize that they are fighting a losing battle to the majority culture. [Also, they may be fighting against God should their feelings run counter to His revelation.] It is written to help folks understand the Christian mind-set and the viability of the Christian argument. Christians are not homophobic any more than they are sexo-phobic. Christians love sex. Would anyone say that because Christians are against multiple sexual partners, adultery and pornography that they have a fear of the porn and sex crowd? Hardly. Christians are rather Theo-phobic. They have been shown that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. And when God says no to an activity, He means no! When God says no to a lifestyle, He means no!

For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; 1Thessalonians 4:3

Christians understand homosexual behavior as a part of the ‘sexual immorality’ from which mankind is to abstain. There is no doubt from the teaching of Scripture that such sexual behavior is forbidden.

Is there hope for relativists and homosexuals?

The non-Christian relativist who wishes to regain ground from the relativistic homosexual is really only rearranging the furniture on the deck of the Titanic! The ship is going down and both will drown. If you repent of your sins, place your confidence in the promises of God in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, you will not only have an end to relativism but a beginning of eternal life with God. But, there is hope. All homosexuals who repent of their lifestyle and seek forgiveness from God through the shed blood of Jesus Christ will not be refused. All those who are against homosexuality for wrong reasons must also repent of their sins and flee to the Cross of Christ for redemption and forgiveness. This way both can say with the great apostle Paul:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God. 1Corinthians 6:9-11.

How can it be this simple?

If this is true, then how shall we approach the homosexual community? Here are some suggestions. We need to understand that homosexuals are involved in sinful sexual activity. This stigma of being sinful is not going to go away regardless of how many favors the law affords the homosexual community. They desperately seek the approval of society and wish to deceive themselves that even God approves of faithful homosexuals. So, within this context and, according to the highest principles of love, they need to be informed along with adulterers, child molesters and pornographers that they are morally corrupt and need to repent and seek God’s true forgiveness through Jesus Christ.

What about our Culture?

The lingering question is, “what should the State do with the homosexual community?” The current laws say that the homosexual community should have, and have securely, all the rights and privileges of public domain under the civil laws of the State irrespective of their sexual practices. In the application of the Bill of Rights, for instance, some say that the State should be blind to the sexual preferences of its citizens. But, before we go any further, we should reflect for a moment on the dangers.

Many would place all sexual practices out of the reach of societal and government scrutiny. There are those who wish to protect the rights of those who wish to have many wives or have sex with animals or have sex with children. There are those who seek to have sex with the dead. There are those who are extremely deviant. At one time, the practice of homosexuality was considered unspeakably immoral and illegal as well. Here is the problem. Today the State says that “child sex offenders” and “child pornographers” should be put in jail. What will the State say tomorrow? Two things are clear. The first is that the State does get involved in the legislation of morality and second the State is only making a choice as to which deviance ought not be tolerated.

It is the consensus law of our land that homosexuals should not be rounded up and tossed in jail for committing acts of immorality. Nor are they denied access to the public domain in employment and protection from persecution under the laws of each State. The law says they absolutely should share in the civil liberties that are afforded all others. In short, it is the law of our land that the practice of homosexuality should not suffer the wrath of the State. But perhaps we must ponder whether the law of the land is correct. We wonder if homosexuality “ought to be” legal. Should those who are immoral in this fashion be more tolerated than child molesters? What immoral sex sins should be legalized? Indeed, which immoral sexual practices ought to be illegal? In our day and age, the line seems to be getting more and more blurred. Of course the reason is because there are no absolutes governing the culture.

What conduct should be illegal and hence punishable by law is a difficult decision to make. Yet such decisions are made every year in every State. Choices have been made. There are some sexual sins that are punished because the government deems such sins as immoral, evil and inherently hostile to society. It is said that some sins are so conducive to the destruction of society that they warrant government intolerance. But other sins of sexual activity such as pre-marital sex, adultery, prostitution and same sex behavior have not been outlawed by State and Federal government. Though immoral, these kinds of sins are not illegal. In our pluralistic society, not everything declared immoral by the Bible is illegal. The government makes choices on these things. However, the Bible treats them all alike and so will God in the Day of Judgment.

Since the State does govern by some kind of moral design, the question becomes what behavior should be condemned and what behavior should be tolerated? The State cannot operate in a moral void. It will pick and choose laws that prohibit or protect the practices of its people.

What about civil unions?

In the case of civil unions in the State of Vermont, the government went too far in mandating civil unions and the corresponding marriage benefits granted by law to the immoral sexual unions of homosexuals. This law should be rescinded. The government crossed the line. But this comes as no surprise. When the government views homosexual practice as a healthy sexual alternative to heterosexuals then the next logical step is to protect it.

The Vermont Supreme Court determined to protect homosexual lifestyles when it concluded that, “Homosexuals suffer the wrath of the State when they are not given benefits and entitlements set aside by the State for heterosexual marriages.” It is inevitable that the rest of the States will follow given the presupposition that there is nothing wrong with the practice of homosexuality.

It is possible to elect government officials who will not endorse, promote or legitimize the sexual lifestyle of homosexuals. It is possible to reverse the government mandate that privileges, designated solely for married heterosexual couples, be given to same sex couples. But it will not come until the State is convinced that the practice of homosexuality is immoral and threatens the State.

One such threat to the State is the absolute division that will result when the homosexual lifestyle is elevated to a civil right. Making homosexual practice a civil right brings the weight of the State and Federal government down on those who cannot ever comply. Christians and likeminded members of our culture shudder to think what would happen if the Federal or State Government ordered private schools, churches and private clubs to hire practicing homosexuals in direct defiance to the Word of God. Just as discrimination on the basis of race cannot be supported from the Word of God; neither can deviant sexual conduct ever be tolerated by the Word of God. Homosexuals wish to raise their sexual lifestyle to the level of a civil right akin to blacks and other ethnic minorities. If successful, they will have the fury and thunder of the equal protection laws applied to their sexual behavior and target religious institutions that will never ever give in to their immorality much less take them on board. It could destroy this country.

Unless there is a constitutional exemption for all private domains, including schools, churches, clubs and other fraternal organizations that may forbid homosexuals from being members or participants there very well could be blood shed over this issue. Christians believe that it should not be against the law to discriminate against immorality. This goes for those who traffic in pornography and drugs as well as those involved in homosexuality.

It is further to be considered that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle that can be curbed and ended through repentance and prayer. Homosexuals do not sit in the same seat as being born “Black” or “Caucasian.” They fall outside of minority rights based upon race or creed.

The State appears to be vastly tolerant of deviant personal behavior in matters of sexual preference within the heterosexual community as well. However the State has resisted making adultery, pedophilia and polygamy a civil right forcing Christian organizations to accept. The concern is that homosexuals will find favor for their sexual practice as a civil right and the rest will follow. It is of deep concern that a constitutionally protected immoral practice in the public sphere will result in a forced acceptance of immoral practices in the private sphere. Practicing pornographers may be welcomed on the White House lawn but they will never be welcomed on the playgrounds of private Christian academies? What about practicing homosexuals?

In the final analysis, homosexuality is an immoral and illicit type of sexual behavior. Only in a pluralist society, where morality is determined by legality, can homosexuals thrive. What is right or wrong is now determined by what is legal. It ought not to be this way. What is legal should be determined by what is right or wrong. The “rightness” or “wrongness” of behavior should be based upon God’s eternal word. Until the law has this kind of fixed foundation, there will be no end to a relativistic rule by majority.

For now Christians are exempt from being forced to hire homosexuals. But open homosexuality is becoming more and more honored and protected by the law. This, in the overall view of things, is the way it goes in a secular relativistic world. There is no wall of separation between church and State if a church discriminates against a black person. What about homosexuals? It is only a matter of time before homosexuals will bring the fury of State down on Christianity.

Will the State exempt the Christian from State intrusion? We don’t think so. Will the State demand Christian acceptance of homosexuality in the Christian environment? We think so. It appears inevitable that the majority of pro-homosexual citizens will, in their zeal to enforce tolerance, become intolerant of those who disagree. What becomes public policy, under the guise of civil rights, will soon be invasive. At the end of the day, Christians will either be forced to comply with the new law or face Federal and State prosecution. It is not far off to envision a society that marginalizes Christianity into insignificance by shutting down the proclamation and implications of Christian moral law using the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment now applicable to protect homosexual practice.

The Vermont Civil Union Law

Acting upon orders from the Vermont Supreme Court, the Legislature of the State of Vermont has written and passed a bill, signed into law by the governor, creating same sex unions in the State of Vermont. These unions are to be afforded all benefits offered to heterosexual marriages. The law falls short of calling these Civil Unions marriage. But, in all practical manner they are same sex “marriages.”

The Vermont Supreme Court relied upon a paragraph written into the State Constitution to arrive at their mandate issued to the Vermont Legislature. The paragraph is as follows:

“That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community, and not for the particular emolument [gain] or advantage of any single person, family, or set of persons, who are a part only of that community; and that the community hath an indubitable [cannot be doubted], unalienable [not transferable], and indefeasible [cannot be undone] right to reform or alter government, in such manner as shall be, by that community, judged most conducive to the public weal [well being].” Article 7.

The Supreme Court , in interpreting Article 7, decided that the majority “set of persons” i.e., heterosexual marriages, were being benefited in violation of the article which says that the government ought to be for the common benefit and not for any “one set of persons”. The Supreme Court ruled that heterosexual marriage benefits, offered by State law, represented an unfair gain and advantage for this set of persons. Hence, they ordered the legislature to give to another set of persons [homosexuals] the same common benefits. Given this reasoning, any sub-set of individuals, regardless of their moral stature, can claim government benefits owned by the community.

“We hold that the State is constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law. Whether this ultimately takes the form of inclusion with the marriage laws themselves or a parallel “domestic partnership” system or some equivalent statutory alternative, rests with the Legislature.” Vermont Supreme Court Decision.

The Supreme Court could have, just as easily, determined that the government was right in giving benefits to only heterosexual marriages. Heterosexual marriages are the building blocks of the community. The framers of the constitution had a simple view of community. It was understood as primarily including the nuclear family composed of heterosexual marriages and their offspring. Babies, children and the aged would fall into this general definiton of community. Promoting heterosexual marriages, which alone can produce the community, is part of the government’s charge to protect and secure the nation and the community. Even the Vermont Supreme Court did not mandate that single men and women or children be given State benefits equal to marriage benefits. Neither were unmarried members of the community singled out by the Court as “sets of persons” not benefited by the State. Also, the Vermont Supreme Court did not single out a large group of unmarried, yet living together, couples as unfairly being denied State benefits. The government has always rightly viewed marriage between heterosexuals, and the corresponding commitment to raise children, as the bedrock foundation of the community.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court could have excluded benefits from homosexuals by citing that Article 7 forbids the State from providing “gain or advantage” to a particular “set of persons.” Homosexuals easily qualify as a sub-set of persons who are not to be given particular gain or advantage. Also, the Court could have ruled the obvious. The homosexual community already was under the umbrella of State protection. The civil benefits and securities of the government were not withheld from homosexuals. But, not all government programs are for all of the people. Finally, the Court could have concluded that the establishment of same sex unions was not for the common benefit of the community since such a lifestyle is immoral. Immoral behavior can never be construed to benefit society as a whole.

But in reality, the framers of the Vermont Constitution, in their wildest dreams, could not have foreseen a liberal Court reading Article 7 to include the sanctioning of same sex unions with government benefits mandated by law. All of this is imported into Article 7 by modern justices. They are clearly outside the intentions of the writers of Article 7. Of course, the pollutant aspect in all of this is that the Vermont Supreme Court has openly declared an immoral lifestyle to be a civil right. Soon more laws ensuring the recognition and reward for this immoral lifestyle will be passed. Those who cannot conform to the laws, because of moral convictions, will not be tolerated. They will be “law-breakers” in the eyes of the State and suffer penalties. All this because five Vermont Supreme Court justices read into the Vermont State Constitution what is not there!

But there is more that needs to be said on this matter. The same Vermont Constitution States the following in Article 68:

“Laws for the encouragement of virtue [general moral excellence] and prevention of vice [evil or wicked conduct or behavior] and immorality ought to be constantly kept in force, and duly executed; and a competent number of schools ought to be maintained in each town unless the general assembly permits other provisions for the convenient instruction of youth.” Article 68

It is patently clear that the Vermont Supreme Court has ignored this clause of the Constitution and, on their own, re-defined virtue to include homosexuality. They have also, on their own, re-defined immorality to exclude homosexual behavior. The serious crime of the Supreme Court of the State of Vermont is the voiding of Article 68. The Supreme Court does not have this kind of authority. They should be impeached for their reckless abandonment of the teaching of the Constitution. Any unbiased reading of Article 68 would have precluded the State of Vermont from establishing a law which protects and promotes immorality. Instead, the Court has done the opposite. It has mandated to the Legislature an ultimatum to write a law which endorses, sponsors and underwrites vice.

In town meetings across the State, Vermont citizens spoke out against same sex unions. They were ignored by their legislature. When it came time to turn the legislature out and elect a new one the citizens failed to muster the votes. Neither could they oust a pro-homosexual governor. There simply were too many pro-homosexual relativists in Vermont to overcome. I suggest that there are too many nationwide as well.