Three Iowa Supreme Court justices were ousted last November because the court re-defined marriage and allowed homosexuals the right to marry each other. Months later, opinions are divided. Some maintain that the supremes were acting exactly as they should: safeguarding the rights of an unpopular group from a discriminatory act.
Judge Richard Posner would dispute that. Posner, a widely respected judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit said in a public interview, “Nothing in the Constitution or its history suggests a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. If there is such a right, it will have to be manufactured by the justices out of whole cloth. The exercise of so freewheeling a judicial discretion in the face of adamantly opposed public opinion would be seriously undemocratic. It would be a matter of us judges, us enlightened ones, forcing our sophisticated views on a deeply unwilling population.”
Put simply, when the law defines marriage as between one man and one woman, it does not prohibit any person practicing a homosexual lifestyle from marrying. They would just have to marry in the same way that everyone else in society has to marry — namely, they would have to marry someone of the opposite sex. This right is extended equally to all unmarried adults in the society.
When a person practicing a homosexual lifestyle claims they want to marry another person of the same sex, he or she is claiming a new right that had not previously been available to anyone in this society. Such a right has been denied to everyone in the society prior to this time, so it is not discriminating against them to say that this kind of right is denied to them.
Let’s use another example. A man wanting to marry his sister may claim he has the right that everyone else has: the right to marry. But that’s an invalid argument. The law prohibits such marriage. When the law denies this man the right to marry his sister, it isn’t denying him anything that it doesn’t also deny everybody else as well. In truth, this man is really claiming that he has the right to redefine marriage according to his own desires and preferences. And he’s not just claiming a private right, but a right to redefine the institution of marriage for the whole of society.
There is so much more to be said, but let me offer one more thought. Laws in any society have a teaching function. The kinds of relationships that are approved by the law are more likely to be approved of and followed by the society as a whole. People will reason, “This is according to the law, therefore it must be right.” This happened with Roe vs. Wade: “Abortion is legal, therefore it must be right.” 50+ million babies in the U.S. died by the hand of abortionists since that court decision in 1973.
I am called to put my trust in the One who created the institution of marriage and who, therefore, defines it. It is not for me — or anyone else — to tamper with what God has made. Government, another institution created by God, is called upon to maintain the standard of what constitutes marriage. Failing to do this results in societal chaos and great harm to children — the very ones marriage is designed to protect.
I was among those who voted not to retain three Iowa supreme court justices. This wasn’t because I don’t consider all people — no matter their color, ethnicity, religion, or lifestyle choice — to be equally human under God. Rather, it was my civic duty to say “no” to anyone’s “right” to redefine marriage, to remind judges that the law they make has a teaching function, and to act as someone accountable to the most Supreme Judge.
(SOURCE: Politics According to the Bible
by Wayne Grudem, Zondervan, pp 229-230)
Read Full Post »
Benjamin Rush signed the Declaration of Independence. He also served in the Presidential administrations of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. Each came from a different political party. How could Benjamin Rush serve Presidents from three different parties, and what was his own party affiliation? He once proclaimed:
Ezerwoman's Blog 
Marriage in the Classroom
Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Citizenship, Commentaries of others, Culture Shifts, Faith & Practice, Relationships, tagged children, DOMA, education, family, instruction, marriage, parental role, truth on March 10, 2011| Leave a Comment »
Shortly after same-sex “marriage” was forced on Massachusetts by that state’s highest court, a few parents realized their children were being taught same-sex unions were normal, natural, and the moral equivalent of marriage between a man and a woman. These parents attempted to opt their children out of these public school lessons, but were ultimately unsuccessful in a court of law. Two federal courts in Massachusetts, including the appeals court just below the U.S. Supreme Court, determined that, because same-sex “marriage” was legally recognized in Massachusetts, parents no longer had the right to determine whether or what their children would be taught about these relationships. (Source: Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family)
Marriage is being attacked even as children are being taught that all choices are equal. Here’s the thing. Mentoring, teaching morality, and raising children is the job of parents, not schools. Chuck Colson writes, “If we want our children to know how to behave prudently, how to delay gratification for a higher goal, how to look to the needs of others before pandering to their own passions, then we’ll have to teach them in the context of family — best of all, of course, a loving, mom-and-dad family.”
If the courts decide that marriage is just a contract between any kind or number of consenting adults, what consequences will follow? Colson notes that “we will have, in effect, removed all restraints and social conventions surrounding not just sex and marriage but child rearing and training as well. If morality is anything we want it to be, if it serves only our passions and personal autonomy, we’re doomed as a culture.”
Homosexual activists are working feverishly to convince educators to normalize an unnatural behavior. But, moms, dads, and grandparents can speak with the conviction of God’s Word, science and age-old human experience.
It appears to be very dark out there, but darkness has never overcome the light. (John 1:4)
Read Full Post »