Other Consequences
But some people don’t care about the Bible, and I must respect that fact. We live in a pluralistic culture. Some people don’t want to follow the Bible. Some are not Christian. That being the case, I would encourage them to view authentic sociological data regarding the value of one man/one woman marriage, particularly as it relates to its impact on children.
|
"While the case has to be made for the value of fathers, it is more intuitive when it comes to mothers. Succinctly stated, every time a baby is born, a mother is nearby, for good reason. And mothers are superbly equipped to sustain, to nurture and care for newborns. How many children do not need a mommy?" |
Authentic, untampered, non-PC altered social science confirms that a child needs and deserves both a mother and a father taking care of it. In fact, the strongest consistent indicator that a young boy will succeed in life, that he will not get in trouble with the law, is having a father present. The strong consistent indicator that a young man will have a run-in with the law is an absentee father. The statistics are identically troubling when one considers a daughter. Unhealthy early sexual activity is related to the absence of a dad in the lives of young girls.
While the case has to be made for the value of fathers, it is more intuitive when it comes to mothers. Succinctly stated, every time a baby is born, a mother is nearby, for good reason. And mothers are superbly equipped to sustain, to nurture and care for newborns. How many children do not need a mommy?
Two-mom homes and two-dad homes lack either a mother or a father 100% of the time. Allow me to ask you a question. If there is a home with two dads or a home with two moms, which one is unimportant? Is the mom unimportant? Or is the dad unimportant? Tell me, which one is so unimportant that children simply do not need that parent? And if two moms are good, then wouldn’t three moms be better? If two dads are good, then wouldn’t three, or four, or five dads be an improvement?
And that takes us to the legal realities. If one makes the legal case that under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, you have to allow anybody to get married to anybody they want, then what happens when three people want to get married? Or if five people get married, three men, two women?
At the mention of this, the left always begins wagging their heads, saying “there you go again” as if we just make such scenarios up. They fail to recognize that those desiring polygamy are rejoicing that Judge Walker has finally devastated the traditional, natural definition of marriage.
Remember it was only in 1973 that the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality. Three decades later, the practice of homosexuality was not merely accepted, it had moved to “marriage” status.
In 1995, the American Psychiatric Association declassified pedophilia as an emotional disorder. NAMBLA assertively demands that sexual “love” between a child and an adult be affirmed. Some university professors advocate that we should lower the age of consent. If pedophilia follows the same trajectory as homosexuality, sometime around 2025, it will be legal for children and adults to have sex and to have adult/child “marriage.” Marriage between a seven year old boy and a 57 year old man might actually become legal in this nation some day, if the present pattern is followed. “Progressives” scoff at our “nay saying.” But in so doing, they demonstrated their lack of futuristic understanding or historical integrity.
|
"We will pray that there will be judges who actually possess a moral compass and an authentic commitment to and understanding of the U.S. Constitution. We will pray for leaders in civil government that will authentically stand for truth, for what is truly best for society, and what is best for the children, and what will preserve this great land we call America." |
If, as Judge Walker says on page 115 of his decision, “Marriage is simply the union of equals,” one might ask, “how many equals?” Historically, marriage has been defined by a number and by gender: one man and one woman. That definition is gender specific and numeric specific.
But now the judge has done away with any notion of gender specificity. And in the phrase “a union of equals,” he has actually done away with the numeric indicator of “two.” When he writes, “marriage is simply the union of equals,” then why can’t it include three? Why not four? As you can imagine, polygamy groups are excited. Judge Vaughn Walker, by his self serving ruling, has devastated and destroyed a fundamental foundational definition of American society, which is that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Where are we now in our journey? As is well known, the case now progresses to the appellate court system, specifically, the 9th Circuit Court, once again in San Francisco, and then eventually to the Supreme Court.
We will pray that there will be judges who actually possess a moral compass and an authentic commitment to and understanding of the U.S. Constitution. We will pray for leaders in civil government that will authentically stand for truth, for what is truly best for society, and what is best for the children, and what will preserve this great land we call America.
Dr. Jim Garlow is the Chairman of Renewing American Leadership, Chairman of ReAL Action, and Senior Pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego, CA. He is heard daily on over 800 radio outlets nationwide. He founded and led the California Pastors Rapid Response Team, a group of several thousand pastors that was instrumental in the campaign to enact Proposition 8.
