Attempts to radically redefine marriage only the latest in a long line of challenges

March 07, 2004

Dear Editor:

Interesting indeed has been the reaction to Mike Crowe's eloquent letter setting forth a Biblical case for marriage as exclusively heterosexual, as opposed to the increasingly vocal attempts of a minority to redefine marriage as including homosexual (or perhaps even other) types of arrangements.

One of the most interesting reactions has been to applaud the calm, even-handed tone of his letter, while at the same time making a transparent endeavor to portray it as an argument purely from faith as opposed to more "objective" evidence from academic social science - a clever attempt to paint the issue as mere personal belief or opinion vs. more substantial knowledge.

The simple fact is that the social-science evidence on the benefits or detriments of homosexual relationships is nowhere near as unanimous or clear as gay-rights advocates would have people think. Nor is this due merely to the fact that academic types love nothing better than arguing with each other.


Then we are told, after the attempt to limit this discussion to one of different religious opinions, that a few "believing," even evangelical, religious leaders think that only Romans 1:18-32 prohibits homosexual relationships. Even if that patently false assertion were true, the implication is what? That it's OK to violate just one scripture; just don't break a dozen? Or that one evangelical religious leader sets standards for what "believers" should think?

In fact, the bulk of advocates attempting to redefine marriage apparently have no more belief in or respect for the Scriptures than to treat them as a collection of Israelite camp-fire stories. And if that's all they are - unsophisticated expressions of ancient cultural biases, rather than divine revelation - then one can feel comfortable explaining away, or creatively re-interpreting, anything in them which one finds uncomfortable, outdated, or objectionable.

While admonitions to keep overheated rhetoric to a minimum are commendable, my own experience in the not-so-distant past is that responding to public-policy issues which intersect religious principles may result in having one's motives, intelligence, and even sanity impugned. I hope Mike Crowe and others will continue to write on this issue, despite personal attacks or other forms of vilification, sometimes framed ever-so-politely by those advocating reasonable discussion.

Jesus warns his servants that they are not greater than their Master; if the world despised, rejected, and hated him, so will it behave toward His disciples. In this arena, as on any subject, believers must attempt to follow His example who, "when reviled, reviled not again" (1 Peter 2:21-25).

So, let civil discussion continue - Biblically and otherwise. This is not about gay-bashing. Focusing on homosexual relationships, thrust into the public arena by gay-rights advocates, should not obscure the many heterosexual sins which abound in this culture. Clearly there are greater and more long-standing threats to marriage, including infidelity, divorce, neglect and abuse, and lack of commitment to marriage vows generally. Attempts to radically redefine marriage are only the latest in a long line of challenges to this foundation and central core of any stable society.

Steve Wolfgang


Central Kentucky News Articles