Update #7

On Tuesday, the debate over gay marriage was in full force as California's Supreme Court held a hearing on the issue of state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The Court had already visited this issue after Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, ordered that homosexual couples be allowed to marry. The Court struck down Newsom's 2004 order, noting that it violated existing marriage law. Undaunted, gay couples as well as the city of San Francisco, have filed as plaintiffs to press the matter once again.

The state of California and pro-family groups are co-defendants in this case; the state argues that as the existing law is valid, the Court has no reason to alter the definition of marriage and has no legal basis for granting homosexuals the right to marry. The conservative organizations argue that the purpose of procreation is intrinsic to marriage.

The plaintiffs, meanwhile, are intent on demonstrating that California's constitution grants gay couples the right to marry; laws which say otherwise are unconstitutional.

As the Court pointed out, however, homosexuals are free to engage in domestic partnerships throughout the state of California, and at one point, Justice Ming Chin asked "Aren't the rights and responsibilities of domestic partners and marriage partners substantially the same?"[i]

The plaintiffs replied that a definitional difference remained, which constituted discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.

This exchange between plaintiff and jurist was particularly revealing, for it showed that the "gay rights" movement is not overly concerned with rights in [JRB1] the strict sense of the word, for they already have them. Gay Americans are free to engage in whatever practices they desire without outside interference, even to the point of forming civil unions.

However, that is not enough.

The gay movement desires something more than mere acceptance; they require approval--governmental endorsement of their lifestyle. This is the point upon which the gay marriage debate turns.

Americans have an exceedingly high tolerance for deviant and even immoral behavior, so long as it is out of sight, but of course, that does not equate to approval of such behavior.

As long as the law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, the implication is left hanging that gay marriage is wrong and unnatural. And that is precisely what the gay rights movement cannot stand.

There is nothing that prevents people from choosing sinful lifestyles--the Constitution permits a wide degree of latitude over individual behavior. By the same token, there is nothing in the Constitution that can force us to approve of that which is wrong--no matter what the city of San Francisco says.

Genesis 4:7 tells us "If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."[ii]

True acceptance comes from doing what is right. Without the knowledge of making moral and upright decisions, it does not matter how many states affix the government's stamp of approval to the gay lifestyle.