This post would have been a lot more timely a week or so ago, but better late than never; supposedly.
So suppose a man walks into a bicycle dealership and asks to buy a car. The salesman refuses to sell him one. The man cries foul. He throws a fit. He hires an attorney to file a lawsuit claiming that the dealership discriminated against him.
Does he win his case? Do you think that is a silly scenario? You probably think its a silly scenario. The bicycle dealership was not discriminating against the man. The bicycle dealership will not sell him a car because it cannot sell him a car. Bicycle dealerships are a different category of business than car dealerships. By definition, bicycle dealers sell bicycles, not cars. The man made a categorical mistake by trying to purchase a car from a bicycle dealer. He was not discriminated against.
I heard one of our Supreme Court justices talking about an issue before him last week. He asked if a man could marry a woman, how could it not be blatant sexual discrimination to tell him that he could not marry a man? He has made the same categorical mistake as the hypothetical man in the bicycle dealership. Marriage is, by definition the union of one man and one woman. If two men or two women want to pledge their lives and their love to one another and live together as such the rest of their lives, they can do so. However, one cannot call this marriage because that is not what marriage is. Same sex unions and domestic partnerships are in a different category than marriage.
Actually, the definition I gave of marriage is not quite specific enough. For example, a man cannot marry any woman. Suppose a man wanted to marry his mother. Most people would be opposed to that. Does that mean they are discriminating against the man and his mother? No. It means that the mother-son relationship places them in a category that prevents them from becoming married. Again, they could pledge their lives and love to one another and live together and even have sexual relations, but nobody would consider them married. Mothers cannot marry sons, fathers cannot marry daughters, and that is okay. That is the way God, nature, and western civilization have viewed this issue for centuries. There is a specific definition of marriage and none of the cases described above fit the definition.
Last week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in relation to the same sex marriage issue. It troubles me that our culture has reached a point where we want to call same sex union marriage. It troubles me equally that this is before the judicial branch. The judiciary is not supposed to create laws. If the legislature redefines marriage by law, then they are acting within the scope of their power. Courts should not be deciding these things.
One thing I know, whatever the court decides, this issue is not going away. Church, let's pray. The issue is not who wins the culture wars. The issue is people need Jesus. Let's pray that He shows up and saves many on both sides of the issue.
