February 23, 2004

Why avoid the real issue in the controversy over gay activists’ demand that they be allowed to marry?  It is not really about their finances, or love, or fairness, or lack of procreative ability.  It is not about them being discriminated against in the same way historically faced by racial minorities – gays simply allege this to win sympathy from unthinking persons. 

This entire controversy is really about validation.


The best that human life has to offer can never be achieved when it is organized around trying to satisfy sexual passions, no matter a person’s sexual preference.  Sex between persons of the same gender will never render the same sense of fulfillment God created in bringing together a male and female.

Gay activists seek what they can never find; to live at peace with the moral paradox of their own lives.  God created them male and female, and nothing they – or we – do or believe can change that truth, save to accuse God of making mistakes.

Gay activists have at least three options to help them cope with their moral dilemma:

First, their conscience – their very nature – can be “seared” as if a hot iron had burned away its ability to control their behavior.  To sear the conscience requires that they invest an incredible amount of emotional energy to run away from God-breathed life.  It means denying the internal feedback God designed to steer them from destructive behavior.  And it means denying external feedback in the form of societal pressures forcing them into the mold they strongly resist.  Rejecting nature, by extension, also means rejecting much other truth.  Searing the conscience requires rewriting whole portions of Natural Law, the 10 Commandments, Christ’s moral teachings, the Epistles and thousands of years of human law.

Secondly, they can work to enlighten the rest of us about their “lifestyle,” and win tolerance from us.  Tolerance, of course, falls far short of our accepting their behavior.  Tolerance of homosexual behavior is like the child who holds his nose while sitting in his soiled diaper.  He can put up with it for a time, as long as he knows that the odor and irritation will soon be removed.  For us simply to tolerate homosexual behavior leaves them far short of their goal of being accepted.

Thirdly, they can seek validation, the next step beyond tolerance.  Where tolerance requires only that we look the other way, validation requires that we accept homosexuality as just another natural orientation, but to do this means that society must submit itself to the same searing process as does the gay activist.  It requires that society deny clear self-evident truths; that society must deny its own sense of reality.

Because people look to a nation’s law to express its collective ethic, by accepting gay marriage, or even gay civil commitment, society is telling the homosexual, “what you do is okay.”  Gay activists believe that such words will render toothless the inherent paradoxes that trouble their lives.  It will not happen; they will remain physically and spiritually unfulfilled no matter how often or to what degree the rest of us validate their sexual behaviors.

So let us be clear about what it means to sanction “gay marriage.”  If we make legal accommodations to accept it, or “gay civil unions,” we are giving permission to those on the margins of homosexuality to step out of the closet.  Our validation will be enough to sway thousands to take the step toward practicing their homosexual impulses.  But once out of the closet they will find a set of stairs lead to the basement, not into the living room. 

Gay activists will find, if they ever reach the nirvana they believe lies in marriage, that this, too, will fail them.  That leaves them but one more remedy: to punish those who refuse to accept their behavior as normal.

Beyond protecting the sacred union of man and woman in marriage, beyond protecting the family as the glue that binds together our society, beyond the billions of dollars it costs society to try to remedy the ravages created by sexual promiscuity, it is our responsibility as law-making citizens to reject those things that will hurt and ultimately kill others.  We cannot accept on any level, gay marriage and legally sanctioned gay civil unions.

Law serves as a guide:

Gay marriage validates their lifestyle

Author - Speaker - teacher