Who Defines Marriage?

One of the major problems with secularism is, when you take the triune God of scripture out of the picture, something must take his place. For many secularists, it is their own mind which takes the place of God. However, this simply cannot be sustained. Paradoxes of monism and atomism end up making it impossible for the finite mind to be the standard. How can a finite mind understand an ultimate anything, much less ultimate truth?

However, what has become very popular is to replace the state with God. The state comes in and says that they will take care of your needs, and people then trust the state as their “god.” This “god” becomes their protector, their provider, and the one authority which cannot be questioned.

Why do I mention this? Well, the problem is that, if the state is god, and the state gets to define certain rights, then the state can then take them away. That is why this story greatly puzzles me. The news story begins as follows:

The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston.

U.S. District Judge Joseph ruled in favor of gay couples’ rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law that the Obama administration has argued for repealing. The rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications if they’re upheld on appeal.

This type of logic should be frightening to everyone. Why? If the state has a right to define marriage, then the state has the right to change that definition. That is why it is so strange to hear Martha Coakley calling this a “landmark decision,” and others calling it “life-changing,” when, not only was this case tried in Massachusetts [which means we could predict the outcome long before the trial ever started], but also because, given this law, any state has a right to define marriage in the way they choose, and all of the states could get together and decide to say marriage is the union between a man and a woman. The next government in Massachusetts could decide to outlaw homosexuality by defining marriage in a way that excludes homosexual relationships.

The logic behind a law like the Defense of Marriage Act is that the triune God of scripture alone has the right to define what marriage is. Therefore, every state is under obligation to uphold what the God of scripture has already said according to his unchanging nature and character. However, if the state begins acting like God, the state can take away rights, just as they can give them. That is why I am amazed that these people believe that this is a good thing.

In fact, this story is actually quite pathetic. If this case were tried in the heartland, we all know the outcome would have been the exact opposite. Also, I don’t think they have seen the danger of their own philosophy. This decision could come back to bite them if lawmakers that they don’t like get into office. This will probably be appealed and overturned, but still, it gives you a window into the mindset of those people who are willing to serve any god that will give them what they want, even if that god may end up taking that “right” away.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: