Marriage: Scripture and Rights
The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith
The recent announcement from the Supreme Court is one of mixed response across the land. It should be noted how mixed it even was within the court as it barely passed (5-4). Now what are Christians to do? The 1689 (and likewise the WCF) brings us comfort when in their own day, our Puritan forefathers foresaw that the government would oppose what is right and lawful before God. The confession states in paragraph 4 of chapter 25:Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity, forbidden in the Word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful, by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife.Obviously, the context of this given paragraph is dealing with the issue of incest, but the concept dwelling behind it is applicable: the government may try, and the people may try, but neither can actually change or redefine marriage to suit themselves. The confession defines marriage in the first line of this chapter, "Marriage is to be between one man and one woman." That definition excludes all forms of fornication from adultery or polygamy to homosexuality and beyond.
The Confession gets its definition from the one Jesus provides. It is a very clear definition of marriage, and he based his argument from the creation ordinance,
And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?'" Matthew 19:4-5 NASBChrist based his definition upon how God created man in the beginning: one man and one woman. Anything else begins to pervert it. I would argue that it was a law upon the heart (i.e. natural law) given to man as it was several generations before we finally read of someone beginning to pervert it (Cain's descendent, Lamech). Apparently the departure from it was noteworthy to Moses when he wrote "Lamech took to himself two wives" (Gen 4:19). If it was common practice, why would he have mentioned it? In any case, the perversion has only continued down through history, taking various forms, starting with polygamy and only getting worse. This is why marriage needs to be defined by what it is, rather than by what it isn't. Marriage as defined by God in the Scriptures is one man and one woman as created by God. Such a simple definition excludes all else.
But now what? Our government claims to have the right to redefine marriage? Well, it makes sense. The promise of the serpent was that we will become like God, so why not follow the deception and think that we can play God and redefine whatever we want? Though I have not read all of 1984, I find it interesting that one of the ways Big Brother attempts to change society is by redefining and changing the language. Now today, the Supreme Court has ruled that it can define marriage. This should be concerning, and the best guard for Christians that I can think is by what Noah Webster did when he created his dictionary. It wasn't a standard English dictionary. It was a Bible dictionary, but not like a Bible dictionary today. It was a typical dictionary but he used Scripture references (over 6,000) to support his definitions. A word was not simply objective in itself, the word gained its meaning and value through its underlying context and use, specifically as God ordained it, not as defined by whatever the current culture believes. Another way to think of it is that reality is what God created it to be, and definition is founded upon that. We can't just willy-nilly change the meaning of words. If people are attempting to change definitions, it should be recognized that what they are actually trying to change is reality, and therefore be gods. But we as Christians know that Truth cannot be overcome by lies, nor can darkness overtake light. So we must keep preaching the Truth and Light as defined in Scripture, and know that our King will reign in His Kingdom, and no government or nation will overtake it.
Some might think I am preaching "hate." It is not by any means. It's more like an incident that took place with one of my children this morning. My wife made him some watermelon tea, but he kept saying strawberry. No matter how much he wanted to call it strawberry, it would still be watermelon tea. He cannot change reality no matter what he calls it. We want our child to know reality, and that reality is objective and beyond his subjective opinion. He cannot define it for how he wants it. Another example is in regard to video gamers (I used to be one, so I speak from experience). Video games, and the internet in general anymore, can permit you to create a virtual reality where you are whomever you want to be. It is quite often used as an escape from reality. But that is the inherent problem in those games: it is virtual and fake, not reality. As a Christian, I see many in this nation with a worldview that is more like they are playing a video game, thinking their virtual world is reality, and it breaks my heart because they have traded the true, beautiful, real world, as created and designed by God, for this video game console, that has far poorer resolution (no matter how realistic they try to make it), and is ultimately confined within game's coding. They are trapped in a virtual world. I want them to see the real world which God has created and the fullness therein, but it collides head-on with their "coding," namely how they want to define reality.
The Constitution of the United States of America
Another issue that needs to be discussed regarding the Supreme Court's most recent ruling comes from this statement from Justice Roberts:
If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.Roberts tells those who are celebrating the decision that the Constitution had nothing to do with it. Article X of the Amendments to Constitution (the Bill of Rights) states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Further, in Article III Section 2 of the Constitution it says, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." According to these statements within our Constitution, our government in general, and the Supreme Court specifically, has no authority to make such a ruling, being limited to rule only in those things which are granted to it in the Constitution and Amendments. The Judicial Branch of our government is reaching beyond its bounds in this court decision. Defining marriage is nowhere given as the right of our national government, and is overreaching its jurisdiction. Roberts acknowledges that truth subtly in his statement when he tells people to not celebrate the Constitution, because it had nothing to do with it.
Perhaps someone might argue that Article 10 contains that exception clause, "prohibited by it to the States." Well, we need to speak up and prohibit it, but I believe the states already have. The cases involved were an individual versus the State. The State made its ruling and didn't feel the need to send it to the Supreme Court, therefore the State didn't approve such a ruling from the Federal courts. That passively prohibited it by judging the cases themselves and not giving it to the Federal Court. The argument again could be made that because of the State's passivity, the Supreme Court can decide. But the State in every case was not passive. The State made its active decision and therefore "prohibits" the Supreme Court from making its ruling. Its either "heads or tails." The State took the case, which prohibits it from going to the Federal ruling. To overturn the state rulings in several states is to overstep its bounds, because the Supreme Court was never explicitly given such authority, and it was passively prohibited from such authority by the States making a decision.
Further, Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court jurisdiction over a citizen of a state vs that state. It gives it jurisdiction over 2 different states or parties from different states, but not over a citizen and the state to which he belongs. The State court made its ruling towards it's citizen. That should be final according to the Constitution. For the Supreme Court to rule in the case of a citizen vs his own State where the State has already made a decision is overextending its powers given it by the Constitution. This is real reason why the Constitution cannot be celebrated in this decision. In one sense, it has nothing to do with it. But what that statement means, is that the Court is overstepping its Constitutional bounds, and thus the Constitution is disregarded, not celebrated.
Comments
Post a Comment