In our July 31, 2003, edition, The Alabama Baptist editorially called for an amendment to the Constitution of the United States defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
On Feb. 24, 2004, President George Bush joined that chorus when he announced his support for a constitutional amendment that protected the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, thus banning same-sex marriages. However, the president’s proposal leaves the issue of civil unions and domestic partnership up to the states.
President Bush’s announcement has already made a difference in public opinion. Several polls confirmed that Americans oppose same-sex marriages by a 2–1 majority.
But since President Bush declared his backing, public support for a constitutional amendment has risen from 55 percent to 60 percent. At the same time, support for same-sex marriages has declined from 40 percent to 30 percent, according to a CBS poll.
In July, when we wrote favoring a constitutional amendment protecting marriage, the threats were possibilities. Really, they were more than that. They were probabilities. Today the stability of society is at stake. Who could have foreseen the circus atmosphere created by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome issuing thousands of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of California state law?
The threat to marriage is national. Look at Massachusetts, Oregon, New Mexico and New York. It seems like some public officials, desiring time in the national spotlight, compete with one another to draw attention to themselves by supporting homosexual unions.
Support of the amendment
One would think the Christian community would rally to the side of protecting marriage and the stability of society through the proposed amendment. That may not be entirely true. About two-thirds of the evangelical Christian community backs the amendment. That means one-third does not. Six out of 10 Republicans back the amendment, pollsters say. That means 40 percent do not. About two-thirds of those over 65 support the amendment. One-third does not.
The proposed amendment has ignited fierce debates on some Baptist college campuses. In Texas, Baylor University’s student newspaper The Lariat wrote, “Gay couples should be granted the same equal rights to legal marriages as heterosexual couples.” The student editorial board backed that position by a 5–2 vote.
Baylor President Robert Sloan disassociated himself from the editorial, saying students, alumni and parents were “justifiably outraged over this editorial.” He said university publications such as The Lariat, which is published by the university, cannot advocate positions that undermine foundational Christian principles.
Sloan referred to adopted guidelines that state “no editorial stance of student publications should attack the basic tenets of Christian theology or Christian morality.”
Debate among students
Georgetown College, a school of Kentucky Baptists, has experienced an ongoing student debate over homosexual unions. So have Baptist colleges in Louisiana, Oklahoma, Missouri and other Texas Baptist schools.
Despite the debate, the majority opinion among Baptists is clear. Homosexual behavior is wrong. The Bible describes it as sinful and condemns it in the strongest terms. Sinful behavior should not be endorsed through public policy. But there is dissent among Baptists and among other evangelical Christians.
One can only wonder how this issue will affect church fellowship when a member acknowledges a dissenting position from the majority. How will it affect pastors conference fellowships or cooperative ministry efforts within the convention?
Some mainline Protestant groups differ completely from Baptist majority opinion on this issue. Episcopalian Presiding Bishop Frank Griswald has criticized Bush’s support for defining marriage as between a man and a woman through a constitutional amendment. Griswald is the same leader who approved the appointment of V. Gene Robinson, a practicing homosexual, to serve as Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire.
A spokesman for the United Church of Christ said if an amendment were adopted, it would only emphasize the importance of the church “blessing” same-sex unions.
A Reform Jewish group of rabbis has officially advocated homosexual marriage since 1996. A constitutional amendment, this group declared, would “enshrine discrimination.”
Some try to downplay the importance of the constitutional amendment in the coming presidential election. A study by the Pew Research Center concluded the issue “was not important for voters.” Yet, that same study reported that two-thirds of gay marriage opponents said a candidate’s position was a “make or break” issue.
To this writer that sounds important. If two-thirds of Americans oppose gay marriage and 60 percent of that group calls a candidate’s position a “make or break” issue, that means more than 40 percent of American voters think a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman is important.
Striving for the goal
Getting a constitutional amendment adopted will be difficult. It takes a two-thirds vote by both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. That is 38 states. It will be hard, but the goal is worth the effort.
Those who believe the traditional understanding of marriage being between a man and a woman must work together to make sure the Constitution of the United States is crystal clear on this issue.
There can be no room for any misunderstanding or any other judicial finding.
Share with others: