Advocates of same-sex marriage often ask those who defend “traditional” marriage if they support the tradition where the law treated women like they were less than human, or the tradition that did not allow people of different races to marry each other, or the tradition that allowed polygamy. These are legitimate questions and illustrate the fundamental problem with defending “traditional marriage”
We need to be honest here: Those of us who oppose same-sex marriage are not doing so to defend “tradition.” We are defending God’s model for marriage: A lifelong, monogamous union of one man and one woman. When we leave God’s Law out of it, we lose ground because we exchange a rock-solid and eternal standard for a standard that flows like sand.
No we are not defending polygamy, because Jesus Christ said in Mark 10:6-9 that marriage is the union of a man and his wife, not three or more. We are not defending laws that banned interracial marriage because the anger of the Lord burned against Miriam and Aaron in Numbers 12 for their racist objection to Moses marrying a black woman. We are not defending marriage where the woman is treated as chattel because Scripture commands husbands to love their wives sacrificially in Ephesians 5:25-31.
Finally, if opponents of same-sex marriage are serious about protecting the sanctity of marriage as established by God, then we need to get serious about opposing divorce, especially the scourge of no-fault divorce that has devastated both the family and society, not to mention the lives of countless precious children.
Everyone knows that the reason we oppose same-sex marriage is because Scripture prohibits homosexuality, so Christians need to stop hiding behind the facade of “tradition” and start confessing our faith by admitting openly that we want to see marriage defined by the state as it was meant to be recognized by God.
We need to stop being cowed by the fabrication of “separation of church and state,” recognizing that all law is based on morality and there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits laws based on Christian morality. We need to call out as absurd that the text of the federal and state constitutions somehow mandate recognition of same-sex marriage when the men who actually wrote the documents would be horrified by the argument that what they wrote forces us to recognize homosexual marriage as a “constitutional right.”
Basically, we need to present our arguments with honesty, integrity and bravery.