A brave new world | RecordCourier.com

A brave new world


As one who believes that marriage rightly is and ought to be the union between a man and a woman, I am beginning to wonder how long I might be allowed to speak openly. The crush of consensus has begun to squeeze shut the voice of His people who still hold to God’s natural order in marriage. For the sake of clarity, that order as expressed in Genesis, (2:24), and re-affirmed by Jesus, is stated: “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;” (Mark 10:6-7)

On June 26, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued for the majority that to hold that view is no longer a response to the natural order of creation, but is instead a malicious attack against those who don’t hold that view. This chilling pronouncement from the bench not only condemns as hateful the 342 members of the House, the 85 Senators and the sitting president who in 1996 affirmed that created order unanimously, but it condemns as hateful every man and woman who find themselves attracted only to the opposite gender. In his opinion, Justice Kennedy argued that those who voted to pass the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 acted out of malice to, ‘disparage,’ ‘injure,’ ‘degrade,’ ‘humiliate,’ ‘demean,’ and ‘deny dignity’ to those who don’t hold to the order of marriage set forth in Genesis and in Mark’s Gospel above and in every culture and society in recorded history.

The new term, ‘homophobia’ has become the useful mallet to pound into silence those who object to the ‘new order’ of marital relationships. The term homophobia is not new, but its meaning has changed significantly. On the website: http://phobialist.com/ Homophobia is defined as, “Fear of sameness, monotony or of homosexuality or of becoming homosexual.” But simply being fearful of homosexuality or of becoming homosexual is no longer what is implied when one is labeled a ‘homophobe.’ A homophobic attitude has come to mean an attitude of hatefulness against homosexuals, and it is being applied to anyone who does not embrace the relational lifestyle that is in opposition to traditional man/woman marriage.

It is unfortunate that the court has chosen to denigrate and condemn the living testimony of 50 centuries of man/woman relationships by its edict, but it is doubtful that a 5-4 decision in June of 2013 will interrupt the natural marital preference of man for woman and woman for man.

The brave new world for those of us who hold to that traditional preference must now include us under the condemnation of ‘homophobia;’ but that is still a small price to pay for enjoying the ever changing challenge, mystery, sometimes tense but often joyful harmony of living with the unpredictable opposite gender and raising the children that only come from that union.

Charles Evans