Gene Robinson, the homosexual Episcopal minister whose elevation to Bishop has been the fulcrum of the irreconcilable split in the worldwide Anglican Communion, has found yet another way to throw more fuel on the ecclesiastical pyre of the American church. Robinson is the bishop of New Hampshire. New Hampshire is in the final stages of enacting a civil union law and Robinson wants to be first in line.
What I find curious is the quotes used from Robinson in the news stories about this issue. Robinson equates this civil union law with state recognition of gay marriage. He views this as a step toward forcing the federal government into recognizing gay marriage.
I think this is a huge leap forward, but it is not full equality until we have equality. The biggest piece missing, of course, is federal recognition. I don’t think it will happen until we get several more states. It doesn’t have to be a majority, but it has to be a significant number embracing full marriage rights until we can expect that at the federal level. We are only arguing over a timetable.
According to my understanding of this issue—and a cursory review of the issue on the Internet seems to confirm —civil unions and domestic partnership laws are two roughly equivalent ways used by states to create a legal means of granting the same rights to homosexuals that married couples enjoy. This is done on a state-by-state basis without federal recognition. The above quote from Robinson seems to support this interpretation.
My question then is this; if civil unions and domestic partner recognition grant the same rights that states confer on married couples why is there such a push here in California to allow homosexuals to call themselves “married”? Marriage is defined in state law as the union of one man and one woman. This has been the definition of the term for the last two thousand years here in the West. Why must it be redefined now?
Marriage is one of three institutions created by God. The three are: government, church and family (marriage). The first miracle of Jesus was at a marriage. The relationship of Christ to the church is explained as the relationship of a groom to his bride. I submit that the assault on marriage by the state and some in the church is nothing short of an attack on God. It is a form of open rebellion by sinful men. No one can harm God so they take out their hatred of him by harming those that bear his image. Murder, abortion, homosexuality are all examples of this evil.
Anything that diminishes marriage undermines those institutions established by God for our benefit. The fact that a leader charged with defending Christ’s Church is a leading advocate for the destruction of both the institution of marriage and the Church charged with protecting it just heaps greater judgment upon him.