Remarks on Righteousness

Lessons & Quizzes

About Us

Fundamentals of Faith

Salvation in Christ

The church of Christ

Audio Bible

Jokes, Quotes & Illustrations

Questions & Answers
Members Home Page

Audio Books

Audio Lessons


Fundamental Archive

Jokes, Quotes & Illustrations Archive


Photos of Bible Lands

Pillar of Truth Monthly

Questions & Answers Archive

Remarks on Righteousness Archive

Speak as the Oracles Archive

Speak as the Oracles Weekly

Video Lessons
Same-sex Marriage



June 26, 2015

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy
What difference does it make that the United States would recognize same-sex
marriage? In one way, I can see the argument that it does not make any difference;
but, in the greater scheme of things I believe that it does make a very fundamental

The only other decision of the United States Supreme Court in my lifetime that rivals
this one for impact upon society is Roe vs. Wade. Today the Supreme Court
reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth District allowing states to
ban same-sex marriage. Since the decision of the Supreme Court allowing abortion,
over 58 million abortions have taken place in the United States. For the precise
count, you can go to http://www.numberofabortions.com/ and see the counters for
not only the USA, but for the world.

There is no question but that there is a tenderness of feeling, a real emotional bond
between many who practice homosexuality (whether man or woman). That they would
like to have the recognition of the state for a union, and the benefits that come both
from the government and the workplace, is not doubted. Whether it is proper, right
and good to do so; however, is what we question.

There is no hatred for the individuals involved. There is no wish to mistreat them in
any form or fashion. There are many individuals who are heterosexual who are
engaged in behavior, and in “marriages” which we equally place in the realm of
wrong (We will explain this as we continue.)

Marriage is not a legal institution, it is a religious institution. It is recognized by the
state, not defined by the state. Therefore, for the state to define (or rather redefine)
marriage is to exercise authority outside of its legitimate realm.

God defined marriage in the beginning.

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make
him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every
beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see
what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature,
that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl
of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an
help meet for him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam,
and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead
thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a
woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my
bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was
taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:18-24 KJV)

God made woman for man. God gave woman to man. Their union was marriage. It
was heterosexual. It was also monogamous.

Jesus, when asked about marriage by the Jews, referred to what God did in the
beginning as the definition of what marriage is.

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it
lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and
said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning
made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father
and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath
joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses
then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith
unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put
away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you,
Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry
another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth
commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with
his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive
this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which
were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which
were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made
themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to
receive it, let him receive it. (Matthew 19:3-12 KJV)

It is difficult for many to follow what is taught here. Some would have to refrain from
marriage, or make “themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake,” in order
to follow it.

If one needs to refrain from marriage to do what is right – so be it – whether they are
heterosexual or homosexual.

When I worked as a graphic artist for a local newspaper chain, I shared a desk with a
homosexual. There was no doubt in any one’s mind about my opposition to

This gentleman had a hearing impairment from birth which required an implanted
hearing aid. He was struggling with the price of the batteries, and trying to figure a
way to get the insurance to pay for them. I asked him if he would like me to take a
look and see what I could figure out. He agreed. During my lunch hour I looked over
the insurance, and came back. I pointed out how he could get the batteries paid for
by our insurance.

One of the other artists, after this gentleman left, questioned me about my behavior.
He knew I was against homosexuality, so how could I help a homosexual out? I asked
him if I had ever mistreated him. He looked kind of strange at me, and said no. I then
asked him if he was still living with his girlfriend without benefit of marriage. The
answer was yes. I then told him, I did not have anything more against the homosexual
than I did against him. It was not that I disliked the person, or that I hated the person,
I hated the sin. He was sinning by living with his girlfriend, and the homosexual was
sinning by engaging in homosexual activity.

The homosexual always sought me out at corporate activities to sit with me. Why? He
said I was open and honest about my disagreement with his lifestyle; but, I did not
treat him any different than I did anyone else. Other people went out of their way to
say they had no problem with his lifestyle, but treated him like he would rub
something off on them.

It is not true that opposition to behavior means that you hate the person. You hate
the sin, and love the sinner.

In the Old Testament, there were several prohibitions that limited sexual behavior.
Pre-marital sex, incest, beastiality, re-marriage to a spouse that had been put away,
and adultery were prohibited, along with homosexuality.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
(Leviticus 18:22 KJV)

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have
committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall
be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

The penalty for any of the violations (fornication or adultery) was the same – death.
The actions surrounding Sodom and Gomorrha, involved homosexuality. That is why
the term Sodomy is used by some to describe either homosexuality, or an act
associated with homosexuality. There is no question about God’s feelings about
these cities.

In the New Testament, no direct reference is to be found about homosexuality in the
Gospels. However, Paul unquestionably speaks of it directly in his epistles.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their
own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed
the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than
the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up
unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that
which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of
the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working
that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their
error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their
knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which
are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication,
wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit,
malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters,
inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding,
covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who
knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy
of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
(Romans 1:24-32 KJV)

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not
deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor
abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards,
nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were
some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the
name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 KJV)

Other references that would include homosexuality are also found in the epistles.
In Romans chapter 1 Paul speaks of the moral corruption which the Gentiles have
given themselves over to. They have changed the nature of God, the person of God,
and the entire concept of God. Their worship of idols, in the place of the God of
heaven, is complete with moral deprivation and perversion – sexual perversions and
all kinds of other behaviors like meanness, greed, hatred, lying and any other type of
misbehavior that can be named. Among that is named homosexuality -- for even their
women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also
the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward
another; men with men working that which is unseemly  -- called vile affections. It is
used to show the depths they have fallen to, but it is by no means singled out as the
only sin.

Paul calls upon the Corinthians to realize that the unrighteous, those who engage in
the acts he lists – fornication, idolatry, theft, covetousness, drunkenness, reviling,
and extortion as well as calumites (effeminate in the KJV – a reference to men who
use young boys as lovers – we would refer to them as pedophiles) and homosexuals
(abusers of themselves with mankind) – shall not inherit the kingdom of God. They
had done these things in their former lives (such were some of you) but by the power
of the gospel, the blood of Jesus and the spirit of God they no longer engaged in
these activities. Their sins were washed away by the blood of Jesus. They were
made holy by the spirit of God. They were justified before God by the power of the

The message of Paul here is not one of condemnation, but one of salvation. Men
can become free of their sins, no matter what they are. They can, you can, be saved.
What does this have to do with a Supreme Court decision?

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. (Proverbs
14:34 KJV)

There is a point of public morality in any nation. There is always individual
responsibility and liability, but there is also a collective responsibility.

This is recognized by the fact that we have laws. They are meant to restrict people
from lying to others about what they are selling them, and to restrict them in how they
treat each other. These are a matter of morality. Most people agree that it is wrong
to go around killing people. This is a matter of public morality. Therefore it is
legislated against.

People say morality cannot be legislated. Yet, that is exactly what laws are designed
to do. The question is not whether we will legislate morality, but what morality will we

Do we wish Sharia Law? The harsh penalties and the object of these penalties –
such as the death of unbelievers, adulterers, fornicators, homosexuals, etc. is
against the moral principles of most of the American people. It is against our public

What determines the correctness of public morality? The United States has mainly
(although inconsistently) followed the Judeo-Christian morals in its laws. Quotes from
many of the “founding fathers” as to the reality of this concept may be multiplied.
Our freedoms are based in our faith. It is God who has given us
certain inalienable rights. These rights, which we have come to
treasure, and for which our nation is known, are the direct result of
our collective faith in God, and our adherence, however imperfectly,
to the principles of Christianity.

The acceptance of same-sex marriage flies in the very face of what
the Bible condemns in the actions of men. It is the rejection of public
morality based upon the Bible. Although arguments could be made
that various other decisions – such as the acceptance of slavery in
the nation’s beginning, or the genocide of the American Indians, or
the acceptance of abortion on demand – fly in the face of Biblical-
based morality, none is more blatant in its rejection than the
acceptance of same-sex marriage (although arguments could be
made equally for some of the others). Combined with other
indicators in society, it appears as the last straw of rejection to many
– the scraping of the bottom of the barrel.

There is a fear that the acceptance of one of the behaviors that
brought fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah signals a
possible downfall of America. It certainly does not bid well for our

At best, the acceptance of same-sex marriage introduces a whole
new can of worms. In view of this decision being made, there have
already been petitions of the government to allow for pedophilia,
and the marriage between adults and children. Petitions to legitimize
beastiality, such as marrying a horse, have been made. Pleas to
bring polygamy into the realm of acceptance are being heard. Incest
– one woman wishes to marry her dad – has been pleaded for.
Upon what basis are these marriages to be rejected, if marriage is
allowed to be defined however one wishes.


“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the
highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.”
These are the words of the decision of the Supreme Court.
Unquestionably, other than the union of man with God through
Jesus Christ, there is none more profound, none more holy, none
more beautiful. It does embody the highest ideals – and that is why
the perversion of marriage between two people of the same sex is
so revolting. It is taking the institution which embodies the highest
ideals and bringing it to almost the lowest point possible. Instead of
embodying love, it makes it the deposit of prohibited lust. Instead of
promoting fidelity, it promotes a lifestyle that is known for its brevity.
The devotion that it promotes is a devotion to deviancy. The
sacrifice associated with same-sex marriage is a sacrifice of
righteousness for wickedness. And the idea of family is perverted,
for without a man and a woman there can be no children, no
progeny. Their choice of lifestyle, if you wish to call it that, excludes
them from marriage. God has provided the relationship of man and
woman to preclude loneliness – same-sex marriage is not the