Making the Case Against RFMF

I recently wrote a post on my experience at Defend Marriage Lobby Day at the Illinois State Capitol in Springfield, to express my opposition to Senate Bill 10, the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act.  Now I wish to make the case against the legislation passed by the Illinois Senate and before the Illinois House to legalize same-sex marriage in Illinois.  I write here of what I feel are the most compelling reasons I have for opposing this legislation, among others.

For starters, I turn to the Creation account in the beginning of Genesis.  God created a man, Adam, and, determining it wasn't good for him to be alone, decided to create a companion for him.  And so God created woman, Eve.  I think there's a lot to be said for God creating a woman.  He could have created another man for Adam as his companion.  And He could have made it possible for the two men to have sexual relations and reproduce, blessing their union as marriage.  Or he could have started with woman and created another woman, both capable of procreation together.  This makes no sense to us because we are within the system of male and female reproducing offspring.  But God is the One who created the system, and He could do whatever He desired.  I firmly believe there is a reason He created woman for man, and ordained the institution of marriage as a special union joining one person from each of the two genders for such a special, intimate relationship.  (Even in my own experiences, I feel life is more complete with the presence of females.)

That argument is based on the Bible.  But let me to turn to consider some other social considerations for why same-sex marriage shouldn't be legalized.  In 2011, Illinois legalized civil unions for same-sex couples.  Now, there's legislation for legalizing same-sex marriage.  Clearly, civil unions were not enough for the LGBTQ activists.  If same-sex marriage is legalized, what's to stop the activists from pushing further to redefine marriage?  Our society could face the possibility of legalizing marital unions with more than two people.  Imagine having a marital union, say, with 10 men raising two children.  The intimacy of marriage between a man and a woman raising their children would be lost in the midst of so many partners in the marriage relationship.  If these relationships abound, families will lack any kind of strong structure, and that could have serious repercussions in our society, as children grow up without a solid family.  (I note also that there are already restrictions on marriage, prohibitions on marrying a minor, or someone of close blood relations, no matter how much of a romantic attraction there is, because it is clear there are already problems with allowing marriage in those circumstances.)

There's one more reason I present for opposing this legislation, which is alluded to in the above paragraph.  Legalizing same-sex marriage will unleash a socio-cultural shift in Illinois that is already underway in places where these marriages are legal.  If this legislation becomes law, the non-heterosexual lifestyle will gain a substantial degree of legitimacy.  Yet there will still be people, myself included, that will firmly believe in marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.  But respect for our beliefs will deteriorate in a society where same-sex marriage is legitimized.  Photographers and bakers will be forced to provide their services to same-sex weddings against their beliefs, or face punishment.  Faith-based social services, like adoption agencies, will be forced to serve homosexual couples against their beliefs, or close their doors.  Even schools will have to teach their students that homosexual relationships are appropriate, or face harassment as being "gay haters", and families that home school their children might not be off the hook.  This should hit home with my state representative, LaShawn Ford, who has voiced his support for the legislation.  He sends his daughter to the school at my home parish.  Even this religious school could be forced to violate the teachings of the church to promote homosexual marriage in its classes.

This act is contains the words "Religious Freedom" in its title, and while its true that religious institutions can be exempt from endorsing homosexual weddings, this act will not protect the many individuals who stand by their beliefs out in society, outside the church.  And even if churches are allowed to not hold same-sex weddings, they might still be harrassed, and not receive any further protection from activists out to attack them.

The implications of what this act might unleash in our society indicate that it is not the way to resolve the problem of LGBTQ rights.  There are other ways this can be dealt with.  In the case of United States vs. Windsor, the estate tax could have just been eliminated, which would benefit everyone in society.  And there are other ways to extend rights to LGBTQ people.  But there is no need to redefine marriage to suit the desires of gay and lesbian couples, despite their cries that they deserve the "equal right" of marriage.  (Note that they already have the right to marry a person of the opposite gender, and thus have equal rights.  They are really arguing for another right, to marry any other person, regardless of gender.)

The LGBTQ activists speak to the how this legislation is part of the arc of the universe moving inevitably toward justice for all, an allusion to the Civil Rights Movement.  But what I firmly believe is that the arc of the universe is moving inevitably toward acknowledging God’s Sovereignty, and He will triumph and do what is right for us.  But we can't always expect to get everything we want from Him.  We have to submit to Him in obedience, because His ways are ultimately best for us.  I say this knowing that while I am obedient to God in my beliefs about marriage, I struggle to be obedient in other ways.  But at the same time, God imparts His righteousness to me through Jesus Christ, making me more like Him, and strengthens me to stand for what is right.  

That's why I went down to Springfield on October 23.  And that's why I call upon the Illinois State House of Representatives to oppose this legislation.