Christian Conservatives Called Hypocrites for Demanding Traditional Marriage

While attending a recent pro-family event in D.C., I couldn’t help but overhear the discussion of three young men standing behind me. One of the young men referred to social conservatives as hypocrites for demanding small government while wanting federal regulation of marriage, the most personal of all institutions. The other young men, all presumably conservative, agreed.
I came away questioning: Is support for regulations that will protect traditional marriage really hypocritical for conservatives who believe in small government?

Homosexuality, in general, is increasingly acceptable, even among conservatives and evangelicals. According to a poll conducted by Hamilton College, a small liberal arts school in New York, 70% of the high school students from conservative evangelical homes believe that homosexuals should be accepted by society. But it is a big step from acceptance of homosexuals to accepting same-sex “marriage.” Yet many people today are making that leap –– assuming that acceptance of individual human rights equates to support for the homosexual activist agenda. The latest Gallup poll reports that Americans’ support for same-sex “marriage” has, for the first time ever, topped 50 percent (now 53 percent).
It is an indication of the activists’ success that so many conservatives think that it is judgmental to oppose same-sex marriage and, on a broader scale, hypocritical to oppose big government while supporting regulation of marriage.

Yet, contrary to the perspectives of those young men at the pro-family event, social conservatives are not hypocrites but rather concerned citizens who understand the purpose and responsibility of government. The federal government has only two major functions: (1) to protect the public’s welfare and (2) to promote the security of the nation.
Central to protecting the public’s welfare is the governmental responsibility for limiting actions of individuals that threaten society as a whole. The behaviors of same-sex couples pose a serious threat to the health of society at large. In his behavior study, author and spokesman of the Christian Research Institute, Dr. Frank Turek outlines four major health risks same-sex relationships pose on society:

• Homosexuality increases health problems among those who practice it, including AIDS, other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), colon and rectal cancer, and hepatitis.
• It shortens the average life span of practicing individuals by 20–30 years. (One study show that the median age of death for gay men and women without AIDS is in the early 40s.)
• It spreads disease to others not involved in homosexual behavior. (Some have died of AIDS after having a blood transfusion and thousands of heterosexuals have contracted STDs via sexual contact with bisexuals.)
• It costs Americans millions of dollars in higher medical insurance premiums because of the increased costs of covering health problems related to homosexual behavior.

Same-sex marriage also threatens the stable structure of America’s families. In her summary of the social science research, the head of Concerned Women for America’s think tank, The Beverly LeHaye Institute, Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse said:

Same-sex relationships are notoriously unstable and short-term affairs with few, if any commitments. Thus, neither the sacred covenant nor the legal contract tends to carry the same meaning for same-sex couples as marriage has historically for male-female unions.
According to Maggie Gallagher, a nationally syndicated columnist and author of The Abolition of Marriage, the acceptance of same-sex marriage will signal the government’s indifference to whether families contain committed mothers and fathers, thereby facilitating the number of one-parent households. The government’s protection of the married couple, mom and dad family will ensure stable families for children, America’s future generation.

In addition to the public’s welfare, Social conservatives understand that national security depends on the government’s respect for and protection of marriage between a man and a woman. In her book, Children at Risk, Dr. Crouse stated, “Marriage is an essential foundation for strong families, which in turn, are vital for democratic government to flourish, provide both stability and the nurturing of the values and beliefs that are essential for democracy.”
The sanctity of marriage cannot be abandoned, even by a “small” government. The government has the responsibility for protecting and the authority for regulating marriage. All concerned Americans, and not just social conservatives, should expect the government to uphold the sanctity of marriage in order to secure both our citizens’ freedoms and our national wellbeing.




It is no surprise homosexual marriage doesn't work as well as heterosexual marriage - God did not design it.


Syndicate content