The State of Union: Homosexuality, Marriage, Church and State
December 15, 2003
by Mike Spinney

The Massachusetts Supreme Court’s recent decision to redefine the universal understanding of marriage saddens me.

Little by little our national character and moral ethic is being eroded to a point where there is little acknowledgment of right and wrong on the part of our state and federal leaders. As a society, we are becoming more concerned with making excuses for bad behavior than drawing ethical lines and establishing clear definitions of right and wrong. Few of those so-called leaders are willing to take a stand for traditional, moral values and those that do are mocked and attacked.

Let me state for the record that I regard homosexuality as immoral and do not believe that the institution of marriage is one that should be redefined to include same-sex couples. That said, the sad state of marriage in this society goes far beyond recent developments in my home state.

Marriage, as it has been traditionally known and observed throughout recorded history, is the foundation for raising families and building communities. It is the physical and spiritual joining of a man and a woman, the ideal to which men and women ought to aspire, and should be regarded with sober reverence, not entered into lightly or viewed as a battle to be won by political activists.

As a casual observer existing in a culture where promiscuity is flaunted and encouraged, and divorce is regarded as a near inevitability, I suppose I should not be shocked at the decision. Maybe the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s decision was simply one more in a series of setbacks for the “defense of marriage” – a movement that should have begun decades ago, not hastily flung together as a reaction to the idea of legalized same-sex unions.

Ministers, priests, and rabbis can decry the court’s decision last month, but if it took such an event to illuminate the sad state of marriage in this nation, where nearly half of first marriages are expected to fail, then I have to wonder if the battle was joined too late. Had our spiritual leaders taken a more vigorous moral stand from the outset, same-sex marriage might not be an issue today.

Religious institutions ought to be mighty, influential forces in their communities, teaching their congregations right and wrong, providing comfort in times of grief, helping those who are down on their luck, feeding the hungry, and looking out for those who are unable to look out for themselves. I’m not an advocate of political activism from the pulpit, but I believe that if religious leaders were doing their job, there would be no need for them to speak out politically.

At some point in history, the idea that people don’t like to be told there are moral absolutes took hold within many major religions and denominations, dealing a mortal blow to the ability of many churches to provide effective moral instruction. By providing wise guidance based on fundamental, honest teaching of religious tenets, congregants would be well equipped to step outside the walls of their respective churches, temples, and synagogues and make good and moral decisions for themselves. Instead, most clerics seem more interested in providing feel-good entertainment on Sunday morning and, as a result, watch helplessly as their flocks drift toward the Church of Hollywood.

But just because our churches and society have failed to successfully defend the institution of marriage as it has been traditionally known doesn’t mean we have to give up the fight. As individuals, we ought not to enter into the sacred oath of marriage without a full commitment to upholding the commitment of our vows. I consider myself fortunate to have had the example of parents who recently celebrated 48 married years together, and in-laws who enjoyed 52 married years together before death did them part. My own daughter, her mother and I together now for twelve years, is being raised in a home that, these days, is the exception.

As for the idea of same-sex marriage, it is my sincere hope and prayer that the citizens of Massachusetts would examine their convictions in this matter, and express their feelings to their state legislators. I also want to see Governor Romney rise to the challenge of leadership and affirm the true definition of marriage; a definition that even the Massachusetts Supreme Court acknowledged to be true when it handed down its decision.

(Mike Spinney is a volunteer staff writer for 2 Walls Webzine)