By Paul A. Smith

Now that President Obama has publicly “affirmed” his personal desire to redefine marriage to include two people of the same sex, this issue has come to the forefront of the news and public awareness. Up to this point the leading moral issue in the political debate has been abortion. It has been an arduous and difficult battle, but protecting innocent children is worth the fight. Progress has been made in this area – notably here in Georgia with the passage of the “Fetal Pain Bill” this year.

The redefinition of marriage is a moral/social/political battle worth fighting, too. Each issue has at its core a moral fact: God has defined when life begins and God has defined what marriage is. The government’s role is to acknowledge each fact, and then protect it. When the Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence they understood that certain rights are “unalienable” and that these rights are from God. Government can neither grant nor take away these rights, but the government’s role is to acknowledge and protect them. This distinguishes America from other countries in that from our very foundation we acknowledge this. It does not make America a theocracy, but it does give us a “moral compass” to help us legislate.

The government has a compelling reason to act on abortion because an innocent life is extinguished, and the law of the land must include the protection of innocent people. The government has a compelling reason to accept a particular definition of marriage because there are legal and practical implications of marriage. No one cares if two women – or a man and a dog – refer to their relationship as a “marriage” if there are no legal benefits from it – such as tax breaks or being able to adopt children. The government has a compelling reason to not allow incestuous “marriages” because it may produce children with health problems and possibly involve child abuse. Once the government officially recognizes a marriage which is not one man and one woman for life, the floodgate is open to recognize any relationship as a marriage. If for no other reason, just imagine the consequence on society’s children.

I somewhat understand lost people struggling with this redefinition of marriage. They don’t have the Holy Spirit (“moral compass”) and the Bible to guide them, like Christians do. Most do not really desire to wrestle with these issues, but merely adopt prevailing public opinions. It is, however, extremely disheartening and troubling to hear Christians state publically that they don’t think the government should define marriage one way or the other. I have to wonder if they are spending too much time watching Comedy Central. It is also an indication of how the church has failed to adequately address this issue. The church (including youth groups, Christian schools/colleges) must teach a proper Biblical worldview. This requires Christian leaders to take the time to read up on and flesh out these issues, but it is worth the effort.

The more the homosexual agenda advances, the more our religious liberties are threatened. Why? Activists like Dan Savage, who recently made the news for his profane rant against Christians when speaking to a group of high school students, know that people of faith are the biggest hindrance to their agenda. Has the redefinition of marriage overtaken abortion as the moral issue in the political/cultural debate? It hardly matters if Christians continue to be ambivalent in this culture war.