With a 4-3 vote, the seven judges of the California Supreme Court have just ruled that a ban on homosexual marriage is unconstitutional. California voters had previously approved (by 61%) Proposition 22 in 2000, defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Once again judicial activism is overruling the will of the people. It is expected that a “stay” will be placed on this decision until November 2008 when it is hoped a constitutional amendment, the California Marriage Protection Act, will qualify for ballot.

Until now Massachusetts was the only state licensing same-sex marriage. Massachusetts now boasts an annual Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Youth Parade with “fully sanctioned participation by a variety of school groups,” link here. A number of other states offer civil unions. On the other hand 26 states have amended their constitutions to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Also in the news this month is that an eminent Spanish psychiatrist, Enrique Rojas, called the homosexual orientation a “disorder” rather than an illness, 95% of the time due to environmental factors such as an absent father, overweening mother, or sexual abuse in childhood. He said that studies from the United States, Canada and New Zealand show a 70-80 per cent chance that a child adopted by homosexuals will develop the same tendencies.

What are we to think? We are pulled this way and that. Homosexual couples who would like to legally marry say they are being discriminated against because of their gender. “We love each other and are committed to each other,” they argue. “We should have the same perks and privileges as heterosexual couples.”

Some of the privileges they would like include the spousal benefits that come with health, life and insurance policies, rights of inheritance, joint tax returns, Social Security payments, alimony, family leave to care for a sick partner, and on down the line. Some who favor gay marriage have argued that the ability to marry would curtail a perceived promiscuity among the homosexual population. Those who have lived the homosexual lifestyle, however, say that even in so-called “monogamous” gay liaisons the partners usually are expected to have other affairs on the side.

To my mind, “gay marriage,” is an oxymoron – a contradiction in terms. Marriage has always been defined as a commitment of a man and woman to each other. The latest Webster’s dictionary says marriage is “an institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependency for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.” A marriage is not a valid marriage until it is “consummated.” The bottom line is that two men or two women cannot have intercourse, cannot perform the “marriage act”, cannot consummate. Therefore, they cannot marry.

No amount of “pretend sex” that is engaged in by homosexuals can produce a baby. You cannot have a right to do something that is impossible. Gay marriage cannot occur unless they change the meaning of the word “marriage.” That is why the architects of the new social order have been working hard at redefining both “marriage” and “family,” making them shifting alliances and essentially rendering the words meaningless. As a matter of fact, the National Institute of Health’s Office of Equal Opportunity recommends using terms such as “partner” or “significant other” rather than “husband” and “wife” because that would leave out other kinds of sexual arrangements.

Is it discrimination to recognize the truth that marriage is something homosexuals cannot achieve? Of course it is. It is always discrimination to acknowledge that X is X and not Y, and to recognize that everything is not the same. Not everything is good. Not everything is acceptable. We discriminate every time we make a choice.

Some years back homosexuals were fond of claiming that 10% of the population was gay. That was not true at the time. The true figure was 1-3%. It may well be true, however, that the gay population will soon reach 10% if we keep teaching our children from grade one that man-man and woman-woman sex is perfectly normal and acceptable. Common sense, anatomy and biology tell us that the only true intercourse is between man and woman. Anything else is makeshift, ersatz, disease-producing and better described as mutual masturbation.

If homosexuals are permitted to marry, by what reasoning do we deny marriage to those engaging in other sexual irregularities? Polygamy? Bestiality? Menage á trois? Incest? Whatever? It so happens that these are sexual proclivities for which prominent homosexual leaders and gay publications (as well as homosexual web sites) are voicing support. Even pedophiles, such as the boy-lovers of the North American Man-Boy Love Association are not repudiated by many homosexuals. They just don’t think we’re ready for it yet.

What they are trying to do is put homosexuality so much in our faces that we become desensitized. Alyson Publications, which gave us Daddy’s Roommate, and Heather has Two Mommies, then released Daddy’s Wedding in which Daniel and Frank got married. They say it is appropriate for ages 2 to 6! Later came King & King in which the Prince is not interested in Princesses but takes a fancy to the brother of a Princess, whom he marries. There is, of course, nothing wrong with their love (if it is love and not lust). We are commanded to love one another. But marriage is something else and has a sexual dimension. This introduction to children of the O.K.ness of men marrying men and women marrying women is deliberate social engineering, directed at toddlers! I grieve for the lost innocence of children. See Queering the Schools.

According to an old adage, “As the twig is bent, so is the tree inclined.” Kids will trying anything, and like little sponges, absorb everything. Sow an image, reap a thought. Sow a thought, reap an action. Sow an action, reap a habit. Sow a habit, reap a character. Sow a character, reap a destiny.

Please stop bending our twigs. We want them to grow up straight and fruitful.

It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble. Luke 17:2