Several years ago, before the issue of gay marriage went mainstream, my friends Jim and Karen showed up at my barbeque with their lesbian neighbors' son. In an attempt to minister to the women, they had begun babysitting the couple's adopted child, Isaiah. The rambunctious two-year-old clung to Jim throughout the entire evening, never once leaving his embrace. "He's really intrigued by Jim," said Karen. "There are no other men in his life."

    I have no idea if Isaiah's fascination with Jim was normal or exaggerated; I know little of behavioral science. But Karen's comment triggered a series of thoughts in my mind. How would the toddler's two moms raise him to identify with his own gender? From what Karen told me, they had a low view of men. Would he date and learn the nuances of male-female relations? How would he assess the spiritual and psychological differences between men and women? Furthermore, how would homosexual unions in general affect the next generation?

    Perhaps my questions are provincial; our society is in the midst of establishing the meaning of gender. Many people contend that human consensus, not God, prescribes gender categories, and the cultural jury is still out. Isaiah and his two mothers are a social experiment in process.

    In November of last year, the Massachu-setts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4 to 3 that the state legislature had to recognize the legitimacy of homosexual marriage, and license s were handed out to many eager couples. The experiment is well under way, and marriage as we know it might soon be a relic of the past.

    The decision in Massachusetts sent shockwaves throughout the nation—particularly among Bible-believing Christians. "Why?" one might ask. "How can two people's commitment to one another and pledge of love affect anyone else's life?" In his book Gay Marriage, Atlantic Monthly correspondent and National Journal columnist Johnathan Rauch presents same-sex marriage as a natural social progression and argues that its legalization will actually strengthen the institution it wishes to expand.

    But, I would submit, what is at stake for Christians is not merely a shift from a heterosexual vow of fidelity, but a change in the physical manifestation of Christ's relationship to His church. For Christians, redefining marriage would redefine our relationship with God.

    "Marriage was not invented by modern secular philosophy. Marriage was not invented by contemporary science. It certainly was not invented by four Supreme Court justices in Massachusetts," writes Michael Novak. "Although the 50 American states regulate the legal standing of marriages, in most cases marriages are presided over by church authorities, not state authorities. Moreover, the understanding of what marriage constitutes is largely outside the state's purview. It is left for the most part to the contracting parties and to the presiding churches. Even in its barest legal minimum, matrimony is deeply influenced by the long traditions of Judaism and Christianity."¹

    The Bible strongly denounces homosexuality in verses like Leviticus 18:22, which reads: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." In contrast, Scripture presents marriage as a heterosexual relationship. Song of Solomon offers a compelling portrait of marriage in which the two parties are clearly male and female. Jesus also spoke of God's design for marriage: "But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. And for this reason a man will leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate" (Mark 10:6-9).

    For Christians, marriage reflects the mystery of our relationship with the Lord. As a husband is to his wife, so Christ is to the church: inseparable. The church is literally the bride of Christ. (Revelation 19:7) Redefining marriage does violence to the Christian faith that it embodies.

    Novak contends that there exists a social project "to tear off the flesh of Judaism and Christianity from the bones of the common law. 'Separation of church and state' is the flag around which the project's standard-bearers rally. But in reality, that battle was won long ago. It was won when the United States prevented the Church of England—and any other church—from becoming the established American church. What is really being asked for now is not the separation of church from state but of faith from practice. That cannot be done without doing serious harm to the living, breathing human being."²

    The deeply complex issue of same-sex marriage is convoluted by agendas and anxieties. Marriage is a cultural institution, and many homosexuals seeking to redefine it want something more than a contractual agreement that will offer them the amenities of matrimony. They want cultural and religious inclusion. Don't all of us want our marriages esteemed and honored in keeping with societal norms? The problem is the institution of marriage reaches past the union of two individuals into the public sphere and, more specifically, into the lives of children who may be affiliated with the partnership. Behind the rhetoric and politics are people like Isaiah, who will never have a father.

    Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe writes, "The adoption of same-sex marriage would topple a long-standing system of shared values. It would change assumptions and expectations by which society has long operated—that men and women are not interchangeable, for example, and that the central reason for marriage is to provide children with mothers and fathers in a safe and loving environment. . . . My foreboding is that a generation after same-sex marriage is legalized, families will be even less stable than they are today, the divorce rate will be even higher and children will be even less safe. To express such a dire warning is to be labeled an alarmist, a reactionary, a bigot and worse. . . . But it is not bigotry to try to learn from history, or to point out that some institutions have stood the test of time because they are the only ones that can stand the test of time."³

    Social scientific studies reveal children are safer, feel more secure, and perform better when committed mothers and fathers raise them, and overwhelming evidence points to the fact that children from broken homes suffer socially, academically, and emotionally.⁴ As an example of what lies in store for America, should we continue to denigrate traditional marriage, we can look to our European counterparts.

    "Marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia," writes Stanely Kurtz. "A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern—including gay marriage—is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has."⁵

    The attempt to redefine marriage in America is only the latest in a litany of attacks that have eroded strong, abiding families. In his testimony before the Subcommittee on Human Resources, David Popenoe of the National Marriage Project reported that "marriage as the basis of family life continues to decline in America. Since 1970 the rate of marriage has dropped by about one-third, the out-of-wedlock birth ratio has climbed from 11% to 33% of all births, the divorce rate has doubled, and the number of people living together outside of marriage has grown by over 1000%."⁶

    But the cause of today's diluted version of marriage reaches beyond the homosexual lobby to other powerful forces such as the expansive marketplace—same-sex marriage is part of a greater historical context. We should not, therefore, scapegoat homosexuals as the sole party responsible for crumbling marriages when evangelicals are equally to blame. Sadly, the church claims as many broken homes, abandoned spouses, and alienated children as the secular community.

    When we speak of wedlock's redefinition, we should ask ourselves, "What defines my marriage?" If matrimony is truly a reflection of God's relationship with man, a physical manifestation of our heavenly bond with our Creator, we ought to safeguard it with all our might. The wedding vow is binding. It is sacred and permanent. It is a vow of fidelity, commitment, honor, and love that was intended to last until death severs it.

    We tend to forget the weight of those vows when we blame others for our country's present state of affairs. While there are measures we can take politically to preserve marriage, our best defense lies in strengthening and protecting our own unions. A strong family unit is a beacon of light in the darkness, reflecting God's glory to all who see it. How many people do you know who have been faithfully married for more than 20 years? Like seasoned athletes, they chart a course for others to follow. Until people see Christian marriages that work, they will have nothing to emulate.

¹ Michael Novak, "What Marriage Is,"
The Public Interest, Summer 2004.

^{2 Idem.}

³Jeff Jacoby, "Gay Marriage Would Change Society's Ideal," The Boston Globe, July 6, 2003.

⁴ Sara Eleoff, "An Exploration of the Ramifications of Divorce on Children and Adolescents,"
The Child Advocate, The Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, November 2003.

⁵ Stanley Kurtz, "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia," The Weekly Standard,
February 2, 2004.

⁶ David Popenoe, testimony before Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, May 22, 2001.