Proving Gay Marriage Wrong

Marriage, we are told, is a secular institution. For devout Christians, this is offensive, as all sexuality outside the bond of marriage is a perversion of that which is holy. But do not be distracted. Gay marriage makes no sense even as a secular institution. We know it to be immoral by the Word of God, but it is also immoral by any standard that considers the rights of children.

Throughout cultures and history, heterosexual monogamy has been favored because it is the best way to nurture human children. Pagans knew this, and today’s secular literature affirms it also: Children in homes with married biological parents do better than all others. (Of course, there have been exceptions. Some dark cultures have embraced innocent children as special targets for evil.)

Presumably, secular humanism wishes to preserve the centrality of the well-being of children in the institution it claims (correctly) is not exclusively Christian or sectarian. But does American secularism really wish to nurture children or just exploit them?

There is no dispute that heterosexual step-parent marriages are, generally, inferior when it comes to nurturing children than marriages with partners who are the children’s biological parents. This is well-known and documented; it would be absurd to deny. And because it is true, we are allowed to say so.

Get Spirit-filled content delivered right to your inbox! Click here to subscribe to our newsletter.

Yet all gay (or transgender, etc.) marriages begin as “step-parent” relationships at best. One biological parent is removed ab initio (even though we now know the earliest years are the most vital for a child’s connection with his or her parents).

But there is a further difference that reveals these queer (counterfeit) marriages are patently destructive to children. In “normal” step-parent relationships, children often maintain contact with their biological, noncustodial parent—and we know that, absent risks or abuses, this is the next best thing for children of divorce. America has long recognized the importance of this ongoing duty to children that survives the marriage—it is why we have child support and paternity laws.

To argue that this biological connection is unimportant in gay marriage when we do not question how vital it is in heterosexual unions that end in divorce is to reveal the true attitude toward the well-being of children in this culture. Children are atoms and molecules to be bred and sold like industrial pets. They are, to gays and secularists, mere chattel or possessions.

Scurrying to profit from the popularity of gay unions, sperm and ovum banks have proliferated. In response to concerns that donors might hesitate to contribute their DNA if the children might come back to haunt them someday (with the normal claims children have always had—Little Orphan Annie just wants to know her real parents, however imperfect), laws were passed in many states guaranteeing anonymity forever. That is, laws were passed promising children would never be told the identity of their true mother or father.

Does a child have a right to know who their real father or mother is when they are raised by gays or other nonbiological couples? I am not aware of a single legislature or court that has considered this. If children are determined to have such a right, huge questions confront gay marriage.

The connection matters. We are creating half-orphans, selling creation like bottles of wine. Would-be mothers and fathers can select sperm and eggs by reviewing the resumes and credentials of potential donors without ever meeting those donors and without the child ever meeting them either.

If we ever have this conversation about children and we, as a society, decide children do not have this right, different but equally revealing problems arise:

1. Can we say this is equal? No. Oliver Twist and the other orphans shall forthwith be ignored.
2. If biology does not matter for children of gay marriages, how can it for children of heteros? This is not a mere rhetorical question. How can we compel men to pay child support for children they fathered casually? Was inseminating a girl at a party not sufficiently casual to sever the parent-child bond, like the casualness of sperm banks? What of divorced parents—why impose child support if one parent wishes to walk away like a sperm donor? Does biology only count for heterosexuals?

But gays are walking away. In case after case, gays who divorce after acquiring a child are making headlines when the nonbiological partner walks away. Where the child is indigent, some courts are seeking financial responsibility from the absentee biological parent: the donor. Inconsistent? Certainly! Reconcilable? Absolutely not.

A Vermont court has ordered that a child be abducted from her biological (Christian) mother and enslaved by a nonbiological “spouse” with whom the young girl has absolutely no relationship. This is the reverse of King Solomon: tearing the child apart to satisfy the woman who would kill it.

But there is another question no one seems to ask: Where is this little girl’s father? What duty does he have?

Biology counts, even if gender orientation does not. It counts for all children, even if their parents are gay or transgender or flip-flopping or “inquiring.” Monogamy is about children before it is about fidelity. Fidelity itself is about what is best for children.

Queer, counterfeit marriages create bizarre, unhealthy environments for children. Popular films pervert this truth with titles like The Kids Are All Right. No, they are not.

As proponents of gay marriage assert their cause for marriage equality, the devout must observe that a step-parent home is never equal for the children. Gay marriage is equal for the two daddies; it is not for their children. Ask them: Do their children ever get to meet their “real” parents? When they attempt to dismiss that eternal bond in favor of a counterfeit legal construction, we see quickly the difference between the twisted logic of secular humanism and the inalienable truth of God’s holy Word.

No worshipped flag or high-tech promises can replace the morality of Christianity, which was once the backbone of America. America’s legacy to its children is debt, joblessness, dependency, war, drug and pornography epidemics, environmental degradation and a polluted family unit. Our nation is coming to be a symbol of these worldly follies rather than a beacon of Christ.

In today’s America, opposing gay marriage or any other perverse form of marriage in the slightest way invokes the harshest condemnation and hate. Those who oppose gay marriage are labeled automatically as hateful—and then scorned, hated and reviled. So much for “agree to disagree.”

Believers, be heartened! Such is the “warming climate” of the increasing worldly influence of our hellish adversary. {eoa}

John Klar is a Christian attorney and author who lives in the dark moral world of secular Vermont.