Gay “marriage” is another issue facing our nation, and while it runs behind abortion in importance, it also is not trivial. The trajectory of our culture on the issue of gay “marriage” is decidedly against the biblical definition of marriage as a covenant between one man and woman, cleaving to one another and forsaking all others as long as they both shall live. For various reasons, including a faulty concept of “equal rights” and a generally apathetic stance on moral issues that “don’t harm anyone,” our culture is not only tolerating homosexual relationships but endorsing them as beneficial, right, and honorable. The biblical implications of this shift is sobering in light of Romans 1:18-32, and American Christians should take special note of the task ahead of us as we bring the Gospel to a culture that has suppressed the truth and plunged headlong into idolatry. While I don’t believe that electing one candidate over another to government positions will change the hearts and minds of people on this issue, I still think it’s important to vote for a candidate that espouses a biblical definition of marriage. A survey of where the two major candidates stand on this issue makes the choice easy and straightforward.
Pres. Obama initially ran for the U.S. Senate and then president of the United States as a proponent of the biblical definition of marriage. However, like so many things that Obama has said and promised in the past, his views on marriage “evolved.” Really, they didn’t evolve at all. When Obama ran for the Illinois state senate in 1996, he signed a letter backing the legalization of gay “marriage.” The evidence indicates that Obama simply lied to the American people because it was politically expedient, and when it was, at least in his mind, politically expedient to take the other side of the issue, he came clean and finally (with the prompting of VP Biden) made his real position clear. Now, Obama has become an activist for gay “marriage,” as he presently backs gay “marriage” measures in three states.
Some Christians might read all of this and ask, “So what? What people do in their private lives is none of my business. Why shouldn’t homosexuals have the ‘right’ to ‘marry’ if they want?” I’ve answered this question before, but I’ll expand a little more on it. The reality is that everything we do, whether in public or in private, affects society at large. The way we spend our time and money and even our choices about relationships influences more than just those immediately around us. We either improve society or contribute to society’s decline with our choices. Christians have a duty to love their neighbors as themselves, which does not mean to live and let live, but to do what is in the best interest of our neighbor even when our neighbor doesn’t understand what is in his best interest. Ultimately, what is in our neighbor’s best interest is to repent and believe the Gospel, and that is our primary mission with our neighbors. But we are also called to do good to our neighbors in general as we seek to reach them with the Gospel. In the political arena, that means voting for candidates who will fulfill the God-given role of government, which requires that government discern the difference between right and wrong, good and evil (Rom 13:1-5). Society is better off as a whole when government functions in the way God has designed it to function. While not all government leaders, or even most government leaders, are believers, we can and should still vote for candidates who have a view of morality, of right and wrong, that is closest to the Law of God. How else will government know the difference between evildoers and those who do good? Apart from the Law of God, right is trivialized to the opinion of the majority, and wrong is nothing more than the minority opinion. While people should be free as consenting adults to engage in homosexual activity, the government should not endorse their immoral behavior. Obama’s view of morality on this issue is diametrically opposed to biblical teaching, which means some extreme circumstance would have to exist for Christians to vote for him, a circumstance where, perhaps, all candidates held the same unbiblical position. Such a situation is not unthinkable if our culture continues down its current road.
Thankfully, that is not the situation in this election. Gov. Mitt Romney has taken a strong stance in favor of biblical marriage. While Romney’s position on this issue is not as strong as Christians would hope, he has made it clear that he will defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, something Obama has refused to do (which is constitutionally questionable itself), and advocate for a constitutional amendment defining marriage biblically.
As with abortion, this reason for voting for Romney might not make a bit of difference to non-Christians; for Christians, though, a vote for Obama is unthinkable based on scriptural principles of right and wrong and the role of government. Because of Mitt Romney’s stance on marriage, he received my vote, and he should receive yours as well.