On December 13, 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden signed into law the “Respect for Marriage Act,” which requires same-sex marriages performed in any state to be recognized throughout the country.

It’s been reported that “the new law intends to keep gay marriage legal, should the U.S. Supreme Court ever decide to reverse its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex unions nationwide. Similarly, the Respect for Marriage Act keeps interracial marriage legal should the Supreme Court revisit its 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down state laws barring the action” (Lawrence Richard, “White House Glows Rainbow Colors After Biden Signs Respect For Marriage Act,” Fox News, Dec. 14, 2022).

This legislation passed the Senate, with all the Democrats aided by votes of 12 Republican senators who were satisfied with an amendment to it adding purported religious protections. However, opponents argued that these supposed safeguards lacked real enforcement provisions, so that the law will result in unrestrained abuses.

According to the Alliance Defending Freedom: “On Nov. 29, the Senate passed the Respect for Marriage Act as amended with the insufficient protections for religious freedom. In doing so, the Senate rejected three proposed amendments that would have added more meaningful religious liberty protections to the bill” (Gregory Baylor, “What You Should Know About the Respect for Marriage Act,” ADFlegal.org, Dec. 14, 2022, emphasis added throughout).

Potential adverse consequences of the law

In describing potential adverse outcomes of the new law, an article in The Federalist warned that “Christians, Jews, Muslims, and anyone else who dares maintain that marriage is a lifelong conjugal union between one man and one woman—the definition of marriage for thousands of years . . . will be branded a bigot and driven from the public square and marketplace.

“Anyone who owns a small business related to the wedding industry . . . will be sued into oblivion if they refuse services to same-sex couples. Religious colleges and universities will lose their tax-exempt status. Religious institutions of every kind, if they hold to their teachings and traditions about marriage, will face an onslaught from the Department of Justice and the federal bureaucracy” (John Davidson, “The ‘Respect for Marriage Act’ Is An Exercise In Tyranny, and Everyone Knows It,” Nov. 22, 2022).

The subjects of homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage have been hotly debated in many countries. Over the past several years, “marriages” of same-sex couples have been recognized in 33 nations. Yet while legislators and judges in democratic countries have the power, with consent of the governed, to enact laws they believe are just, that does not make such laws truly just and acceptable in the eyes of God. Even though particular behaviors and actions may be accepted by the majority in society, that does not make them in any way good, healthy or desirable.

Deciding for themselves what is right and wrong

When God created the earth and all life on it, He said it was “very good” (Genesis 1:31). But the perfect way in which He established things at that time is not how we find them now. Because when sin entered the world through the disobedience of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, everything changed.

What was perfect became contaminated. And since then the world has existed in a despoiled condition. Our first parents sinned by deciding for themselves what was right and wrong in eating fruit from the forbidden “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:15-16; 3:1-6).

From that time forward, each succeeding generation has followed the same unsound and harmful example by also doing what seemed right in their own eyes (Proverbs 14:12; 16:25; see 21:2). Taking that pathway throughout history has resulted in the terrible anguish and misery the world has heaped on itself—prodded by the devil’s nefarious influence (Genesis 3:3-24; 1 John 5:19). All of this must be considered when appraising the relative “goodness” of anything, including decisions by lawmakers and judges to approve same-sex marriage as law.

The only way to know if something is truly correct is to examine it in the revealing light of God’s Word. For example, when considering the phrase “same-sex marriage,” we need to realize that only our Creator has the right to define the marriage relationship. And regarding homosexual activity itself, the Bible plainly describes it as sinful (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27).

The dangers of homosexual behavior

Of course, we should show compassion to those who have same-sex attraction and who struggle with temptation to pursue this lifestyle while striving to avoid it with God’s help. And we should have compassion to all who are deceived regarding this lifestyle and embrace it. Much research has revealed how perilous and destructive it can be.

For example, on March 9, 2016, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention placed the following statement on its website: “Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been rising among gay and bisexual men, with increases in syphilis being seen across the country. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men often get other STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections.” 

On Apr. 5, 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services posted this statement on its website: “In the United States, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are the population most affected by HIV [human immunodeficiency virus].”

And Healthline.comreported: “Depression affects LGBT people at higher rates than the heterosexual population, and LGBT youths are more likely than heterosexual students to report high levels of drug use and feelings of depression. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide is the third leading cause of death among people age 10 to 24 in the United States. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths in grades 7-12 are twice as likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers” (Michael Kerr, July 2016).

An act that disrespects marriage—and its Creator

Homosexual behavior, which was not long ago labeled as immoral in many nations, is now essentially exempt from public criticism. If someone dares oppose it, he or she may be accused of promoting “hate speech.” Nevertheless, homosexual activity and all other sexual activity outside of proper marriage between a man and a woman are severe violations of God’s instructions, as He made crystal clear in the Bible (1 Timothy 1:9-10). Therefore, the “Respect for Marriage Act” clearly does not respect marriage—or God who made it.

Our eternal Creator established the divine institution of marriage and family so that human beings could learn to love one another as He loves them (Genesis 2:24). And He created sex as a means for a couple to conceive and bring children into a warm, tender and joyful family relationship (Genesis 1:28; 2:24; Malachi 2:15).

What a great blasphemy that lawmakers and governing leaders who have taken their oaths of office on the Holy Bible then turn around and effectively flush it and its words down the toilet, as they promote what it condemns and persecute those who stand with its truth and the God who gave it! 

Since dangerous, lawless forces are at work in our midst (Ephesians 6:12), we must remain vigilant against an increasingly lawless and immoral society (Matthew 24:12; Philippians 4:7). Let us choose now to keep standing for what is right, trusting not in the wayward words and ideas of men but in what the Supreme Authority of the universe reveals through His Word, the Holy Bible (2 Samuel 22:31; 1 Thessalonians 2:13). In doing so, we offer Him the profound honor and deep respect He and His revealed truth rightly deserve!

What image does Vermont bring to mind? Maple syrup, spectacular fall scenes and skiing in the Green Mountains are typically associated with this small New England state-the state where I was born and raised. It was at that time noted for its conservatism, and its citizens were known for family values.

Within the last several months, Vermont has made legal and social news in the United States, first with a Supreme Court ruling in December, followed by legislation introduced in and passed by the Vermont House in March.

The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that gay and lesbian couples were being discriminated against in the state, because they were denied the benefits provided to heterosexual married couples. The state legislature subsequently acted in a groundbreaking manner, choosing a course not taken by any other U.S. state, and created a "civil union" for same-sex couples.

The bill, which is expected to pass the Vermont Senate in April, was aptly dubbed "by far the most sweeping measure of its kind in U.S. history" by a supportive editorial in the Harvard Crimson, a Harvard University newspaper ("Vermont Decision Spurs Debate About Gay Marriage," U-Wire, March 20, 2000, p. 1, emphasis added throughout).

Exactly what this legislation has accomplished, and whether it is good or bad promises to be the subject of debates in and out of the courts and legislatures of the land for years to come.

Peg Byron, education director for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (a gay advocacy group) heralded the legislation as "groundbreaking." She added, "I think it really sets a moral as well as a legislative example for the rest of the country" ("VT House OKs Civil Unions for Gays," AP Online via COMTEX, March 17, 2000).

Contrary voices include Roman Catholic Bishop Kenneth Angell, who said, "This bill is about a minority imposing [its] concept of morality upon the morality of the majority" (ibid.).

Another sharp criticism comes from Janet Parshall, spokesperson for the Family Research Council. "The Vermont House's vote...to allow homosexual partners to form 'civil unions' is nothing short of an endorsement of 'same-sex marriage,' " she said.

"In spite of the people's opposition to counterfeit marriage, the legislature has moved one step closer to giving the people just that. If it looks like marriage and smells like marriage, then it is marriage-regardless of how much syrupy language is used" ("Vermont Senate Should Reject Counterfeit Marriage, FRC Says," PRNewswire, March 17, 2000).

Resembles marriage in all respects

The civil union described in the proposed legislation certainly does sound like a marriage, entitling couples whose union has been "certified" by a justice of the peace, a judge or a member of the clergy to some 300 state benefits and privileges presently available only to married couples. Some of those benefits and privileges include:

 Property. Civil union partners would be entitled to joint title, transfer from one to the other on death and property transfer tax benefits-the same as married couples.

 Lawsuits. As with married couples, one in a civil union would be able to sue for the wrongful death of a partner, the emotional distress caused by a partner's death or injury, and loss of consortium caused by death or injury.

 Probate. Probate law and procedures related to spouses would apply to civil union partners.

 Adoption. Civil union partners would be entitled to all the protections and benefits available to heterosexual couples when adopting a child. (Current Vermont law already allows same-sex couples to adopt, but the proposed law would require that those in civil unions be treated as spouses.)

 Insurance. Civil union partners of state employees would be treated as spouses for insurance or continuing care contracts.

 Abuse. Partners in civil unions would qualify for various abuse programs as spouses.

 Discrimination. Laws prohibiting discrimination based on marital status would be applied to civil union couples.

 Compensation. Provisions and victims' compensation and workers' compensation related to spouses also would apply to civil union partners.

 Health care. Spousal rights in making medical decisions, and spousal privileges for hospital visitation and notification would be afforded to civil union partners.

 Testimony. As with spouses, partners in civil unions cannot be compelled to testify against one other.

 Taxes. Same-sex partners in a civil union would be entitled to file joint state tax returns, like a married couple. (Source: "Benefits of VT Civil Union Bill," AP, March 17, 2000.)

The civil unions could not be broken without going through Family Court proceedings! Although, using Ms. Parshall's words, civil unions "look like marriage and smell like marriage," many legislators who worked on the Vermont bill feel that they made a strong statement for traditional marriage and against same-sex marriage. A special amendment was added to the bill for that specific purpose, stating that the term marriage is preserved solely for the union of a man and a woman.

That satisfied few people. A supportive editorial in the Daily Targum, a Rutgers University newspaper, opined that the proposed civil unions "mirror heterosexual marriages and provide all the same rights and privileges. The unions will be everything that marriage is, [except] in name..." ("Winds of Change," U-Wire, March 20, 2000).

Calling the bill "the first step toward queer [the term preferred by many same-sex union advocates] equality," the same editorial said there was a long way to go still.

Legal minefield

That "long way to go" speaks to the social, moral and legal crisis that was only increased-not resolved-by the Vermont legislation. The so-called "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution guarantees in essence that each state will recognize the laws of other states. "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state" (Article IV, Section 1).

In spite of this law, 30 U.S. states have enacted legislation to deny recognition to same-sex partners whose unions are legally recognized in another state. Challenges in the courts on constitutional grounds are inevitable.

Although Vermont authorities have already warned couples not to come there from out-of-state to obtain a civil union, expecting to return home and have that union legally recognized, you can count on the fact that some will do exactly that in order to mount a legal challenge.

The United States is not alone in the debate. Although without the authority to pass binding legislation, the EU Parliament recently adopted a resolution that urges its 15 member nations to grant same-sex couples rights equal to those of heterosexual couples. The resolution called on its member nations to "guarantee one-parent families, unmarried couples and same-sex couples rights equal to those enjoyed by traditional couples and families, particularly as regards tax law, pecuniary rights and social rights" ("EU Urges Gay Couple Equal Rights," AP, March 17, 2000).

Denmark, Belgium, Sweden and the Netherlands already have laws guaranteeing those benefits to extramarital couples regardless of gender. Other EU member parliaments are currently debating the question.

The Canadian federal government has proposed Bill C-23 that will give same-sex couples the benefits and obligations of common-law couples. The Canadian debate is a mirror image of the U.S. arguments.

Responding to a firestorm of public protest, Justice Minister Anne McClellan agreed to amend the legislation to say that the proposed law would not affect the institution of marriage. Similar to the amendment added to the Vermont bill, the proposed Canadian law stipulates that the word marriage means "the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others" ("Commons Committee Votes to Accept Amendment to Include," CP, March 23, 2000).

Again, similar to their U.S. counterparts, gay and lesbian advocates strongly object to the amendment. What they seek is not just benefits, but legitimacy.

Incredulity at widespread support

The Family Research Council's spokesperson asked a probing question, "Why does the Vermont House seem more in tune with an intimidating, but small minority of homosexual activists than their own people?" (op. cit., PRNewswire). Indeed, why are nations throughout the Western world willing-even anxious to extend marital benefits to same-sex couples at the same time as they deny that they are undermining traditional marriage? Are people so consumed with wanting to "be fair" that they are blinded to the consequences of their actions?

Far from bringing resolution to complex issues, recent legislative actions in Vermont, Canada and the EU have opened a Pandora's box of argument and debate unlikely to be resolved this side of the Kingdom of God. Again, why have so many been willing to sign on to this trend? I have a theory.

I'll allow the editorial of the Daily Targum about the Vermont bill, quoted above, to explain it. "The queer couples will be married by law, receiving their just legal rights. [Obviously, the writer sees the Vermont civil union as a marriage, which undoubtedly shows how many will interpret it.] In the eyes of the church, they will remain unrecognized. The bill smartly sidesteps the moral question in this respect.... They are recognizing them as civil unions-they are partners in the eyes of the law, but not in the church."

Read "God" for "the church."

In my opinion, the "creative legislation" of Vermont and Canada has attempted to create marriage without God. I believe that this approach will have wide appeal among people of all moral persuasions. I am reminded of the apostle Paul's observation of people who "did not like to retain God in their knowledge" (Romans 1:28), and I believe that assessment is applicable to today's society.

Not that all people want life without God, mind you. I see most as wanting a kind, merciful and generous God, but one who keeps any strict opinions to Himself, a "nonjudgmental Judge." For that reason, because most people do not want the real God in their everyday lives, I predict that this "novel" approach to same-sex unions-marriage that is not a marriage-will grow in popularity. Because traditional marriage (properly) reminds people too much of the real God and His Word, I predict that heterosexual couples will begin to ask for this type of certification-a civil union over a traditional marriage.

Distancing themselves from God

In another time, another people organized their society so that God would not "interfere," would not prohibit them from exercising their "rights." Their society was symbolized by a tower that, to them, meant freedom from God. The citizens became passionately unified in their desire to shut God out. He could not force His opinion or His will on them, they reasoned.

So God came down to visit them, we are told in the Scriptures, to see their society and their tower firsthand. He found them unified all right, but unity is not always good-a reality lost upon many, so it seems. What their single-mindedness accomplished was fast-tracking their own corruption in the name of "freedom." You can read of this watershed event in Genesis 11. You know the construction project. It's called the tower of Babel.

Now people are constructing a legal, moral tower of Babel to guarantee equality that they do not believe they would receive from living by God's Word. There is a growing unity to shut Him out.

What would God say if He came down to visit this tower firsthand? We haven't long to wait to learn the answer to that question. WNP