To the Citizens of Virginia
Laws and judges’ decisions cannot validly overturn thousands of years of human history, and ignore the evidence of human anatomy — the bases for common law and natural law, respectively.
The Bible’s witness against homosexual behavior is affirmed by nature and biology. Thus, God has spoken in both Scripture and creation with a coherent message – homosexual behavior is unnatural and marriage is between only a man and a woman.
Consequently, one cannot legitimately call it marriage when there is some sort of legal union between those of the same sex similar to marriage, despite contrary sentiment.
There are features of human relationships that should be kept separate from the “gay marriage” question. I speak of right of inheritance, of visiting rights in hospitals, and so on. But all such features concerning basic human rights that are separable from marriage can be protected by ordinary contracts.
What I do oppose is having public policy expand the legal definition of marriage so that it no longer protects traditional marriage and children, and no longer gives advantage and preference to traditional marriage and children. Protecting traditional marriage and children is not only consistent with Scripture and nature (and biology), it is good public policy — because nature (as evidenced in abundant social science research) proves that children are most blessed by being raised in traditional family structures, and traditional families are blessed economically because stable traditional families are optimal in avoiding resource waste and preserving wealth.
Further, endorsing so-called “civil unions” as an alternative afforded to homosexual couples giving them all the benefits of marriage is really a linguistic sleight-of-hand we should resist.
True civil rights do not include redefining marriage or using “civil union” as its equivalent just with another name. A true civil right is based in nature (such as inalienable rights) and is not created simply by a legislative decision.
I hold that when an event or function in a store or hotel or church is not related to the question of traditional marriage, there should be no discrimination allowed against homosexuals. However, when the event or function of interest would involve the direct endorsement of a non-traditional view of marriage (such as marrying homosexual partners or having wedding receptions etc.), I believe the owners of the store/hotel/church have the inalienable right to, and should be permitted to refuse the function, as a matter of law and conscience.
It is not only a protection of freedom of religion that is involved, but an inalienable right of existence of all individuals per se, that one should be able to resist affirming a practice contrary to natural law (and conscience) and not allow legislated law to overturn that.
BTW, promoters of homosexual marriage, in their arguments, have no basis to deny polygamy, group marriage, bestiality, pedophilia, and everything else that is worse including theft, murder and assassination, because they have no foundation in natural law, having abandoned it at the outset when they assert that homosexual marriage is valid. Their only recourse is to assert that a group of human beings should be allowed to do whatever the group decides – which is equivalent to asserting that man himself is the maker of all law.
John Munday Ph. D