[Mormon Red Death]

Here is a letter I wrote to may favorite columnist of NFL.com (Tuesday Morning Quarterback). He also is a brookings scholar and writes for the new republic.


Mr. Easterbrooke,
I was reading your archives on Easterblogg and came across your piece on 11/21/2003 which stated your opinion on homosexual marriages. After reading that piece I felt that your opinion on the matter wasn’t as thought out as your usual posts. Therefore, I have endeavored to write you an email that I hope will cause you to seriously ponder and change your viewpoint on the matter. Since your post declares, “Let's set aside the dueling legalese about gay marriage” I shall try and do the same and just argue against your main points. Your points that I will counter are:

1. Jesus’ mantra was that love for other people is the same as love for God; therefore, Christians should be happy that homosexuals in love want to marry.

2. People marry for economic reasons, they marry to create a new family structure to replace the one that must inevitably fade as their parents age; they marry for mutual support in life's travails; people wed to receive the legal advantages of marriage and the community respect accorded this state. But why should it cause any umbrage in the community if two people of the same gender see all the reasons above as ones that they, too, should wed? As long as a gay or lesbian bond is a true marriage--intended as a lifelong commitment--the desire of homosexuals to enter into such unions ought to be viewed by the married as a great compliment to their institution.

3. Much of the opposition to gay union seems to boil down to legal tradition and to taste. Additionally, legal traditions change all the time.

Jesus’ mantra was that love for other people is the same as love for God; therefore, Christians should be happy that homosexuals in love want to marry.

Marriage is one of God’s most sacred institutions. Through one’s marriage and subsequent family God has provided his children a perfect means in which to be happy. From the scriptures it is very clear that God intended his children to marry. We read in Mark 10:6-9

6. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female
7. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8. and they twain shall be one flesh then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

It should be noted that Marriage is ordained between a Male and a Female. And that God did not intend this sacred union to be with those of the same sex.

.Jesus Christ was very adamant of his followers having “love for one another”. As you eloquently put in your column early Christians bonded together with their love for one another as glue. Just because Christ loved everyone does not mean that he condoned their sin. Homosexuality in the Bible is clearly a sin. In fact, this particular sin, according to the scriptures, is exceptionally egregious. In Leviticus 18:22 and 1st Timothy 1:10 we read:

22. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

10,11. for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

This sin is so bad that God destroyed a city (Sodom and Gomorrah) with fire and brimstone. Furthermore, God wanted to make more of a point about this type of wickedness. When Lot’s wife looked back she became a pillar of salt (Genesis Chapter 19). Since God is truly against this sin why would he condone it in his most sacred institution? The fact of the matter is that those homosexual unions are not what God intended for his children. If one was to argue that homosexuality is not a sin anymore then they are gravely in danger of what Isaiah warned us of (Isaiah 5:20).

Your statement of “If you could understand one thing and only one thing about Christianity, it should be that Jesus held love the highest fulfillment of the spiritual ideal. In Christian thought, the state of love is the most important achievement available in all the cosmos: to men, to women, to God. And in Christ's "this is my commandment" teaching, love between people is given significance equal to divine love” is one that I agree with wholeheartedly. However, loving someone does not mean you should condone their wrong actions. If your son was a drug dealer would you not have love for him while at the same time having contempt for his behavior? Furthermore, would you want him permitted to have all the rights you enjoy? As I have gone over ad nauseum homosexuality is sin. Not only is it against the law (sodomy laws), but most importantly homosexuality is not a situation (just like any other sin) that will lead a person to happiness. Those who choose that lifestyle maybe be temporarily pleasured but I have no fear in saying that in the long run one who chooses that lifestyle brings upon their own destruction and unhappiness. Wickedness never was happiness. Isn’t our happiness the key and object of our existence?

People marry for economic reasons, they marry to create a new family structure to replace the one that must inevitably fade as their parents age; they marry for mutual support in life's travails; people wed to receive the legal advantages of marriage and the community respect accorded this state. But why should it cause any umbrage in the community if two people of the same gender see all the reasons above as ones that they, too, should wed? As long as a gay or lesbian bond is a true marriage--intended as a lifelong commitment--the desire of homosexuals to enter into such unions ought to be viewed by the married as a great compliment to their institution.

People do get married for the reasons above, however if we are to extend these rights to same gender couples where does it end? For example, if homosexuals are to be married because they love each other why don’t we let siblings marry? Why not an animal and person? Why not a young child and an adult? According to your logic, as long as they love each other, “these unions should be viewed as a great compliment” to the institution of marriage. This argument comes down to the way that the courts interpret marriage. If marriage is interpreted to be a civil right, then all people should have it - spinsters and deviants included. On the contrary, the majority must insist on its own way, as long as the civil rights and liberties of the minorities are protected. Another note that should be recognized is that marrying for love is a fairly recent convention - and may perhaps be the reason behind so many failed marriages. Sure, people fell in love, but it was not the major impetus until the age of industrialization allowed people leisure, life span, money and transportation, so their options increased.

Much of the opposition to gay union seems to boil down to legal tradition and to taste. Additionally, legal traditions change all the time.

The idea of marriage is not one born out of legal conventions. Mitt Romney Governor of Massachusetts wrote in an editorial for the Wall Street Journal on 2/5/2004 in which he declared, “Marriage predates our Constitution and our nation by millennia. The institution of marriage was not created by government and it should not be redefined by government.
Marriage is a fundamental and universal social institution. It encompasses many obligations and benefits affecting husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter. It is the foundation of a harmonious family life. It is the basic building block of society: The development, productivity and happiness of new generations are bound inextricably to the family unit. As a result, marriage bears a real relation to the well-being, health and enduring strength of society.” To further Mr. Romney’s words I submit my argument that marriage between man and woman is not just a legal tradition, it is an institution that has been around since recorded history. The government of the United States of America or any other government does not have the right to redefine it. The opposition that Christians should feel to homosexual marriage is not in malice of those who chose this lifestyle but in defense of society’s most crucial building block.
In conclusion, it is my sincerest hope that you seriously evaluate your position on homosexual marriage. As a Christian like you, I do my best to have love for my fellow man (or woman). Furthermore, as a Christian, I refuse to accept unions of homosexuality in what I believe to be society’s most sacred institution