2 of 2

Randy Thomas, ministry manager for Exodus International, an Orlando-based ministry helping people leave homosexuality, said Lawrence will shape public policy.

"This ruling gives validity to the gay community," Thomas said. In addition to potentially redefining the family, it further solidifies their position as a political and social force."

The pressure was already intense. Homosexual rights groups and Democrats castigated Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) in April for suggesting that a government condoning consensual homosexual relations would have to allow bigamy, polygamy, incest, and adultery. Conservative activists such as Gary Bauer blasted Republican leaders for not defending Santorum.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.) endorsed a constitutional amendment in an interview on ABC's This Week program immediately after the decision, but he has been largely silent on the matter since then.

Homosexual activists are seeking a social revolution that replicates the judicial fait accompli following Roe v. Wade on abortion, Daniels said. Musgrave said Christians must take a stand.

"In this cultural war," she said, "we cannot lose this one."

Copyright © 2003 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

The Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas is available online.

Recent related Christianity Today articles include:

Opinion Roundup: Does Lawrence v. Texas Signal the End of the American Family? | Evangelicals may not agree on antisodomy laws, but they're all concerned about what the Supreme Court's decision of them means. (June 30, 2003)

Marriage in the Dock | Massachusetts case on gay marriage could set off chain reaction. (April 25, 2003)

Christian Conservatives Split on Federal Marriage Amendment | Law would protect marriage from courts, but legislatures could still extend marital benefits to same-sex unions. (June 20, 2002)

Defining Marriage | Conservatives advocate amendment to preserve traditional matrimony. (Oct. 1, 2001)

Past Christianity Today coverage of same-sex marriage in the U.S. includes:

Bishops Sanction 'Resources,' Not Rites | Having confirmed gay bishop, Episcopal leaders turn to discussing same-sex unions. (August 7, 2003)

No Balm in Denver | Episcopalians defer debate over same-sex blessings for another three years. (July 17, 2001)

Marriage Laws Embroil Legislatures | New Englanders push for domestic-partner benefits. (April 26, 2001)

Presbyterians Propose Ban on Same-Sex Ceremonies | Change to church constitution, which passes by only 17 votes, now goes to presbyteries. (July 5, 2001)

Sticking With the Status Quo | United Methodists reject gay marriage, ordination. (May 15, 2000)

Presbyterians Vote Down Ban on Same-Sex Unions | Opponents say vague wording led to defeat. (March 29, 2001)

States Consider Laws on Same-Sex Unions California to vote on 'limit on marriage' in March (Jan. 10, 1999)

Presbyterians Support Same-Sex Unions (Dec. 10, 1999)

Pastor Suspended in Test of Same-Sex Marriage Ban (Apr. 26, 1999)

Same-Sex Rites Cause Campus Stir (Aug. 11, 1997)

State Lawmakers Scramble to Ban Same-Sex Marriages (Feb. 3, 1997)

Clinton Signs Law Backing Heterosexual Marriage (Oct. 28, 1996)

The Alliance for Marriage site includes a section on its proposed marriage amendment. The site also has collected press excerpts on the amendment.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things: it provides that no State shall be required to give effect to a same-sex marriage law of another state, and it defines the words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law. It was passed in 1996.

In a 1996 Christianity Today column, Charles Colson said that "accepting same-sex relationships as the moral and legal equivalent of marriage will transform the very definition of marriage—with far-reaching repercussions."

first page |  2 of 2

share this page

September 2003, Vol. 47, No. 9