4 of 4

But neither should we escalate the culture war by making this debate into a battle for the heart and soul of marriage. If we do that, we concede that the state owns marriage and that the church's function in blessing unions is subservient to the government's. Far better to lose the battle over the legal definition of marriage than to win it and find that the government now owns one of our most sacred institutions.

Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Our Same-Sex Marriage and Marriage in America Hot Topic pages have more Christianity Today articles on marriage and same-sex marriage, including:

A Crumbling Institution | How social revolutions cracked the pillars of marriage. (Aug. 24, 2004)

What God Hath Not Joined | Why marriage was designed for male and female. (Aug. 20, 2004)

The Next Sexual Revolution | By practicing what it preaches on marriage, the church could transform society. (Aug. 27, 2003)

My Two Dads? Not in Florida | U.S. Circuit Court upholds ban on gay adoption (March 11, 2004)

Speaking Out: Why Gay Marriage Would Be Harmful | Institutionalizing homosexual marriage would be bad for marriage, bad for children, and bad for society. (Feb. 19, 2004)

Let No Law Put Asunder | A constitutional amendment defending marriage is worth the effort. (Jan. 26, 2004)

Massachusetts Court Backs Gay Marriage | Christians say gay activists will overturn marriage laws (Dec. 10, 2003)

'A Man and a Woman' | Activists say the Federal Marriage Amendment will be the defining issue in the next election. (Nov. 24, 2003)

The Marriage Battle Begins | Profamily and gay activists agree: Texas decision sets significant precedent. (Aug. 11, 2003)

Canada Backs Gay Marriages | Conservatives say decision could put pressure on dissenting churches. (July 16, 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. (July 20, 2002)

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

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."

Concerned Women for America have an archive of articles in response to the same-sex marriage issue.

first page |  4 of 4

share this page

October 2004, Vol. 48, No. 10