Why NOT Same-Sex Marriage, Part 2

This is family policy matter program is produced by the North Carolina family policy Council of profamily research and education organization dedicated to strengthening and preserving the family enough in the studio. Here's John Rushton, president of the North Carolina family policy Council and thank you for joining us this week for family policy matters used to have Dr. Daniel find Bob back on the program. Dr. Maibach is a senior professor of Christian ethics at Southeastern Baptist theological seminary. He has a BS from the United States Naval Academy and MA in M.Div. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity school, a Masters in philosophy and a PhD in law, politics, and Christian ethics from Drew University graduate school and he has earned certificates for further study from the Harvard University John F. Kennedy school of government and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Institute of Government Dr. Chaim Baca served as an expert witness before the United States Congress and served two years on the White House staff under Pres. George H. W. Bush, Dr. Hahn is written or contributed to over 14 books and has written more than 60 articles and book reviews and he is back with us today to discuss his latest book, why not same-sex marriage. A manual for defending marriage against radical reconstruction in the book he responds to 101 arguments that are being made in favor of same-sex marriage. We are extremely excited to talk with Dr. Chaim bought today. Dr. Maibach will conduct a family policy matters like you very much, Dr. Buckley in his argument of marriage should be redefined because justice requires treating homosexuals like everyone else. How should Christians respond to this argument well this is one of the equality arguments you know that this is just a matter of equality and equal rights and unjust treatment. Homosexuals differently in regard to marriage of the problem is that the proponents of that argument of the essence in the quality claim or actually changing the meaning of marriage and are creating a sense of injustice that doesn't exist. Unless you have already changed the meaning and definition of marriage that is marriage as it is and always has been is been up in the procreation institution designed to favor having and raising children of which produce stable citizens for society and and social survival and is not merely a way of affirming feelings well so marriage understood that way there is no inequality but is only inequality if you have already changed the meaning of marriage in the light of the argument is trying to presume. In other words, it presumes the conclusion to create the problem. It is supposing to fix so I would say the heart of that.

What's wrong with that particular argument is that it is in fact unjust to change marriage to remove any quality that would not exist before the marriage is changing. Otherwise there's no inequality problem to fix. Unless you change the meaning of marriage in the way they want to change the meaning of marriage fairly closely related topic in the book you also respond to legal and constitutional arguments that are being made in favor of same-sex marriage, including the notion that the Constitution guarantees equal protection for homosexuals under the law about this argument and of course we hear this being used in court all across our nation. Laws that define marriage as between a man and woman that constitutional amendments like the one that was passed by 61% of voters in North Carolina in May 2012 are unconstitutional and violate the equal protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution does equal protection under the law mean that marriage must be redefined for everyone else will I find it very interesting because proponents of that argument are making two errors.

First of same-sex relationships are not in the same category as opposite sex relationships when it comes to justifying public interest in regulating marriage so the public interest is not a matter of referring private feelings is a private matter. The public interest is in securing stable procreative units and that's the only public interest there is in marriage so loved. When it comes to the public interest in marriage, and that justifies having public laws on marriage. This particular argument is assuming there in the same category when they're not really is no basis for alleging the light of marriage apply to same-sex couples. For that reason, alleging that same-sex relationships are the same. In sum, legal sense as opposite sex relationships in regard to marriage is like alleging that people who can't see are the same as those who can handle it comes to binoculars all binoculars are not structured for the blind and marriage is not structured for non-Procrit gone procreating reasons. Second reason I think that that particular argument constitutionally is is is wrong is because even if gay relationships were declassified in the same legal category which is not, it would still be constitutionally warranted by the most compelling state interest to the nine same-sex couples an equal right to marry. The Constitution allows denying equal treatment to individuals when that denial is justified by an overriding state interest and there is truly no greater overriding state interest in favoring legal marriage and in assuring the survival of society. So I would say that what's wrong with that argument is that God first of all, same-sex couples are not the same relational category constitutionally as opposite sex couples and comes to legal marriage and Dr. humbug we hear another strategy to proponents of same-sex marriage, attempt to use which is to compare bans on same-sex marriage to previous bands in our country own interracial marriage. This argument says that we should allow same-sex marriage because denying it is the same as denying racial inequality and that an individual's quote unquote sexual orientation is essentially the same as mayor race. How do you respond to this left a very popular claim is being used in because we know that the racial discrimination has no moral basis and and so proponents of same-sex marriage are trying to argue that marriage laws as they are all in the same area of of wrong is a variable law as is. What is racially discriminating policies and laws used to be.

We can admit that yes of course it's wrong for the law to treat items in the same category differently and that's what made laws against interracial marriage so bad but opposing same-sex marriage is not the same as opposing laws restricting marriage by race.

The public interest in justifying laws that affirm and protect procreation. America based on the need of all societies to get men and women to take responsibility for raising their own children and dump many types of sexual partners like polygamy, sex with children be stealthy.

Don't qualify for marriage precisely because they conflict with that public interest law limiting marriage to male-female couples is dissimilar from limiting managed by race first because interracial interracial marriage affirms book racial responsibility for same-sex marriage redefined marriage by Dick denying it has an instructor at all, and second because interracial marriage serves the public interest in getting biological fathers and mothers to raise your own children will same-sex marriage serves no public interest at all. And thirdly interracial marriage supports the appropriate structure of marriage. While same-sex marriage doesn't protect appropriate structure of marriage as a social institution that also we can say that that argument is wrong because it unfairly mistreats and misuses marriage in the way racist used to oppose interracial marriage. What I mean by that is that they redefine marriage to pursue a personal agenda which is exactly what was wrong with the laws opposing interracial marriage with Dr. humbug before we close our interview today. We talk for just a minute or two about why it is so important for Christians and other supporters of traditional natural marriage to be prepared to answer arguments in favor of same-sex marriage. I think it's important for our listeners to really get a sense and in and get a sense from you about why it is so important for them to be engaged to be involved to really again be salt and light in our culture on this issue. Glad that what were talking about here is a defense of an institution, it matters to God and we need to defend moral thinking that supports an institution that is important to God.

But if it's in a secular society with regard to public policy with regard to civil laws that are secular and so if we insist on making arguments that depend first on coming to faith in Jesus Christ before you're convinced that we will lose. We will have nothing to say to defend against this effort to redefine the structure of marriage we need to be able to defend the structure of marriage in the way that is going to be most effective in changing the minds of people who don't believe in Scripture adult belief in the Bible because of the appeal to the Bible Scripture. They will say we don't need to listen to you. You know what you're saying is irrelevant, and if that's the case then we will have no effect. So if you actually want defend marriage will need to be able to defend it in ways that are going to be persuasive to secular people don't believe the Bible and doing that actually is faithful to what God requires us to do in terms of being salt like him in the when the sun just distinguishing the difference. Define the structure of marriage in a secular arena with novel leader beavers with sharing the gospel and bringing people to faith in Jesus Christ. My concern is that if Christians cannot defend the structure nature of marriage. In practical ways that make that the secular people, then we actually are washing our hands and say we have nothing relevant despite on the public-policy battle of Spitzer aim so intently on redefining marriage.

So if we can't do that then. Now we're just going to be standing on the sidelines watching the society I collapsed watching married the structure marriage collapse around us to provide defendant. We need to be able to defendant in a way that will make a significant effect to people who are in the psych arena dealing with public policy in a matter that is not affecting the common good.

Without being able to make without relying on think that's why the onset of the this program that we talked about this, this book is being both unique and strategic and not so critical to reaching a broader audience and working within the culture of people from a variety of different faith backgrounds and beliefs to impress upon them the importance of traditional natural marriage to our culture as the most fundamental building block of our society to Dr. humbug unfortunately were nearly out of time for this week, maybe the most important question have asked you during our time together working our listeners go to get a copy of your excellent new book, why not same-sex marriage will thank you. I certainly hope that they do obtain copies of both for themselves and to give as gifts to others. That's what good is to go to Amazon box and ordered there were over the Barnes & Noble website where you can order it off of their website as well. Or you can go to local bookstore folks or in the North Carolina in the Raleigh area were relocated. They could come to the bookstore at Southeastern Baptist theological seminary and their available-for-sale there.

Or you could go to any local bookstore whether it's a likely store or or or Barnes & Noble and.and/or border the book through them.

Excellent action Dr. humbug. Thank you for that and I would encourage all of our listeners to avail themselves of this valuable resource.

Targeting how my thank you so much for being with us this week on family policy matters and for sharing your insights from this new book, why not same-sex marriage. We really appreciate you taking time out of your schedule not only to be back with us today but to pour yourself and your insights and intellect into this incredible resource and again I would encourage our listeners to to get a copy and and read it and share it by copies and give them as gifts.

Follow Dr. humbug thank you so much for your time today and for being with us on family policy matters like you very much, John, before we close.

I would also like to recommend an excellent resource to help our listeners stay on top of some of the major public-policy and cultural issues facing families in North Carolina today. The North Carolina family policy Council's quarterly magazine family North Carolina magazine is filled with engaging articles on some of the key public-policy and cultural issues facing families in our state today. The latest issue of family North Carolina magazine is available on our website in a digital version. Visit our website@ncfamily.org and see family.org family policy matters is information and analysis feature of the North Carolina family policy Council join us weekly discussion on policy issues affecting the family. If you have questions or comments. Nine 197-0800 or visit our website and see family.org