Yes, it’s a combination of “three” and “couples,” and it is not surprising to hear about it. When society has been sold on one perversion (homosexuality), what stamina will remain for it to reject any other perversion? Throuples cannot legally be married in any state of the union so far, but how long will it take—especially if the news media begins to publish anecdotal sob stories about how much in love throuples are and how they are being denied their “rights”?
Three women already claim to be married as a throuple. Two of them had been “married” in Massachusetts for more than two years when they decided to add a third “partner” to their love nest. This youngest addition also is pregnant from a donor. If Hollywood needs a name for this scenario when they get around to making a movie about how these three women are so courageous, they could title it, Three Women and a Baby.
According to reports, the fathers of the three women escorted them down the aisle. The first question that comes to mind is, “Why would any of these men take part in this travesty of a wedding ceremony?” Why did not one of them have the courage to say, “This is nuts, and I will not have any part of it”? This is nothing more than “tolerance” gone to seed. Tolerance in this case might have consisted in the fathers not picketing the “wedding,” but certainly nothing required them to actually participate in it. One thing is certain, if the woman about to give birth has a daughter, no father will ever walk her down the aisle.
Apparently, the design of marriage by God which He showed by example when He created Adam and Eve is lost on our current culture. God did not create two men, two women, a throuple, a fourple, or a grouple. Did God not know what He was doing when He created one man and one woman? He did, although people have denied it about every way possible.
Many choose to live in fornication rather than marriage. Many have opted for divorce—frequently for selfish reasons. Then two of the same sex have “married,” but mankind is still not through—now we want three or more people to be in on the arrangement. Polygamy, which had once been defeated in this country, is on its way back.
When the Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional, Justice Scalia dissented, writing that “the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.” Justice Scalia is brilliant and right the vast majority of the time—including this one. But no one needed to have a tremendous amount of insight in order to see this one coming. By validating homosexual “marriage,” the court gave all the ammunition it needed to those who want to engage in polygamy. If the court is going to defy and repudiate God’s definition of marriage, then no standard remains upon which to determine what marriage is. Without the Bible, no authoritative definition can be found. If one is contrived, it will probably become obsolete swiftly—in order to be replaced by another and another and another.
One thing that citizens of this country ought to know is that we are following the pathway to godlessness just as Europe has. Accepting homosexuality as an alternate lifestyle is a rejection of God and His morality. Re-defining marriage serves as a rejection of God’s institution of the family. Everyone ought to understand clearly that these developments (along with others referenced earlier) constitute a rejection of the Bible as the Word of God.
As we continue on this course, wickedness will increase, and this nation will lose even more favor with Almighty God. The only thing that can save us is a return to the Bible (as individuals) and in government (as we once stood). Otherwise, where shall we be?
This controversy could have occurred almost anywhere, but it is happening in Florida. On June 6th, columnist Scott Maxwell published an article accusing Florida’s Attorney General of being a religious zealot. Why? What “witch” hunt is she engaged in to warrant such an attack. She is upholding traditional marriage and fight-ing against the concept of homosexual marriage in Florida, which was the will of the voters. How dare anyone try to uphold the will of the majority! What most “reporters” fail to remind their readers of is that most of the states in which homosexual “marriage” is now legal voted no when given the opportunity, but the will of the people was overturned by courts and legislatures. According to Maxwell, Attorney General Pam Bondi is
launching unseemly attacks: stereotyping gays, besmirching their ability to parent and trotting out antiquated and scientifically debunked arguments (B1).
Talk about recycled rhetoric! So, what has lit a fire under Maxwell to come out of his corner, slugging away at his perceived opponent? Pam Bondi is waging a legal fight against homosexual marriage. Apparently, she had the temerity to argue that, “If Florida were to recognize same-sex marriage, it would ‘impose significant public harm.’” Isn’t that something that most Christians believe? (This writer has no idea if the attorney general is a Christian or not, he is only saying that those who are Christians believe that homosexual “marriage” causes significant public harm.) Maxwell calls this “gay-baiting,” which obviously indicates where his sympathies lie.
He claims that her motion passes “judgment” on others and that it repeatedly argues that “marriage is meant only for couples who can breed and raise children responsibly.” Not having the legal document and not knowing the legal terms that might be used puts the average person at a disadvantage. If that is the way it is actually worded (Maxwell did not use quotation marks when alluding to it), then it would be incorrect and would not hold up. As Maxwell points out, it would eliminate from the institution of marriage couples that could not or did not desire to have children, as well as widows and widowers (past child-bearing age). But is Maxwell representing the case fairly? He also says that a precedent cited by Bondi is irrelevant and dates back to 1942. What she actually wrote is:
Historically, there has been a clear and essential connection between marriage and responsible procreation and child rearing.
A lot depends on how something is said; the above statement is true. It does not exclude the possibility of widows and widowers marrying again. Most marriages have involved young people of child-bearing years. Sure, some were unable to have children, and some decided it was not the best thing to do, and some marry in their maturity, but the vast majority of marriages involve young people. None of these are excluded—except in Maxwell’s mind.
He next uses an ad hominem attack as it concerns homosexuals and parenthood. Apparently a former attorney general hired an “expert” to testify on the “supposed evils of gay parenting,” but the man was traveling with a homosexual hooker. While that might discredit that “expert’s” testimony, it has no bearing on the issue, which is that ideally the best arrangement is for a father and a mother. Obviously, this arrangement is not always possible. Sometimes men are absent because they are in the military. Sometimes, a mother is deserted or must file for divorce. Single-parent families exist for a number of reasons. But even most of them recognize it is not ideal and cope with it as best they can. Two homosexuals, however, know from the get-go that any children they adopt or conceive (from a donor) will not have a father and a mother.
Maxwell discredits Bondi’s “enduring family relationships” clause as invalid because she has been divorced twice and is currently engaged. She would only be discredited if she were at fault in those divorces. Perhaps Maxwell has details concerning those events, but he did not mention them; thus, all the rest of us can do is agree or disagree with what she wrote, and certainly we agree.
Marriage and the Government
Maxwell has not presented a very compelling case in favor of homosexual marriage—or even against Bondi’s law. He closes by saying that he is becoming increasingly libertarian in thinking that the government should stay out of marriage altogether. Although keeping the government out of most anything sounds preferable, it is not realistic. The reason such logic fails is that government is needed to protect people and to record what is done.
It is true that government can be the problem; in some countries, the cost of marriage is just about prohibitive due to unreasonable demands and costs. So most people just circumvent the government and live together, having made vows to each other. In this country, however, the fees for a license are modest, and no one suffers a hardship in becoming wed. Without government involvement, however, chaos would result. A woman might claim she and a certain man took vows together, and he could deny it. A traveling man could have several wives and get away with it, so long as no official records were kept. Whose last name would a child go by if no records were kept? Would there be any protection for a woman if a man left her or threw her out? The possibilities are too many and too dangerous to get rid of state involvement.
Vows?
Maxwell states succinctly, “My vows were to God and my wife.” The fact that the state played a role in the marriage process does not change that fact, but since he brought the issue up, one wonders if he realizes that homosexuals cannot make vows to God when they are “married.” God is the originator and the designer of marriage. Maxwell may have noticed that in the beginning God joined together one woman and one man (Gen. 2:18-24). He may further have noted that when Jesus was asked about divorce, He responded by saying,
“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female.’ And said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt. 19:4-6).
In the beginning God created one man and one woman; He also joined together one man and one woman. In other words, He has only authorized marriage between a man and a woman. Although He allowed polygamy in the Old Testament era (after it was introduced by ungodly men), He no longer tolerates or has authorized any other arrangement. Therefore, whatever vows same-sex couples (or throuples) make before God will neither be heard nor respected. Those who would attempt to invoke God’s blessing make a mockery of His institution and His Word. And before Maxwell levels the charge again, this is not zealotry; it is a matter of truth.
Public Harm
Two days later, on June 8, a reader’s letter from a homosexual reader was published in the Orlando Sentinel in defense of homosexual “marriage.” Below is an examination of his arguments. He wrote:
First, why does gay marriage pose significant public harm; yet heterosexual marriage and its divorce rate, which is close to 50 percent, does not? By her argument, heterosexual marriage provides for the children; yet we rip the parents and children apart in divorce and leave her idea of the perfect family unit destroyed (A17).
Homosexual “marriage” poses significant harm because it endorses homosexuality, period, which is de-fined in the Scriptures as “vile” and “against nature” (Rom. 1:26). Allowing homosexuals to “marry” tramples on God’s institution of marriage, perverting it as well. Those who seek to “marry” others of the same sex can hardly speak about their privacy. Where is one precedent for homosexual “marriage” in the history of the world? The burden of proof for acceptance of such an idea should be upon those who have the desire to flaunt such an unheard-of idea.
The reader is correct about the devastating effects of divorce—especially upon children. Once again, however, it is society that has messed this situation up by departing from the Scriptures. Jesus only authorized divorce for one reason—infidelity on the part of one’s spouse. Who removed that reason and instituted no-fault divorce? Correct, state governments changed the way God designed marriage and divorce, and the tragedy that followed is the result of mankind departing from the Word of God. And the reader thinks that further departures (i. e., homosexual “marriage”) will make things better? He has selected a bad argument—one that refutes his position. In other words, if one departure from God’s will has proven disastrous, what will a worse departure mean for mankind?
The letter to the editor also accuses Pam Bondi of having introduced a “frivolous” lawsuit—one “lacking a legal basis or legal merit; not serious; not reasonably purposeful.” He alleges that recent court decisions throughout the country have “torn to shreds Bondi’s arguments against gay marriage….” Really? And who rendered those decisions—liberal judges appointed by liberal presidents? Most of those decisions went against what the voters in those states cast their ballots for. Obviously, the lawsuit is frivolous to him, since he clearly has a vested interest in the result.
The Rest of the Story
On June 25, 2014, this writer received the following information from the Christian Family Coalition:
After months of hard work, the Christian Family Coalition Florida (CFCF) announced today a stunning turn of events as Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi filed motions to intervene in two seditious state lawsuits that are trying to overthrow Florida’s voter-approved constitution which respects marriage as the union of one man, one woman.
As she recently stated in a piece written for the Gainesville Sun,
Defending the wishes of the voters who enacted Florida’s marriage amendment necessarily requires me to make good faith legal arguments. Anything less than the best defense of our voters’ policy preferences would disenfranchise the electorate, and undermine the judicial process, this court should ‘exercise great caution when asked to take sides in an ongoing public policy debate’ and leave Florida’s important policy determinations to Florida’s citizens.
In 2008, approximately 5 million Florida voters approved our state’s constitution respecting marriage as the union of one man, one woman, by a whopping 62% – 38% margin. Approval numbers among Hispanic and African-American voters were even higher, 62% and 71% respectively!
Why didn’t Maxwell tell us Bondi was defending us?