jQuery Slider

You are here

UNEQUAL RIGHTS: Holding Homosexuals to a Different Standard by Chuck Colson

Unequal Rights: Holding Homosexuals to a Different Standard

BreakPoint with Charles Colson
Commentary

01/07/2004

Most gay rights activists say they're simply working for "equal rights." But two recent court cases demonstrate that, whether they realize it or not, they're really working for something quite different.

UNEQUALThe first case concerns Cheryl Clark, a former lesbian, now a Christian. Clark's former partner, Elsey McLeod, sued for joint custody of Clark's adopted daughter after Clark left their relationship. The judge ruled in McLeod's favor on the grounds that she had been a "psychological parent." As Clark's lawyer, James Rouse, stated, McLeod "is being treated like a divorcing spouse even though they aren't and can't be married in the state of Colorado. The trial court has effectively skipped the 'gay marriage' issue and gone to 'gay divorce.'"

And that's not all. At McLeod's request, the court also barred Clark from exposing her daughter to any Christian materials or teaching "that can be considered homophobic." So Clark could be found in contempt of court for studying the Bible with her daughter or taking her to church. Fortunately, Clark is appealing this outrageous decision.

The second case is equally bizarre. After David Blanchflower divorced his wife, Sian, because of adultery, Sian appealed the case, arguing that her lesbian relationship wasn't adultery. The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled in her favor, finding that the state's laws didn't include same-sex relationships in the definition of adultery.

Even gay activists are upset about this one, arguing that it portrays homosexual relationships as less "significant." One advocacy group wrote in a "friend of the court" brief, "New Hampshire courts should treat gay adultery the same no matter the gender of the person with whom the spouse engages in an extramarital relationship."

Clearly, Sian was unfaithful to her marriage vows, but I think they're missing the larger point. It's not just that gay adultery is treated differently; it's that homosexuality in general is treated differently. It is given preferential treatment in both of these cases.

Many in our culture have fallen for the argument that homosexuality is inborn, even though that argument is based on faulty evidence and wouldn't matter if it were true. But this leads to the conclusion that, by nature, homosexuals are cut off from enjoying the same rights that the rest of us enjoy. So we change the law accordingly. That's why even some conservatives who are against gay "marriage" are in favor of "civil unions."

But as you have heard me say before, homosexual relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships. A heterosexual relationship brings together the two sexes to complement and fulfill each other; a homosexual relationship cannot. And nearly all heterosexual relationships are able to produce children; homosexuals cannot without a third party.

So, ironically, any effort to treat homosexuality equal with heterosexuality ends up treating homosexuality as a special case, forcing us to bend the rules that govern our society—and create spurious concepts like "psychological parents." We need to realize this before it's too late: Trying to create equivalency where none exists can only end in confusion and chaos.

For printer-friendly version, simply visit www.breakpoint.org and click on Today's Commentary. The printer-friendly link is on the left-hand column.

Copyright (c) 2004 Prison Fellowship

END

Subscribe
Get a bi-weekly summary of Anglican news from around the world.
comments powered by Disqus
Letter to the Churches, text and commentary
Prayer Book Alliance
Trinity School for Ministry

Land of a Thousand Hills Coffee

Drink Coffee

Do Good

Sustainable Ministry

Coffee, Community, Social Justice

DrinkCoffeeDoGood.com

Go To Top