Bill Clinton, Gay Marriage, And The Culture Of Death

Alexander Sanchez On Thursday, an article was published in the Washington Post titled “It’s time to overturn DOMA“, written by none other than the original signer of the Defense of Marriage Act (1996), former president Bill Clinton.  This is nothing new, Clinton’s support of repealing the Act has been known for some time.  But it appears his purpose in writing this opinion article was to explain why he had a change of mind.  The underlying logic of this article is exactly the type of logic used by most proponents of homosexual marriages, and I respond to it with that in mind.

Like any argument, objection, position, etc., everything has an assumed presupposition, methods of reasoning and final conclusions are often determined by the presupposition one wishes to take (i.e. one presupposes materialism; one presupposes God).  Tragically, however, not many people these days really think about their arguments with any type of rigorous examination.  This is old news, though.  We know that the majority of people my age and younger could care less about rational arguments, the real question has become: how does it make me feel?  This, of course, is the question at the heart of the homosexual argument.

The frightening method of determining morality then becomes: (1) if it makes me feel good, it is good;  (2) if someone makes me feel bad about what makes me feel good, they are evil.

What’s more frightening is the abject absence of any thought.  Let me prove by an experiment I hope you’ll take a moment to participate in:  First, consider the amount of professional athletes, movie stars, and former presidents who repeat a mantra similar to this: “I think everyone should be able to marry whoever they want.  It’s freedom.  It’s equality.  This is America!”  Second, check out the following links (Caution: There are no pornographic images on these sites, but there is disturbing content):  here, here, here, here, here, and here Last, now read those articles and repeat this mantra, “I think everyone should be able to marry whoever they want.  It’s freedom.  It’s equality.  This is America!”

In light of that, comes this statements from Clinton’s article:

“On March 27, DOMA will come before the Supreme Court, and the justices must decide whether it is consistent with the principles of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all, and is therefore constitutional. As the president who signed the act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution.”

Here’s a question for your consideration.  Do you think that those who drew up the Constitution had in mind a type of freedom or liberty that had no foundation?  The original drafters certainly were not interested in mob mentalities (thus the electoral college), or unrestrained liberty (thus the current government of checks and balances).  In fact, if one takes a gander at the ole Declaration you’ll find that the “unalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness…” were rooted in a “Creator.”  Ah, but we have replaced that Creator of unalienable rights, and it is us.

But the point of contest here is not what this country is all about, but what is right.  If homosexuality is based on what the People want, and it’s all about what makes them feel good, and they want to say what is true love and what is true marraige, then I say, be consistent Mr. Clinton…or rather…don’t…


“Because Section 3 of the act defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, same-sex couples who are legally married in nine states and the District of Columbia are denied the benefits of more than a thousand federal statutes and programs available to other married couples. Among other things, these couples cannot file their taxes jointly, take unpaid leave to care for a sick or injured spouse or receive equal family health and pension benefits as federal civilian employees. Yet they pay taxes, contribute to their communities and, like all couples, aspire to live in committed, loving relationships, recognized and respected by our laws.”

See what you’re doing by restricting these peoples’ rights?  It’s hurtful!  It’s bad!

But think for a moment.  What rights are we restricting?  No one is restricting their rights to do all these things…in a true marriage.  How does this logic work for the murderer? the thief? the rapist?  They were just doing what made them feel good, loving who they wanted to in their own way, pursuing happiness! It’s America!  And now you are restricting their rights in prison…how dare you.

I know it’s a ridiculous argument; that’s the point.

But notice who defines marriage according to Mr. Clinton, “Section 3 of the act defines marriage as being between a man and a woman…”  There is only one definition of marriage, and it is this:  “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'” (Matthew 19:4-5).  But see, if you paint the issue in strictly legal terms, and throw out words like liberty, equality, and justice…people simply lose their minds.  There is no greater virtue than this, that you uphold everything that the Constitution says.  Talk about people “believing an outdated document”…one that isn’t even purported to have been inspired.  (Please don’t misunderstand me, the Constitution has some valuable principles, but my conscience is bound by Sola Scriptura not Sola Constitutionola).

“Americans have been at this sort of a crossroads often enough to recognize the right path. We understand that, while our laws may at times lag behind our best natures, in the end they catch up to our core values. One hundred fifty years ago, in the midst of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln concluded a message to Congress by posing the very question we face today: “It is not ‘Can any of us imagine better?’ but ‘Can we all do better?‘”

The right path?  Peering through the spectacles of Liberalism and human depravity they are beginning to fog up on the definition of what is “right.”  Demagoguery is powerful, especially when you toss around the American buzzwords and throw in the obligatory Abraham Lincoln reference.  Like all history, we look back on slavery and the Civil War and wonder how it got so bad.  Part of it was this: That those who knew what was right, objectively, because it was rooted in the Creator, did nothing.

Someday–pending the Lord’s return–historians will look back at this once great nation (yes, I assume it will fall on this trajectory) and they will try to discern its end, a convicting question to ask yourself might be the one that your grandchildren might, “What were you doing during all of this?  Did you speak up?”

You currently live in the culture of death.  Abortion, homosexuality (and all manner of sexual expression), and atheism all have one glaring commonality, they produce death, they condone death, they embody death.  Abortion ends life, homosexuality cannot produce life, and atheism rejects spiritual life.

Now, as much as ever, this culture needs to be told that Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life.”

Because apart from Him there is no sufficient grounds for morality, freedom, justice, or equality, and there is no hope of life in this world or the next.




~ by TSL on March 9, 2013.

One Response to “Bill Clinton, Gay Marriage, And The Culture Of Death”

  1. […] And yes, much of this is similar to my blog post: “Bill Clinton and the Culture of Death“ […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: