Last week I blogged about the Wisconsin Supreme Court upholding a portion of a law that affirms the definition of marriage. Voters in that state passed the constitutional amendment by 59 percent in 2006. After a glut of news about courts nullifying the will of the people and redefining the cohesive and complementary unit that provides the family-building foundation of society, the ruling was uplifting.
Now comes more good news. A circuit court in Tennessee ruled the state’s law affirming marriage constitutional. Two homosexuals who “married” in Iowa sought to “divorce” in Tennessee. Just one problem with that, said the judge. Under Tennessee law, they aren’t married.
“The court finds that Tennessee’s laws concerning same-sex marriage do not violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution,” Simmons wrote. “There is nothing irrational about limiting the institution of marriage for the purpose for which it was created, by embracing its traditional definition. To conclude otherwise is to impose one’s own view of what a state ought to do on the subject of same-sex marriage.”
“The laws of Iowa concerning same-sex marriage are so diametrically opposed to Tennessee’s laws, and Tennessee’s own legitimate public policy concerning same-sex marriage, that Tennessee is not required by the U.S. Constitution to give full faith and credit to a valid marriage of a same-sex couple in Iowa,” he continued.
We live in strange times. Mainstreaming decadence and celebrating perversion are considered forward progress. Enlightenment. I’ve always believed the point of redefining marriage was to render the institution obsolete. Perhaps the solution would be for Christians to have a render-unto-Caesar moment and focus on the spiritual aspects of the God-ordained union. Marriage, as a holy covenant, will never change.