Category Archives: Marriage

Why Should You Vote “For” the NC Marriage Protection Amendment?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Tomorrow is a big day in North Carolina because we are casting votes on whether a marriage protection amendment should be added to the state constitution, something that a large number of other states have already done.  I have written on marriage and gay marriage in the past, and you can go read those posts if you’d like (some of the links are found at the bottom of this post under “related posts”). 

But what I want to do today is quote an email I received from my friend, Mark.  It was written by pastor John Held, and I think captures many of the important points in this debate.  Please take a couple of minutes to read it below, and don’t forget to vote “for” the amendment tomorrow, if you are a citizen of North Carolina.

Responding to the Opposition to the Marriage Protection Amendment

In their opposition of the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA), anti-amendment activists (strongly supported by national homosexual advocacy groups) are intentionally using the terms “anti-gay,” “discriminatory,” “bigotry,” and “harmful” to describe the Marriage Protection Amendment. This is part of a well thought-through, strategic tool designed to engender an emotional response from uninformed North Carolinians.
 
As outlined in their book After The Ball, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, both gay activists, explain:

In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector…[this will] lay the groundwork for the process of conversion by helping straights identify with gays and sympathize with their underdog status.

Homosexual activists have made no secret of the fact that the redefinition of marriage is number one on their social agenda. The popular accusations being made against the Marriage Protection Amendment fall into this “victim imagery” strategy.

Nothing about the Marriage Protection Amendment is anti-homosexual, and it does not represent an attack on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender (LGBT) individuals.

The Marriage Protection Amendment states, “that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.”  It is a pro-marriage amendment with the sole intention of preserving and promoting the
historic definition of marriage as a public institution that binds men and women together to create the best environment for raising children. The amendment elevates current North Carolina law to the level of a constitutional amendment to protect the definition of
marriage from being redefined by either activist judges or politicians. 

It has been claimed that the Marriage Protection Amendment “writes discrimination into the state constitution…” Understandably, the term “discrimination” immediately creates in people’s minds the image of other people being unfairly excluded from something that is available to everyone else.  Of course, it is true that marriage, by definition, is an exclusive institution – in the sense that it is not open to everyone who wants to get married.  For example, children cannot get married, an adult cannot marry a child under a certain age, certain blood relatives cannot get married (a mother to her son, father to his daughter, brother to his sister), a man cannot marry two women, and a man cannot marry a woman who is married to someone else.
 
When the law defines marriage as between one man and one woman it does not prohibit any homosexual person from marrying, they would just have to marry in the same way that everyone else in society has to marry – they would have to marry someone of the opposite sex. This right is extended equally to all unmarried adults in the society.
 
When homosexuals claim that they want to marry another person of the same sex, they are not simply claiming the right to marry that is available to everyone else in society.  They are claiming a new right that has not previously been available to anyone in this society.  Such a right has been denied to everyone in the society, prior to this time; so, it is not discriminating against them to say that this kind of right is denied to them.

By way of analogy, if a man claimed that he wanted to marry his sister (or any of the examples given above), he is really claiming the right to redefine marriage according to his own desires and preferences.  He is not just claiming a private right for himself, but is
claiming a right to change the definition of marriage that has been adopted by the whole society.  And the law is correct when it denies him the right to do this.  Therefore, restricting marriage to one man and woman does not violate anyone’s fundamental rights. In fact, what the marriage protection amendment actually does is preserve the unique and special understanding of marriage that has existed in nearly every civilization since the beginning of time from the ongoing attempts to strip marriage of its core meaning and purpose.

Christians should also recognize that the end result of the redefinition of marriage is the silencing of the Church on the biblical understanding of sex, gender, and the family.  Granted, for individual churches and denominations that have either rejected the authority of Scripture or re-interpreted Scripture (abandoning grammatical-historical hermeneutical principles), so that the Bible’s clear teaching is muddled, this is not an issue – they have already capitulated to the current culture.  Yet, in places where same-sex marriage has been legalized, religious freedom and free-speech (of individuals and churches that hold to traditional marriage) are under attack in the name of promoting the full acceptance of homosexuality.  The Marriage Protection Amendment would help protect the ability of the church to continue to proclaim what Scripture teaches about sex, gender, and marriage, including what the Bible says about homosexual activity (and adultery and fornication and pornography and all other forms of soul-destroying sin).
 
The accusation that the Marriage Protection Amendment will harm children is unfounded.  Even the liberal British philosopher Bertrand Russell said, “But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex…It is of children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society.”  No fact has been more convincingly established by social science literature then the fact that children are best served when reared in a home with a married mother and father. Just because other broken family forms exist (from single mothers to same-sex partners) does not mean that the marital norm for society should be redefined in order to keep the children in these families from feeling different.  In a post-Genesis 3 world, not every family will reflect the marital ideal of one man and one woman provides for individuals and society at large.

The Marriage Protection Amendment is really about one thing: preserving the historic understanding of sexuality, gender, and the family in North Carolina and protecting the rights of parents (and the church) to transmit traditional values about these core issues to the next generation.

Have You Signed the Manhattan Declaration Yet?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Almost one year ago, I wrote a short blog post asking our readers to sign a document called the Manhattan Declaration.  Why am I back again asking you to sign?  Because we need more of you to participate.

So far, the declaration has gathered 476,000 signatures – impressive, but not enough.  We should easily be able to get over 1 million signatures on this document – after all, if you are a Christian, or a person who believes in the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, and the sanctity of religious liberty, then you should have no problem signing this document.

What does the declaration say about these issues?  Well, you can read it for yourself in full, or you can read a few excerpts from it below.

First of all, why these three principles instead of a myriad other possibilities?

Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.

To repeat, these are foundational issues.  Without life, without traditional marriage, and without religious liberty, our civilization crumbles.

About life, the declaration has this to say:

A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination. The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak. And so we defend and speak for the unborn, the disabled, and the dependent. What the Bible and the light of reason make clear, we must make clear. We must be willing to defend, even at risk and cost to ourselves and our institutions, the lives of our brothers and sisters at every stage of development and in every condition.

About marriage, the declaration has this to say:

And so it is out of love (not “animus”) and prudent concern for the common good (not “prejudice”), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. How could we, as Christians, do otherwise? The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God’s creation covenant. Indeed, the union of husband and wife mirrors the bond between Christ and his church. And so just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.

About religious liberty, the declaration has this to say:

The struggle for religious liberty across the centuries has been long and arduous, but it is not a novel idea or recent development. The nature of religious liberty is grounded in the character of God Himself, the God who is most fully known in the life and work of Jesus Christ. Determined to follow Jesus faithfully in life and death, the early Christians appealed to the manner in which the Incarnation had taken place: “Did God send Christ, as some suppose, as a tyrant brandishing fear and terror? Not so, but in gentleness and meekness…, for compulsion is no attribute of God” (Epistle to Diognetus 7.3-4). Thus the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the example of Christ Himself and in the very dignity of the human person created in the image of God—a dignity, as our founders proclaimed, inherent in every human, and knowable by all in the exercise of right reason.

Will you join us in signing this declaration?  Will you make your voice heard on these issues?  Please make your way to the Manhattan Declaration website and become a signatory to this important document.

A Valentine's Day Post

Post Author: Jennifer Pratt

On Valentine’s Day, it seems fitting for me (Jennifer) to write about how to have a secure and successful marriage.  Billy and I have been married for 15 years (we have been a couple for almost 20 years).  I can honestly say that each year gets better!  When I think back to our first few years of marriage, I cringe.   We had no idea how to make a marriage work.

Recently, I read a book entitled The Marriage Code by Bill and Pam Farrel.  Reading this book helped me to understand why we struggled during our first few years of marriage.  First and foremost, the book states that the best way to have a healthy and vibrant marriage is to have a growing, intimate relationship with Jesus Christ.  Fifteen years ago, Billy and I did not have an intimate, growing relationship with Jesus Christ.  We were Christians but we were more concerned with pleasing ourselves than with a growing relationship with Jesus.  To put it mildly, we were both very selfish.

Mistake #2 in our relationship was the notion that saying “I do” was enough to make our marriage successful.  As The Marriage Code puts it, “You have to know the access code that keeps the heart-to-heart connection to your spouse alive and well.  Knowing your mate’s code–the core needs he or she longs to have met–will give you ready access into the other’s heart.”  The problem was that Billy and I were so selfish (we were ruled by our flesh) that we didn’t take the time to figure out what the other person’s needs were.  All we did was complain that our needs weren’t being met.

Here is an example of a username and password that I should use in order to access Billy’s heart:

Username: Wife

Password: Success

I need to create an environment that makes Billy feel successful in our relationship.  In the early days of our marriage, I did not realize that if Billy did not think that he could be successful in our marriage then he would just stop trying.  He needs to get the message from me, “I love the way you live and I love the way you love me.”  If he gets that message, his heart will be drawn towards me, and he will gain confidence in our relationship.

Here is one of the access codes to my heart:

Username: Husband

Password: Security

One of a woman’s greatest needs is to know that she is loved unconditionally.  I need to know that Billy is going to love me no matter the circumstances and that our relationship is secure.

Mistake #3 in our marriage was understanding that men and women are different.  I know this sounds obvious but even though we knew this intellectually it is not how we lived.  We have different needs and we express love very differently.  Reading marriage books such as The Marriage Code remind me that I have to put effort into finding out how to access the code to Billy’s heart.

The bottom line is that I know marriage is hard.  Honestly, Billy and I would be divorced if it wasn’t for our relationship with Jesus Christ.  Through an intimate, growing relationship with Jesus, we both learned to put each other’s needs ahead of our own.  We both made a decision that we would love each other unconditionally and that we would work to find the “access codes” to each other’s hearts.  I must confess that some days are better than other days. We don’t have a perfect marriage, but overall it is a successful marriage relationship.  I want to encourage you to seek hard after God and keep working on your marriage.  It is so worth it!!

Why Should the State Endorse Gay Marriage?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

I wrote a post recently about why the state endorses and promotes marriage between a man and a woman.  Simply put, the state needs children and it needs children raised in the ideal environment for them to become productive adult citizens, which is a family headed by a man and a woman.  Biology, common sense, and vast empirical research prove this to be the case.  Additionally, traditional marriage domesticates men and protects mothers.

Based on these societal interests, why would the state want to endorse gay marriage?

Gay marriages do not produce children.  In fact, the only way a same sex couple can “produce” children is to use people from outside their marriage.  They cannot procreate by themselves and they rely on traditional male-female sexual unions to provide children.

Gay marriages are not the ideal environment to raise children.  Every single gay marriage deprives a child of either a father or a mother.  Again, nature, common sense, and empirical research all demonstrate that children thrive best when they are raised in a family with a father and mother.

Gay marriage does nothing to domesticate men.  The great majority of gay men are not monogamous; they seek sexual gratification outside their primary relationship.  One study tracked 100 gay male couples, and after 5 years not one couple could boast that both partners had remained sexually faithful.  The idea of two men gay men living faithfully in a long-term commitment is a myth.  The research proves just the opposite.

Only gay marriages between women provide any sort of security or protection for a mother.  The quality of that security is debatable, but it seems like it could provide better security than single motherhood.

So, to summarize, at least 3 out of the 4 primary reasons that the state promotes traditional marriage do not apply to gay marriages.  It is only if marriage is completely redefined and its purpose fundamentally altered that same sex marriage advocates have any kind of argument.

You may think same sex marriage is harmless to our society (I disagree but that is a topic for another day), but I want to know why the state should endorse it.  After all, that is what gay marriage advocates want – a state endorsement of their relationship.  There are plenty of relationships that are harmless that the state does not promote.  What is so special about this one?

Make an argument for why we should radically alter our marriage laws.  Show us why, if you are a gay marriage proponent, this is so good for our entire nation.

Addendum: For additional information on whether homosexuality is inherited, please see this post, and for additional arguments against gay marriage, please see this post.

Why Do Civilizations Care about Marriage?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

The ultimate reason that virtually every civilization since the dawn of man has recognized and promoted marriage between a man and a woman is because this is the one natural union that produces children.  Yes, marriage is about procreation and every civilization needs to produce children to survive and thrive.  Without children, which are produced between the sexual union of a man and woman, every nation, state, and civilization dies.  It is, therefore, supremely important to protect and promote the institution of marriage.

But there are also other reasons.  In addition to procreation, marriage between a man and woman is the best environment to raise children.  It always has been and it always will be.  Biology cannot be overruled.  Children must be raised and families with a married mother and father are the best means by which they are raised, so it is in the state’s interest to promote marriage as the best way for children to be looked after and guided toward productive adulthood.

In addition, marriage civilizes men.  Married men are more productive and well-behaved members of a society.  Single men tend to cause far more trouble for a society, so marriage is a great vehicle for the domestication of men.

Marriage protects women.  Mothers who are married are far less likely to experience violence of any kind than single mothers.  They are also protected financially if they raise their children and forgo a career outside the home if they are married to a committed husband.

These are some of the reasons why human societies have always recognized marriage between a man and a woman and why they have promoted and celebrated this institution.  These reasons are not only backed by traditional wisdom and common sense, but by empirical research.

Like it or not, healthy marriages between men and women are the bedrock of any society, so think carefully about tampering with the definition and purpose of marriage.  Think carefully about weakening this institution in any way.  If you do, you will severely degrade our national immune system.

What is the Problem with Gay Marriage?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Well, there are many, but Wintery Knight points us to an excellent article written by Robert George that explains some of the issues quite well.  George rightly asserts that we must, as a society, agree on what marriage is before we start re-defining it.  And, it is up to the people of the United States to make this determination, not the courts.

What is marriage?  Is it merely a piece of paper?  Is it two people who have strong feelings toward each other?  Is it two or more people who want to live together, for whatever reason?  Is it all about sexual pleasure?  What is it?

Just as the key issue with abortion is defining what human life is, the key issue with gay marriage is defining what marriage is, including its purpose.  Until we debate this definition, efforts to recast marriage in the courts are getting ahead of the American people and we will end up with an even more divided nation.

How Do I Stay Married?

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

This topic is a bit off the main theme of this blog, but this is an extremely important topic that all Christians must deal with.

My wife and I have been married 18 years, which isn’t any kind of world record, but is somewhat impressive, given the ongoing high divorce rate in the US.  We are sometimes asked (mostly my wife) how we have kept our marriage together, and we always tell people about the same thing.  I thought I would humbly submit this advice to our blog readers.

First of all, passionate romantic feelings are not the answer.  We do have feelings for each other, but they are constantly changing, and we do not count on them to keep our marriage going.  They are too fickle.

Marriage requires that two people have a common will to be committed to each other forever, and it requires that both partners understand each other, really understand each other in a deep way.

The first requirement is the most important.  If you are not 100% committed to each other, your marriage will struggle, and possibly fail.  Most people think they are committed to their spouse, but they are really only committed as long as their spouse makes them happy (provides them pleasure).  We submit that this is nothing but selfishness, and it will not make your marriage last.  Why?  Because what makes you happy is going to constantly change throughout your life.  No spouse, on their own, can possibly keep you happy your entire life.  If you think they can, you are truly foolish.

If the answer to commitment doesn’t lie in your spouse, where does it lie?  For us, it comes from a focus on God.  We are totally committed to God, and we know he loves marriage and hates divorce.  The closer we each get to God, the closer we get to each other.  Without God being at the center of our marriage, it is doubtful we would have stayed married for 18 years.  If you and your spouse don’t have God at the center of your lives, make it so.  You must start there.

The second requirement is knowing your spouse in a profound way.  My wife and I struggled with this in the early years of our marriage.  We really did not know each other, and we really did not know ourselves.  Men often assume that their wives should just intuitively know what they need from a marriage, and women often assume that their husbands should just intuitively know what they need from the marriage.  Unfortunately, it just doesn’t work that way.  I had no idea what my wife wanted and she didn’t know what I wanted.  That spells disaster if it isn’t corrected.

Here is where books can help.  Below are three books that can really help you understand yourself and your spouse – what you need from the marriage.  We cannot recommend these books enough.  Even years after reading these books, we refer back to them all the time.  They made that big of an impact on our marriage.

  1. His Needs, Her Needs: Building an Affair-Proof Marriage
  2. The 5 Love Languages: The Secret to Love That Lasts
  3. Men Are Like Waffles–Women Are Like Spaghetti: Understanding and Delighting in Your Differences

If you are united in your love for God, and if you make every effort to understand and then meet your spouse’s needs, you will be on the road to a successful marriage – at least that’s been our experience.  I hope it’s yours as well.