Paul Thompson blogs at “The Bridge.”In her statement released on Tuesday, May 13, 2014 U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale said, “After careful consideration, the Court finds Idaho’s Marriage Laws unconstitutional.” (full ruling)
I thought that I should read the ruling before offering a response. I’ve just finished reading the ruling. Wow, that was not easy.
First the positive effect of reading the ruling; my vocabulary has now deepened. The value of reading the ruling will help me know how to express my thoughts. I now know what I’m responding to.
The ruling will not go into place until Friday morning. Unless a stay on the ruling is issued, by the ninth circuit court of appeals requested by Gov. Butch Otter, county clerks will be required by law to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Now, an early response of concern; as one charged by my church to be a pillar and buttress of truth, I must speak against the ruling from the vantage point of Holy Scripture.
From Judge Dale’s conclusion (V Conclusion, page 55)
“The Plaintiffs are entitled to extraordinary remedies because of their extraordinary injuries. Idaho’s Marriage Laws withhold from them a profound and personal choice, one that most can take for granted. By doing so, Idaho’s Marriage Laws deny same-sex couples the economic, practical, emotional, and spiritual benefits of marriage, relegating each couple to a stigmatized, second-class status. Plaintiffs suffer these injuries not because they are unqualified to marry, start a family, or grow old together, but because of who they are and whom they love.”
To U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale,
No, U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale, regardless of your decision on the matter, marriage is an order given to humanity by God for His glory. I respect that you have made a significant decision for Idaho, but your decision is not in defense of the creator of marriage. This is no simple ruling you have made, it has lasting ramifications.
This indeed is a complicated ruling.
Obviously homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal citizens and equally capable of accomplishing amazing feats. This orientation of sexual attraction does not declare one superior to another. All of humanity face problematic conflicts with what God has ordained holy and acceptable. We have laws that forbid certain actions based on the welfare of all. Polygamist are forbidden by federal law to attain a marriage license for more than one spouse. This limitation is not a discrimination against this person’s ability or value to culture. It is a limitation based on the definition of the word marriage.
The ruling today is not a ruling for homosexuals. God is opposed to those who practice homosexuality. Homosexuals in Idaho are loved by God and given strength to overcome the attraction of their wretched heart that wants to do that which is offensive to God. Just as adulterers are called on to not give in to their sinful craving of being disloyal to their spouse. Liars must not be allowed to live out their debase craving of deceiving the federal government on their tax reporting. Giving the homosexual the ‘right’ to marriage is no favor as you suppose. It may afford them secular benefits, as you surely argue, but where is your jurisdiction to rule on things spiritual?
My response is not to defend heterosexuals. Heterosexuals are equally capable of offending God. My response is from my duty to speak for biblical truth. For the welfare of homosexuals and heterosexuals who reside in the great state of Idaho, repent of your ruling.
To Governor Butch Otter,
Where I’m thankful for your bold stand against same-sex marriage and upholding the law of Idaho, I am concerned about your defense. Fundamentally we agree that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. However, marriage is not “an ancient and traditional child-centered institution, one focused first and foremost on the welfare of children rather than the emotional interests of adults.”
Marriage is an institution ordained by God focused first and foremost on His glory. A blessing of marriage between male and female is children. Yes, I agree with you in that a family is the optimal place for a child to be raised, and that family is with a mom and dad, but this is not the defense of marriage. It is good argument for a child’s welfare but not a defense of marriage between a man and a woman.
Thank you for your work on this matter. I am praying for you. I am praying for your staff. I am praying for Idaho. May the glory of God be your defense of marriage.
For further help, consider reading The Mirage of Life