The Mirage of Same-Sex Marriage (by Paul Thompson)

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 


  1. flanoggin says

    I appreciate your point, but atheists are allowed to marry, and not for the glory of God. The fundamental flaw in your treatise is that the judge was ruling on civil marriage, not religious marriage. To deny civil marriage to those who do not share you beliefs may seem like a loving gesture on your part to save their souls. But the real harm it does to them in a secular world is less than charitable. Blessings to you and yours.

    • Tarheel says

      The whole debate is about 2 things for the activists. I like to call them “redefinitionists”

      1. Co-opting the term marriage to forward their agenda of societal embrace and normalization.

      2. Benjamin…Benjamin Franklin that is…they don’t get the tax/financial breaks that come with being married. However, some states (Mass. was first) went the civil union route and gave homosexuals civil standing…but that was not far enough to satisfy the #1 agenda I mentioned above.

      • flanoggin says

        @Tarheel—-and your agenda appears to be marginalizing homosexuals and forcing them back into the closet. So much for freedom and liberty. I will pray for you.

        • Tarheel says

          That is ridiculous. I’ve never said or even intimated such.

          Homosexuals from an American liberty and freedom standpoint can live as the wish. They can live together, make financial and medical contracts with one another, live as a couple….whathaveya.

          However, as for public policy and societal advancement and for the good of children…marriage has been, and must be, defined as a union between a man a woman.

          Biblically, homosexuality is a sin against the law of God – and if we as Christians fail to hold up the law of God as a mirror (not a sword or a ladder) before sinners – then we’re not preaching the gospel. If we claim to love people and yet justify or appease those who practice sin….we’re not loving tem at all.

        • Nate says

          “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.”

          @flanoggin – “your agenda appears to be marginalizing homosexuals and forcing them back into the closet. So much for freedom and liberty. I will pray for you.”

          This entire notion is really Subterfuge. Michael Sam said in his press conference that his “coming out” should be an example that it’s alright to be “who you are” and nobody should condemn you for that. What a ridiculous Statement!

          So, if my sexual orientation and attraction is for my mother is that okay and I should be celebrated? Or, for my sister? What if we are both consenting adults? For that matter, what will be the deciding factor on age of consent? This entire notion that all Orentiations and attractions are equal and that God loves them all (other than from an aspect of desiring their salvation) is propaganda of the highest order.

          What orientation will be next? What attraction that is currently illegal should now be celebrated? Why is homosexuality the one orientation and attraction that was formerly ostracized now allowed to say that no other orientations and attractions should gain the same freedoms?

    • Andy says


      1. I would disagree, and say that to some extent ALL true marraige (between a man and a woman) glorifies God to a certain extent as it is a reflection of his good design.

      2. We are very likely headed into a society that differentiates civil & religious marriage, but it will not be a good thing overall for society…If God’s design for marraige is good and right and meant for the good of society as a whole, then it stand to reason that any deviation from that will have negative effects on a society, whether it be adultery, cohabiation, polygamy, or homosexuality. That statement is not meant to disparage homosexuals, but simply state that God knew what he was doing when he initiated the whole thing.

      3. “civil” unions that give certain legal benifits to couples sounds very kind, and in fact it is hard to argue against someone having their closest human companion be allowed to visit them in the hospital….but it is obvious that many homosexuals want more than that, to alter the very meaning of marraige and have their defintion fully accepted by all. THAT is what Christians must find fault with….we can disagree about the civil aspects while agreeing that according to God’s good design in creation, Marriage means a man and a woman.

  2. volfan007 says


    Interesting article. Thanks for sharing. I’m glad that you’re Gov. in Idaho took such a stand. I’m glad that he sees that marriage between a man and woman is the best place for a child to be raised.

    Also, if everyone wants to get a good look at who is tolerant in this world, and who is not…..who is gracious and patient, and who is not….who are really the angry ones, and who aren’t…..should take a look at this video. Now, I’m not really for holding up signs like this lady did….but, just look at the anger of the other side. And, Paul, this is the kind of anger that we’re gonna be facing as Believers in the years ahead….and probably more than this…much more….don’t you agree?


  3. Tarheel says

    It bothers me when people define these rulings (as the newspaper article did) as a ‘defeat of bans on gay marriage.”

    To my knowledge not a single state has EVER banned gay marriage. They have only defined that which they (the state) would recognize as a marriage for tax purposes and the issuing of marriage licenses.

    I know some will say “what is the difference”….well there is a huge difference.

    Nothing was banned by these laws as the media and homosexuality advocates contend….to my knowledge never was homosexual behavior, tendency, desire, or cohabitation banned. Never were laws passed prohibiting their sharing of finances, willing to one another, making one another POA or Medical POA, or prohibiting the entering into any other consensual contract or financial agreement by homosexuals…

    Instead, these constitutional amendments (passed by overwhelming majorities of voters) that are now being overturned by courts simply put into written law that which, until the last 20 years or so, was universally accepted not just in America but in the civilized world as defining a marriage – that being between a man and woman.

    The liberals are so much better than us at the language games….

  4. flanoggin says

    Actually, homosexuality was illegal in several states until the Supreme Court decision in 2003 (yes, only 11 years ago). Lawrence v Texas. POAs and other contracts have been routinely ignored by hospital staff that did not know the law (in their defense, they are not attorneys). I think one must walk a mile in anthers shoes to appreciate the problems/issues that arise. It comes down to the moral disapproval of homosexuality, which is not sustainable in the law.

    • Tarheel says

      This my point. These constitutional amendments never banned homosexuality – they only defined marriage as the common understanding had always been.

  5. Jess says

    I think one thing to remember in this discussion is how the word evil is used in the Hebrew, and Greek languages. In many places evil means calamity or disaster. God cannot be tempted with evil neither does he tempt men to do evil. Here evil is used, but it means to sin. The question is did God create homosexuals? The answer is absolutely not. Did God create homosexual marriage? The answer is absolutely not. Did God create all the evil supreme court rulings? Again, the answer is absolutely not. Men get caught up in their own wickedness, not God’s. I think God gets blamed for a lot of things he didn’t do or approve of.

  6. Andy says

    “The question is did God create homosexuals? The answer is absolutely not.”

    I know what you meant, but you may want to clarify your language…Of COURSE God created homosexuals as people…if not, where did they come from? …Spontaneous self-generation?? :-)

  7. Jess says

    Andy, I would like to clarify my comment. Spontaneous self generation would be one answer because God doesn’t condone homosexuality. Through man’s lust, in his own mind, by his own choice, through total depravity, men choose to be homosexuals. No one can say that God created homosexuality, or homosexuals. God created people, but what man decided to do with their life through lust is man’s fault. There is no sin found in God.

    • Andy says

      “men choose to be homosexuals.”

      To clarify, are you saying men choose to act on homosexual desires? …Or that they choose to be attracted to men instead of women?

      I would agree with the first, but not always with the second.

  8. Jess says

    “Or did they choose to be attracted to men instead of women.”

    Andy, if homosexuality is a sin, which it is, then I have to say unless a genetic test says otherwise, a man is a man and a woman is a woman.

    For a man to be attracted to a man instead of a woman and act on that attraction then lust has conceived. I think we have to be very careful and not make excuses for the homosexual community. I think a genetic test is vital, because there are many men that are in a woman’s body, and many women in a man’s body. Sin has messed with genetics, and it will only get worse.

    I certainly agree with your last comment.

  9. Richard says

    Jess, are you trying to define transgenders as the result of your phrase, “sin has messed with genetics”? And be careful here. There are hosts of men with female traits, and women with male traits….God created them, just as God created you and me, warts and all…so, I think you need to clarify your meaning.

  10. Jess says

    Richard, I’m speaking of intersex people only whose gender can only be determined by genetic test. The genes on the chromosomes are messed up because of Adam’s sin. God didn’t create man to marry another man or a woman to marry another woman. When this occurs it’s merely lust. God didn’t make or force men or women to sin in this fashion it’s a matter of choice on mans part.

    I would like to add, there is no marriage recognized by God except a Christian marriage. Just because a preacher marries two lost people doesn’t make that marriage Christian. A Christian man and woman can go before the Justice of the Peace and marry without a preacher present, and that marriage is holy and pleases God, because the two that are marrying are Christians. When anyone else marries that marriage is not accepted by God unless the man and woman become Christians after the marriage. A lawful marriage and a Christian marriage are two different things. Only a Christian marriage is lawful before God. The other is lawful before man.

  11. Richard says

    I think you need to be very careful with this kind of reasoning. “Intersex people” , whoever you think they are, are inevitably people of God’s creation, just like you and me. You seem to be saying that God allowed these people to be born with different sex traits, but God’s hand was not in it. One of the major arguments the gay community uses for their existence is “a gay gene”, which means they were created that way, and do not act in that way by choice. There is no New Testament text that can support your point Instead, we have verse after verse of Jesus’ commandments to love all people. Whether someone chooses to be gay or straight, or that orientation is present from birth, neither argument should affect the fact that they are God’s creation, just like you and me. They may participate in gay sex, but we isolate them, neglect them, and refuse to love them. Which is worse?

  12. Jess says

    Richard, we have to remember, as you say, we are to love all people, gay or strait, white or black, no matter how mean or how good. I want to point out that one cannot be gay and be a member of God’s glorious church, one cannot be a liar, one cannot be a murderer, one cannot be an adulterer, and etc.

    Genetics tells us that an XX or YY chromosome or a combination of these doesn’t make one an intersex person. It is the genes on the chromosomes that determines that. A genetic test will clear that question up once and for all. Look sin has messed up the gene pool. Why do you think babies are born with cancer, or no arms or legs. Why are people born blind.

    The majority of gays are not intersex people. I think the majority of gays are gay by choice through lust, and there isn’t an excuse for their behavior.

    I think what you are trying to say is that when you mentioned “warts and all” is that if I’m an adulterer that’s the way god made me. That reasoning is what has got this country in such a big mess. I think we have to determine where what God has done ends, and what man has done starts.

    I’ll be the first to admit I certainly don’t have all the answers. I think mans part started in the garden.

  13. Richard says

    Apparently your opinion that “sin has gotten into the gene pool,” is nothing more than that, an unsupported opinion. It is a dangerous opinion, because now you have to decide which babies are the result of sin, and which are not. There is no way to prove this biologically, and you have not supported your opinion with scripture. Many of my friends have given birth to children with the infirmities that you mention….they love those dear children just as much as children born whole. There are all kinds of reasons these children are born with affliction, but you have no basis to say that sin is involved.

  14. Jess says

    Richard, I will give you bible for my opinion. Look how long Adam lived, and all the early people after Adam. Then the Bible says mans days shall be 120 years. The bible says mans days shall be three score and ten. Yes, sin has ruined the gene pool. Every sickness is the result of Adam’s fall. In babies the suffering starts earlier, not that the baby sinned but because Adam did. Some people the suffering of sin happens later in life regardless if they are Christian or not. Adam’s sin is the very reason we have death. It’s once appointed unto man to die and after this the judgement

  15. Richard says

    OK, at first you said that sin was responsible for intersex people, and now you are giving us the old view that sin causes all our infirmities. Finally, you have gotten to the standard view of Adam’s fall. I won’t debate original sin with you, but please don’t look at deformed children and say that sin caused their infirmity, any more than it caused my bad back. Remember, “He sends the rain upon the just and the unjust.” And find a different phrase other than “sin has gotten into the gene pool,” unless you have some kind of documentation to affirm that view.
    I’m done with this. Have a good evening and a blessed day of worship tomorrow.