Engaging views and analysis from outside contributors on the issues affecting society and faith today.

CP VOICES do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author(s).

Gay marriage isn’t the new interracial marriage

Unsplash/Andy Holmes
Unsplash/Andy Holmes

The Respect for Marriage Act doesn’t respect marriage at all. A more accurate name for the bill is the “Disrespect for Marriage Act.”

Alliance Defending Freedom described the bill as not merely a law that codifies the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obergefell (gay marriage) as federal law, but a “misnamed bill that expands not only what marriage means, but also who can be sued for disagreeing with the new meaning of marriage.”

They also said, “The Respect for Marriage Act threatens religious freedom and the institution of marriage in multiple ways:

Get Our Latest News for FREE

Subscribe to get daily/weekly email with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.
  • It further embeds a false definition of marriage in the American legal fabric.
  • It opens the door to federal recognition of polygamous relationships.
  • It jeopardizes the tax-exempt status of nonprofits that exercise their belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
  • It endangers faith-based social-service organizations by threatening litigation and liability risk if they follow their views on marriage when working with the government.

The truth is the Respect for Marriage Act does nothing to change the status of same-sex marriage or the benefits afforded to same-sex couples following Obergefell. It does much, however, to endanger religious freedom.”

As always, Alliance Defending Freedom’s explanation of the legal and cultural ramifications of the law is helpful. But the Respect for Marriage Act disrespects the institution of marriage in another way.

By suggesting that gay marriage is the new interracial marriage, the Respect for Marriage Act suggests interracial marriage is perverse.

Like Obergefell, the act officially says gay marriage is just like interracial marriage. Meaning 62 senators, including 12 shameful Republicans, believe my wife and I are in the same kind of “marriage” as two gay men or two lesbian women.

This is because the law suggests my skin color is just like a person’s homosexual behavior. That claim isn’t new, of course. Gay activists have been making that claim for decades. However, it’s become even more acceptable in our culture because of critical race theory and intersectionality.

Nevertheless, as Voddie Baucham says, “gay is not the new black.” And in the same way, gay marriage isn’t the new interracial marriage.

I won’t mince words: it’s an insult to suggest that my and my wife’s obedience to God is the same as two homosexuals’ disobedience to God.

Furthermore, it’s also deeply racist to suggest that my skin color is like sexual sin. My skin color is created by a holy God, but homosexuality is practiced by sinful people. My skin color isn’t offensive to God, homosexuality is. My skin color isn’t perverse, homosexuality is.

Like LGBT people, I am a sinner. But the difference between gay people and black people is homosexual behavior is a sin, and dark skin isn’t a sin.

Therefore, although interracial marriage was illegal in some states decades ago, it’s never been immoral. Gay “marriage,” however, has always been immoral.

After God created Adam and Eve, the Bible says: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).

God didn’t say a white man should leave his parents and hold fast to his white wife, nor did he say a black man should leave his parents and hold fast to his black wife. 

He simply said “a man should leave his [parents] and hold fast to his wife.

But especially, God didn’t say a man should leave his parents and hold fast to his “husband.” Instead, he explicitly forbids homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22).

Therefore gay marriage isn’t the new interracial marriage. Actually, there’s no such thing as race, anyway. My wife and I have different features and different ethnicities — but we are not members of two different races. 

There’s only one race: the human race — with a common ancestor in Adam and a common creator in God.

So my wife and I are not an interracial couple. The concept of race is a social construct from white supremacists from the 17th century.

Marriage, however, isn’t a social construct. It’s instituted by God. Therefore, just as there’s no such thing as interracial marriage, there’s also no such thing as gay marriage. 

There’s only one kind of marriage, and it’s between one man and one woman. My marriage to my wife isn’t like a gay “marriage.” It’s like any marriage between a man and a woman. 

Originally published on Slow to Write. 

Samuel Sey is a Ghanaian-Canadian who lives in Brampton, a city just outside of Toronto. He is committed to addressing racial, cultural, and political issues with biblical theology, and always attempts to be quick to listen and slow to speak.

Was this article helpful?

Help keep The Christian Post free for everyone.

By making a recurring donation or a one-time donation of any amount, you're helping to keep CP's articles free and accessible for everyone.

We’re sorry to hear that.

Hope you’ll give us another try and check out some other articles. Return to homepage.

Most Popular

More In Opinion