by Mike Benson

My first tornado was a Technicolor "special effect" on a televised version of the 1939 classic, The Wizard of Oz. The Benson house was still intact, but the movie left me emotionally reeling as a youngster. That dark whirling cloud that flung Dorothy and Toto through the sky haunted my bedtime dreams for years. It just seemed so incredibly real.

Like the heroine of that beloved film, I have often wished that I could "click my heels" and be magically transported back to the more virtuous environment of the early 1960's. Over the past four-plus decades, our nation has been "swept out of Kansas" by the cyclone of moral relativism and summarily dropped into Oz — where nothing makes sense anymore. At least, nothing in terms of moral codes of conduct.

Case in point — homosexual "marriage". Since President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay unions, thousands of same-sex couples have flocked to California and other such states (e.g., New York, Oregon, and New Mexico) in order to pursue legal sanction for their unholy relationships. One of the more notable examples comes from the media princess, Rosie O'Donnell. She and her girl-friend, Kelli Carpenter, recently flew to San Francisco in order to "tie the knot". In an effort to fan the flames of her agenda, O'Donnell commented, "I think the actions of the president are, in my opinion, the most vile and hateful words ever spoken by a sitting president." She continued, "I am stunned and horrified. I find this proposed amendment very, very, very, very shocking. And immoral..."

Immoral?! Immoral?! Did I miss something here? Exactly when did the statute of limitations expire on the wickedness of this form of fornication (cf. Isa. 5:20)? Brethren, while we have a Divine mandate to extend kindness to every fellow citizen, we cannot and must not — under any circumstances — endorse this course of action.

And why not, you may ask? First of all, because homosexual behavior is contrary to God's will (Rom. 1:26,27; 1 Cor. 6:9,10; Gen. 19:1ff; Matt. 19:4-6). Period. But second, because same-sex unions promote even greater moral evils. For instance, in the event the United States government legally sanctions homosexual "marriage", how can it then deny polygamist marriage too?/1 Think that sounds "out in left field"? Don't believe it for a minute. Study the following excerpt from a Fox News Live broadcast dated February 27, 2004. The discussion was between Family Research Council's Genevieve Wood and radio host "Karel":

WOOD: We discriminate against all sorts of people. We don't let people marry three people, we don't let a man marry two women, or a woman to marry two men and we don't allow group marriages.

KAREL: Polygamy is not on the table here.

WOOD: Yes it will be. My friend, yes it will be...

KAREL: No it will not be. It is an invalid slippery slope argument. That is invalid.

WOOD: That is not true. Let me explain to you why. How would you write a law that only limits marriage to two people? Why would it be just two people? You are discriminating against a group of people out there — and believe me, there are people who think polygamy is a good idea, who think group marriage is a good idea. Granted they are a small minority, but they'll come forward and say "we have a right to get married, too. You are discriminating against us."

KAREL: When they come forward you come back on FOX and you go against them. That is not the issue here.

WOOD: No you come back on FOX and tell them why you would discriminate against them. Because you are basing your entire thing on discrimination.

KAREL: The issue here is whether or not a civil institution — marriage - which has nothing to do with religion and the 2,000 rights granted therein are going to be denied to a group of people based on gender. That Massachusetts Supreme Court says, "No".

WOOD: Why would you deny it to polygamists? Why would you deny it to any other group of people who say it is a civil institution?

KAREL: I am not entering that debate with you because it is not on the table.

WOOD: So, you're okay with polygamy too?

KAREL: I am not going to get into an issue that we are not discussing. We are discussing gay and lesbian marriage, not polygamy. If you want to have another segment on polygamy, great.

WOOD: The American people understand that when you go out and think about redefining the institution of marriage, you have to take the long-term view. This is not just something that we are changing for today so that Rosie can make her statement, or for tomorrow. We are talking about how this affects the culture and how it will impact our laws 30 years from now. The argument that you're making in a court of law would have to stand up for polygamists and anybody else who walked in and said they want to come up with a new definition of marriage. Based on what you're saying, there is absolutely no reason those people should be denied rights.

KAREL: These same arguments were used against women's right to vote, were made against slavery, were made against any great social change in this country. They all screamed slippery slope, slippery slope. This is an institution that already exists. It grants 2000 rights to a man and a woman; it excludes monogamous couples that want to enter it based on gender. Those are the facts. If you would like to argue those facts, then do so.

WOODS: I am happy to argue with them. I am happy to argue. Because you are saying that we are discriminating based on gender, and I am saying that you are suggesting that we discriminating based on numbers. And why so? (Family Research Council, Thursday, March 11, 2004, www.frc.org).

While gay-rights activists flood the airwaves with their vile propaganda, what they're not talking about are the repercussions of their policy. As you can see, they steadfastly refuse to address the subject of polygamy. Why? Because they can't. To be consistent, they are incapable of discriminating against polygamists AND THEY KNOW IT. The reason why you're not hearing the homosexual community talk about this is because it opens a veritable "Pandora's Box" for their illicit cause./2 Same-sex unions legitimize other forms of aberrant, amoral conduct; they usher in even more radical and harmful departures from the biblical pattern of marriage./3

Brethren, "we're not in Kansas anymore." The Wizard of Oz was fantasy, but rampant immorality is an all too tragic reality. Our homes are in danger of being tossed (Eph. 4:14) about by the winds of political correctness. Homosexual marriage runs contrary to all that is right and decent and threatens to destroy the traditional family structure. It is long past time that we individually and collectively stand our ground and voice our opposition to this ungodly movement (Ezek. 33:2-11; Jas. 4:17). "There's no place like home..." (Prov. 27:1; Gen. 2:24).

/1 "Among the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a slippery slope to legalized polygamy and "polyamory" (group marriage). Marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three, or more individuals (however weakly and temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female. A scare scenario? Hardly. The bottom of this slope is visible from where we stand. Advocacy of legalized polygamy is growing. A network of grass-roots organizations seeking legal recognition for group marriage already exists. The cause of legalized group marriage is championed by a powerful faction of family law specialists. Influential legal bodies in both the United States and Canada have presented radical programs of marital reform. Some of these quasi-governmental proposals go so far as to suggest the abolition of marriage. The ideas behind this movement have already achieved surprising influence with a prominent American politician. None of this is well known. Both the media and public spokesmen for the gay marriage movement treat the issue as an unproblematic advance for civil rights..." (Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Gay Marriage," The Weekly Standard, July 26, ‘03, Vol. 8, Issue 45).

/3 "Once [our] society is unsatisfied with and abandons God's absolute standards, then it is only a matter of time until we become victims of our own subjective standards. The door has been cracked open with regard to the definition of marriage in allowing homosexuals to marry, so now a polygamist in Utah, who has five wives, is appealing bigamy convictions brought against him on the basis of this court ruling. This man's lawyer is arguing that the decriminalization of homosexual sex is no different than polygamy" (Steve Higginbotham, "Yesterday's Fringe, Today's Center," South Green Street church of Christ Weekly Newsletter, Vol. 23, No. 2, Jan. 12, 2004).