Praise and protest broke out in Iowa this week as the Supreme Court in that state ruled to legalize homosexual marriage; proof that a law degree and an appointment to the Supreme Court does not an intellectual giant make.

For all the places we disagree, God Bless the four Catholic Bishops of Iowa who issued a wise statement saying in part:

This decision rejects the wisdom of thousands of years of human history. It implements a novel understanding of marriage, which will grievously harm families and children.

This unwarranted social engineering attacks the good that marriage offers to society, especially the good of children, and weakens the critical relationship between marriage and parenting.

Let’s set one thing straight. I am not anti-homosexual. I am anti-homosexual behavior & practice. I understand that people have “issues” in their life that are confusing and troublesome, and propensities that if unrestrained lead to unacceptable behaviors. But those issues and propensities are no license to sin. If they were, we’d probably all have murdered someone long ago, we men of presently understood good character would spread our genes with wanton abandon, and drowning your sorrows in your chemical of choice would be accepted as “the right way” to deal with your issue.

It is my understanding of scripture (the Bible, which I hold to be authoritative in the matters of morality to which it speaks—and if you don’t that might explain why you could disagree with me on this issue. So what is your source of authority? Really? Does it extend outside of yourself? Is it decided by popular vote? Where does the buck stop? Is that your final answer? Or, is it still subject to change?) that homosexual behavior is sinful, as are stealing, gluttony, drunkenness, divisive behavior, fits of anger, and gossip to name a few. There is no ranking of better or worse among them. These are sins; a manifestation of the chaos which ensues when man declares himself independent of God.

Unfortunately, people of otherwise good sense have grown weak on this issue; first weak in their minds, and then in their resolve. In a misdirected spirit of cooperation and in effort to get along with others we’ve too quickly chosen to embrace the mantra “live and let live.” As a result, we who know better find ourselves sleepily sliding into an attitude of “Ah, if they wanna get married, let ‘em. Who cares?” And that my friend, is a problem. If you are guilty of it you need to repent (that means “turn around”) and stand up for what is simply right.

It stands to reason that for something to be “endorsed by a society” it must be acceptable if everyone in a society did the thing. With regard to this issue, if everyone practiced homosexuality the species would die out. To a simple mind like mine, that’s proof enough that it’s not part of God’s design or intent for those He created, any more than it was his intent that the Shakers abstain from sexual relations. That particular approach hasn’t served them very well (though some of us inherited fine furniture when the Shakers died out thanks to their warped notion.)

The old jokes about God making Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve aside, it is simply a fact that marriage between a man and a woman is woven into the fabric of society throughout human history. Husbands and wives having children, raising families, working, producing in the economy, seeking a better life, taking care of their neighbor——-that’s the foundation of our culture in America. Beyond our shores, a husband and a wife is the very building block of human culture.

Homosexuals don’t like it when we ask “What’s next? Marrying your pet? It stands to reason since I know you love him.” The pro-homosexuality movement believes this to be talking down to them. It isn’t. It isn’t even about them. It’s about the slippery slope humans find themselves on when they abandon logic, common sense, and the moral underpinnings of human history.

If in our enlightenment we decide that this suddenly isn’t a moral wrong, then what keeps us in the future from changing other bedrock principles of human dignity from overtly wrong, to suddenly right? What keeps us from deciding that euthanizing the infirm isn’t wrong? We’ve all seen situations where death was welcome. Why not hasten it? And if euthanasia is good for us, what about people whose medical care is deemed “too expensive” or those who are no longer productive in our society. Wouldn’t it be alright to exterminate them as well? Now that I think about it, there are people of a different political and philosophical persuasion than me. I don’t think they are good for America. Let’s exterminate them.

Where does it stop? Why does it stop? If there are no moral absolutes, then there are no moral absolutes. If there are absolutes, from where do they come? It must be from some source other than yourself, otherwise my absolute can trump your absolute and ultimately it comes down to the biggest bully wins.

Think about this: I don’t like my neighbor. Why can’t I kill him? He’s no different than a rabid dog to me. Shoot him!

Oh, but wait. I can’t do that. Why not? It’s wrong! What makes it wrong? Why is it wrong? I just want to live in peace and I can’t as long as he’s my neighbor, so get him out of the way. Don’t I have a right to the pursuit of happiness?

You see, you do believe there is right and wrong. You wouldn’t let me shoot my neighbor. A sense of right and wrong is internal to all humans, sharpened by teaching and enlightenment. In fact, enlightenment should provide greater clarity regarding morality, rather than plunging us into murky darkness which envelopes those for whom there are no absolutes.

What’s required in times like these, and really in all times, is for good men and women of sound character and intellect to stand and speak truth. With regard to this issue the truth is homosexual desire and behavior is not in the natural order of things. The truth is homosexual activity is sin. The truth is there are absolutes. The truth is no other sexual behavior in human history is formally codified as acceptable. We do it, but we don’t have a law that says we can do it. In fact, laws are about taking rights away, not giving them. We don’t pass laws to give rights. In his comparatively primitive day Thomas Jefferson knew rights were “unalienable.”

I encourage you when this topic comes up around the water cooler, at the mailbox, or over the lunch table to lovingly and non-rabidly, with great gentleness, speak the simple truth. Be a leader who is strong for that which is good and right. It is much easier to just not say anything, or to acquiesce to the militant demands of those who want us to agree with them. It’s easier to tickle their ears in agreement than to risk their scorn in disagreement. Yet I am convinced that only weak men and women always agree. People of strength and leadership are unafraid to engage disagreement because they recognize that such discourse is necessary for the working out, dusting off, and mining from the earth of human thought those concepts and ideas that are best and right for themselves and all the people they represent and to whom they’ll leave the world.

In human relations there are areas that are gray and murky where we may be forced to come to “best effort” conclusions that may in fact miss the mark. But let us not be confused on something as simple and foundational as the understanding that marriage is between one man and one woman. You and I must be men and women of gracious leadership who stand strong in the face of criticism and insist that there are indeed some things that are wrong and some things that are right. Though flawed ourselves, we are able to discern the difference. Will we have the courage to speak the truth?

Go make a difference!