The Wrongful Death of Marriage

Facebook Twitter Email

News that District Judge John G. Heyburn once again usurped the will of Kentucky voters is tragic and disappointing. By declaring gay marriage legal in the Commonwealth, Heyburn defied the essential, foundational governing document that ensures order and justice, the Constitution of Kentucky. While the sin of homosexuality may be no more offensive to God than other sexual sins, for a society to be forced to endorse it through the sacred institution of marriage is both objectionable and dangerous, moving us further down the slippery slope toward moral chaos. Why is gay marriage wrong for Kentucky?

First, as Governor Beshear’s legal counsel argued, gay marriage precludes one of the state’s primary interests in marriage, i.e., procreation. While I agree with the state’s argument, it was presented weakly and, left to stand alone, was hardly persuasive. Judge Heyburn remarked, “These arguments are not those of serious people.” I must agree and am left to conclude that Beshear, like Attorney General Jack Conway, has no desire to mount a serious defense of our constitution.

Second, gay marriage is wrong because it denies the natural order. Whether one is a Bible believing creationist or a secular evolutionist, any rational observer of our world must admit that the survival of any and every species on the planet depends upon a natural order that includes reproduction. Homosexuality perverts the natural order and homosexual marriage cheapens the institution of marriage by removing from it the essence of its purpose.

Third, state-endorsed homosexual marriage further legitimizes homosexual couples as parents. Thus, the state tragically endorses depriving children of their innate need of both a father and a mother. With regard to mommy and daddy, children raised by homosexual couples have either/or not both/and. Heyburn’s decision not only thwarts nature, it robs children of an intrinsic need.

Fourth, in states all across the country homosexual marriage is being forced upon the citizens by liberal judges even though most states, like Kentucky, have overwhelmingly voted to refuse it. These judges are subverting the democratic process in tyrannical fashion. Simply put, that is wrong.

Fifth, homosexual marriage is a headlong leap down the slippery slope toward moral chaos. One of the sound bites from gay activists regarding Heyburn’s ruling was, “Love wins!” If the mere profession of an individual’s love for someone or something else were to become the new standard for marriage, gay marriage clearly opens the doorway to bigamy and polygamy and at least cracks the doorway of state-sanctioned childhood brides and even bestiality. This type of government-sanctioned perversion has teenage girls in locker rooms at Louisville’s Atherton High School being required to undress in front of teenage boys pretending to be girls. That kind of moral outrage denies the rights of children to be protected.

Sixth, and not inconsequential for those who adhere to the teachings of Scripture or who at least concede that the success of any democratic government depends upon a society’s willingness to embrace certain values and moral norms, is the matter of morality. Biblical morality is not fuzzy when it comes to homosexuality. Both Testaments unequivocally condemn it and in Matthew 19, Jesus clearly defines marriage in heterosexual terms, being perfectly consistent with Genesis 2.

John Heyburn and judges who share his views represent a departure from the entire scope of civilized human history. They turn a blind eye to the historic teachings of every major religion in the world. Determined to alter our society, they have thrown nature, the needs of children, and the rights of voters to the wind and cast marriage to the moral gutter.

This entry was posted in Culture, Family, Gay Marriage, Public Affairs. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. Richard Gaines
    Posted July 2, 2014 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    This is a classical biblical defense and dissection or another erroneous move by society–in this case a judge in Kentucky. Like those in other states, they are operating consistently, with the net effect of undermining the institution of marriage. Even more troubling is the number of pulpits who are following willfully or being caught up in the hype of these efforts. Thanks for once again providing clarity to those seeking to hear what God has to say.

    • Posted July 2, 2014 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

      Thank you Pastor Gaines. I’m praying with you for those who steward the pulpit to have courage, conviction, and clarity as they preach the unchanging truth of God’s Word on this and other issues.

  2. T. Vaughn Walker
    Posted July 3, 2014 at 11:07 am | Permalink

    Thank you Dr. Chipwood for your insightful response. You are correct in stating that this is just the beginning for a movement toward polygamy and worse. Praying with you and others as we as bible believing Christians have to take an active stance. Enough is enough. As a pastor I encourage every church to adopt written policies NOW stating emphatically our positions and policies relative to marriage ceremonies, etc.
    Dr. T. Vaughn Walker – First Gethsemane Church Louisville

    • T. Vaughn Walker
      Posted July 3, 2014 at 11:11 am | Permalink

      Dr. Chitwood not Chipwood . Sorry for the error!

      T. Vaughn Walker

    • Cindy Wilson
      Posted July 3, 2014 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

      If church’s keep writing policy’s and standards your turning away people because they can’t uphold to your standards. Your supposed to bring those into church and teach them about Gods love not stand at the door way and say sorry you don’t meet our standards.

      • Posted July 6, 2014 at 7:49 am | Permalink

        The policies Dr. Walker references do not turn anyone away from the church but they uphold the standards God has given us in his word. Sinners are welcome or else none of us could attend. But our sin will not be affirmed. Moreover, we do not attempt to judge but God’s word is clear on sexual sin.

  3. Rocky King
    Posted July 3, 2014 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    So very well put. I cannot for the life of me understand why individuals who so obviously do not believe in the Bible as the infallible word of God, would work so hard to be able to obtain the title of “Marriage”. Which is not only described in the Bible as a union between one man and one woman, but further condemns any other unions as an abomination. If they do not believe in the Bible or God, why are they so bent on obtaining a Biblical, God given term? It makes about as much sense as a Christian battling to obtain the use of a term from the Quran. Thank you for standing in the line of fire for Him, and to God be the glory.

  4. Cindy Wilson
    Posted July 3, 2014 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    explain to me how gay marriage has anything to do with – quote If the mere profession of an individual’s love for someone or something else were to become the new standard for marriage, gay marriage clearly opens the doorway to bigamy and polygamy and at least cracks the doorway of state-sanctioned childhood brides and even bestiality. This type of government-sanctioned perversion has teenage girls in locker rooms at Louisville’s Atherton High School being required to undress in front of teenage boys pretending to be girls. That kind of moral outrage denies the rights of children to be protected.
    Where does that come from and by the way the teenage boys pretending to be girls – you better walk a mile in someone transgender shoes to decide what they are – door way to Bigamy and Polygamy and bestiality please explain to me how Straight Men are being arrested for Molesting boys and girls – and guess what they are not gay – You cannot judge anyone that’s not your right !

    • Jeff Withers
      Posted September 9, 2014 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

      If you can’t discriminate against gay marriage then you can’t discriminate agains polygamists and bigamist and man/boy relationships (Just ask NAMBLA). NAMBLA is against age of consent rules and they say so on their website. Do you think they won’t go for man/boy or woman girl marriages?

  5. Russell
    Posted July 3, 2014 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

    I’m a Catholic, and I wholeheartedly agree with this message.

  6. Harry J. Rucker
    Posted July 3, 2014 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

    Fantastic response. It covers the subject without leaving any questions. I’m glad you pointed out the “the rule of the majority” is no longer the standard by which we are governed. Judges like Heyburn are a perversion and disgrace to both the legal and judicial systems.

  7. Eric
    Posted July 4, 2014 at 12:17 am | Permalink

    Well, you’ve managed to use just about every discredited idea and stereotype available in this shrill diatribe. Unfortunately for you, that only further confirms Judge Heyburn’s observation. Procreation? Tyranny? Moral chaos? Jesus affirming heterosexuality? None of these claims stands up to close scrutiny, as I suspect you know. I get that you need to do or say something to rally the troops and keep the gates secure. I just fail to see why you think repeating tired talking-points represents a serious counter-argument to the court’s decision.

    • Posted July 6, 2014 at 7:45 am | Permalink

      Truth is unchanging. To call seething discredited does not make it so.

      • Eric T
        Posted July 6, 2014 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

        Paul, where is the truth in your claims about procreation being the purpose of marriage? Or that this judicial decision represents “tyranny”? Or that “moral chaos” inevitably follows this change in understanding of sex? Or that Jesus was talking about gender roles in marriage when he cited Genesis in a dispute about the permanency of marriage?

        Surely if you are going to offer these claims as the serious arguments the state failed to provide, you should be willing and able to give reasons for at least one of these points when questioned. In turn, I’ll briefly offer reasons for why the claim about Jesus and Genesis is misleading and hence untrue.

        You know as well I do that Jesus is talking about the permissibility of divorce in Matthew 19:1-12. Jesus’ reference to Genesis 2:24 aims to counter the allowance of divorce by drawing the Pharisees back to the intention for marriage from the beginning. He cites Torah against Torah and says that divorce is a concession to human weakness and sinfulness. Yet neither the Pharisees nor Jesus say anything about the sexual difference between men and women or about gender roles grounded in those differences. Nothing about the purpose of marriage being procreation, for example.

        To read Jesus here as endorsing heterosexuality as a divinely intended norm for marriage is to read beyond what the text says, what Jesus says, and import your own interest into the text. At best, Jesus and the Pharisees take male-female marriage for granted, neither questioning it nor offering comments in support of it. No, not even the phrase “one flesh” suggests male-female “complementarity” in sexual activity, something many try to insist upon when discussing Genesis or Jesus’ appeal to Genesis. The phrase isn’t about sex; it is about kinship.

        The idea communicated by the phrase and reemphasized by Jesus is that of the indissolubility of the marriage bond. Married partners can no more stop being married than people of the same ancestor can stop being kin. That, nothing more and nothing less, is what Jesus understands to be the divine intention for marriage. To say that Jesus is here supporting heterosexuality as the norm for marriage simply is not true.

        • Posted July 6, 2014 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

          To suggest that Jesus does not affirm heterosexuality and condemn homosexuality denies an orthodox view of Trinitarian Doctrine as well as an orthodox view of the Doctrine of Revelation. In light of such denials the affirmation of homosexuality and any other behavior the Bible declares as sin becomes easy and expected. When the authority of Scripture is surrendered any debate over interpretation of Scripture is tantamount to casting pearls before the swine.

  8. David
    Posted July 5, 2014 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

    Cindy, you seem to be angrily judging the Doctor.
    Are you allowed rights that he is not allowed?
    Dr Chitwood surely agrees with me that heterosexuals or homosexuals that molest others are gravely in the wrong. He was not justifying sin by straight people. Your argument is misdirected.
    Undoubtedly “transgender” individuals may certainly suffer from their deep seated gender confusion, but to merely say they are normal and make the rest of the world accommodate them is not a fair solution.

    • Cindy Wilson
      Posted July 7, 2014 at 10:34 am | Permalink

      I just feel any more we are putting to many labels on our selves. Transgender, gay, straight, etc. I also feel there are too many policies and standards that have been added to our generation. But we all fall under Human Rights as well. We are all supposed to love one another just as Christ loved us. By showing we are his disciples we are to love one another. But instead we are saying you cant do this because you are whatever. The anger comes from not saying to anyone come and let me show you the love of Jesus Christ, oh but wait you have to fall under out church standards before you can do that. Instead of reaching out, we are pushing people away. That is what I am seeing happening to the younger generation today. They are turning away from churches because your supposed to love them as well, but instead we put a label on them.

  9. Cindy Wilson
    Posted July 7, 2014 at 11:07 am | Permalink

    why is it not ok for a gay couple to get married, but its ok for a divorced couple to get married? Doesn’t the bible teach us the God hates divorce? Because I have been divorced twice means that I am doomed to hell? If you going to preach on opposing gay marriage then you have to oppose divorced couples getting married as well.

  10. Claudette Mitchell
    Posted July 19, 2014 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    “IMPEACH” Judge John G. Heyburn, ll “NOW!”