Dear Editor,

In a recent National Review article titled "Let's start with civil unions", Brent Dean makes an unambiguous call for civil unions for homosexuals. The support Dean espouses for civil unions is largely based on his view that The Bahamas is a secular state, therefore, consenting homosexuals should not be denied the right to live in a legal union just as consenting heterosexuals are.
I find it interesting that Dean does not hide the fact that civil unions for homosexuals would only be a start. He proposes a gradual strategy to redefine marriage to include homosexual marriage. He writes, "The compromise could be for the term 'marriage' to remain what it is for now and civil unions to be introduced to provide homosexual unions their first stage of recognition." But why play games by initially calling the legal union of homosexuals 'civil unions', when the clear and obvious goal is to call them marriages? Why don't we as a society just decide on the issue of homosexual marriage without trying to call a rose by some other name? After all, a rose by any other name is still a rose.
According to Dean, "Society works best when consenting adults refrain from judging the behavior of other consenting adults when it comes to love and intimacy." But I wonder if Dean really believes that. With such a view, he would have to support all consenting adults entering into whatever marriage configuration they wish -- if he is consistent. With such a "to each his own" view of love and intimacy, Dean is advocating for more than just civil unions for consenting homosexuals. He is arguing for all kinds of marital configurations that have one requirement: the consent of the adults who enter them.
With consent being the only requirement to legalize marriage configurations, I wonder if Dean supports incestuous homosexual marriage just as he supports non-incestuous homosexual marriage? So if unrelated adult homosexuals should be allowed to marry, why shouldn't an adult man be able to marry his adult son, or an adult mother be able to marry her adult daughter, so long as they all consent? If not, then why not? And what about all of them marrying each other in a foursome, incestuous, polygamous marriage?
While Dean is bold and clear in his call for civil unions (and eventual marriage) for homosexuals, he is curiously silent regarding how he thinks it should all come about. I wonder who he thinks should make that decision and why? Should it be determined by a majority of our 39 members of Parliament? Should it be determined by our courts? Or should it be decided by voters in a referendum? For something as far reaching as the redefinition of marriage, I believe the best option is for voters to decide, not elected politicians or appointed judges.
Contrary to Dean's views, I agree with the overwhelming majority of Bahamians that marriage is a divine institution that we received from God and not a human institution that was created by man. And it is God who determined the divine boundaries of marriage to be between a male and a female. Therefore, our challenge is obvious: When we abandon divine boundaries and replace them with human boundaries, it is hard to decide where to place our new human boundaries. And the reason is that our sinful hearts will keep pushing and moving those human boundaries to include the new, sinful imaginations of our ever-sinful hearts. The result is moral folly and ever-changing boundaries.
The words with which Dean concludes his article are telling. He writes, "We all have to figure out what makes us happy on our own." But that's not true. We don't have to figure out what makes us happy on our own. We can accept what Scripture says about finding true and lasting happiness. And the witness of Scripture is that a happy life comes through a holy life. And a holy life comes through having a vital relationship with the God of the universe, made possible through saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the one who was crucified on Calvary's cross for sinners, who, like sheep, have all gone astray seeking what they thought would make them happy.
As a nation, I pray that we hold fast to the divine institution of marriage, which is the only legitimate context for sexual relations. We do otherwise to our peril -- personally and nationally.

- Pastor Cedric Moss

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian