Destruction of Marriage Equals Destruction of America

Since the God of the Bible exists (a fact that can be proven—see Flew and Warren, 1977), then the foundational building block of human civilization is the family as God designed it. He created one man for one woman for life (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:3-12; 1 Corinthians 7:1ff.). All deviations from that fundamental norm (e.g., polygamy, bigamy, and homosexuality) contribute to the breakdown of the ethical fabric of society. On the Day of Judgment, homosexuality and same-sex marriage surely will be pinpointed as one of the foremost culprits responsible for the dissolution of moral cohesion at this moment in American history. The militancy, arrogance, and unmitigated defiance that homosexual activists continue to manifest is astounding—and only underscores the absolute essentiality of those who embrace traditional American (i.e., Christian) values to rise up and oppose their efforts.

Instances of the insane and suicidal determination to destroy society’s moral underpinnings are occurring with increasing frequency. One recent example involves a lesbian couple from Rhode Island. Though the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2004, a law remains on the books there that prevents issuance of a license to out-of-state couples if their home state would refuse to recognize their marriage. The Rhode Island couple filed suit in Massachusetts in an effort to gain recognition of their “marriage” in Massachusetts which, in turn, they hope will enable them to gain recognition in their home state. The superior court has now ruled in favor of the couple (Cote-Whitacre v…, 2006).

Similar pressure to conform to the politically correct agenda is seen in the widespread capitulation of America’s corporate community to threats, coercion, and intimidation by gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender activists. Though corporations have been targeted for many years, homosexual forces are stepping up their efforts to force corporations to include “sexual orientation” in their non-discrimination policies. To be “gay friendly” is defined as supporting transgender workers, offering “inclusive” health insurance and other benefits, requiring diversity training for employees, and spending advertising money with GLBT organizations (Unruh, 2006). In other words, force everyone to endorse (not merely tolerate) the homosexual lifestyle. Bully employees into silence by stifling all free speech that questions the morality of homosexuality.

The success of the gay rights community along this line is alarming and heart-breaking. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest national homosexual political organization, reports an unprecedented 138 major U.S. corporations as having earned a top rating of 100% in their accommodation of alternative sexual lifestyles (“America’s Pro-Homosexual Giants…,” 2006). Some corporations quietly acquiesce. Others seem to jump on board the homosexual bandwagon with vigorous militancy. For example, Wal-Mart, the largest retailer in the world, has asserted its enthusiastic support of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender movement by initiating permission to join the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, as well as sponsoring the LGBT Diversity Week at a state university (“Wal-Mart Asks for…,” 2006; “Boise State…,” 2006). Likewise, Ford Motor Company is pursuing the same flagrant conduct (“Boycott…,” 2006). So are Walgreens (Sharp, 2005), Starbucks (Kleppinger, 2005), and many others. With the intense pressure to submit to political correctness, it is surprising that some major corporations are thus far resisting the intimidation by remaining unwilling to sign onto the homosexual agenda, including Reebok, Northwest Airlines, The Men’s Wearhouse, J.C. Penney, Nissan, Gallup, Kroger, Cooper Tire, Circuit City, Radio Shack, and Toys “R” Us (Unruh, 2006).

What is the ultimate outcome of this surrealistic inundation of America by outright paganism and moral depravity? What inevitably must happen to any country or society that enshrines morally deviant behavior by undermining the biblical definition of marriage? The social stability of that nation is placed in dire jeopardy. Its demise is inevitable (see Miller, 2005). Indeed, in 1848, the Supreme Court of South Carolina articulated the sentiment of the Founders and early Americans regarding what would happen to America if a sizeable portion of its citizenry ever abandoned Christian morality:

What constitutes the standard of good morals? Is it not Christianity? There certainly is none other. Say that cannot be appealed to and…what would be good morals? The day of moral virtue in which we live would, in an instant, if that standard were abolished, lapse into the dark and murky night of pagan immorality (City Council of Charleston…, emp. added).

The nation is headed swiftly in that direction. The destruction of marriage will inevitably result in the destruction of the nation.


“America’s Pro-Homosexual Giants: 2006” (2006), WorldNetDaily, September 20, [On-line], URL:

“Boise State University Recognizes LGBT Diversity Week with Series of Events” (2006), Boise State Office of Communications and Marketing News Release, September 25, [On-line], URL:

“” (2006), American Family Association, [On-line], URL:

City Council of Charleston v. Benjamin (1848), 2 Strob. L. 508 (S. C. 1848).

Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health (2006), Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court, 446 Mass. 350,352, No. 04-2656, [On-line], URL:

Flew, Antony G.N. and Thomas B. Warren (1977), Warren-Flew Debate (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).

Kleppinger, Meghan (2005), Starbucks: A Habit Easily Broken,” WorldNetDaily, August 25, [On-line], URL: nation.

Miller, Dave (2005), “Is America’s Iniquity Full?” [On-line], URL:

Sharp, Randy (2005), “Walgreens’ Wayward Wisdom—Supporting Gay Games,” Agape Press, October 21, [On-line], URL:

Unruh, Bob (2006), “Corporate America Gets ‘Gay’-Friendlier,” WorldNetDaily, September 20, [On-line], URL:

“Wal-Mart Asks for, and Receives, Permission to Join Homosexual Marriage Group” (2006), American Family Association, [On-line], URL:


A copied sheet of paper

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Reproduction Stipulations→