October 16, 2007
There's no end to the ingenuity of those who want to reconstruct our culture. Advocates of same-sex "marriage" often publicly claim they simply want couples of the same sex to have "equal access" to marriage, but, a recent case in Oklahoma demonstrates a bit more about the agenda -- and that if allowed to be successful, their efforts will eventually eliminate the institution.
The case,
O'Darling v. O'Darling, contains a dizzying array of twists and distortions, but I'll try to lay out some basic facts:
- Cait O'Darling and Stephanie A. Griffith claim they were "married" in Toronto, Canada, in December 2002 (a curious claim, since same-sex "marriage" wasn't fabricated even in Toronto until June 2003). In 2004, 76 percent of Oklahoma voters approved a constitutional amendment protecting marriage between one man and one woman. That same amendment also stipulates that same-sex "marriages" from elsewhere are not recognized in Oklahoma.
- In 2006, O'Darling and Griffith filed for "divorce" in Oklahoma.
- On November 13, 2006, a judge erroneously granted a divorce decree, not knowing the couple consisted of two women. One week later, when he learned the truth, the judge vacated the decree, noting that Oklahoma law does not recognize such relationships as marriages.
- Cait O'Darling appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, arguing that an obscure 1984 treaty between the U.S. and Canada required the recognition of her alleged same-sex "marriage" in all American courts.
In short, these activists are demanding that Oklahoma ignore the decision of three-fourths of its voters -- not to mention a commonly-accepted definition of marriage that goes back thousands of years -- and
redefine marriage (through the avenue of "divorce") to fit their political and cultural agendas.
But the ultimate goal of many same-sex activists goes far beyond a new definition of marriage.
"Marriage is the union of one man and one woman -- everything else is counterfeit," says ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin Nimocks. "By demanding that the court dissolve this counterfeit 'marriage,' these women are telling the court to ignore the laws of Oklahoma. The opponents of marriage aren't merely trying to
redefine marriage, they're trying to
eliminate marriage."
In 1993, Michelangelo Signorile, a radical advocate of homosexual behavior, said,
"The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely." Same-sex 'marriage' is a huge step in that direction. As I've noted before, the legal arguments of those promoting same-sex unions flow inexorably to the conclusion that
marriage means
everything and
anything...and once it means everything, it means nothing.
That's why we must stand together in defense of marriage. ADF attorneys have filed a friend-of-the-court brief defending Oklahoma law in the case
O'Darling v. O'Darling, and you can read it at
www.telladf.org/UserDocs/O'DarlingAmicus.pdf.
Please pray that God would grant us wisdom and success in our efforts -- to His glory -- so that our children and grandchildren may grow up in a nation that affirms marriage as the union of one man and one woman.