The Fundamentalists are Correct About Gay Marriage 

Brian Worley

A number of liberal Christians and religious humanists accept the concept of “gay marriage”. These folks are indifferent to what their Bible teaches about homosexuality. Evidently, they hold an intolerant attitude towards Biblical instruction and a tolerant attitude towards what the Bible forbids! This issue begs a question, “Why should anyone accept the Bible (Christianity) when you don’t believe it yourself? This Philosophical Christian (PC) crowd lacks passion and integrity in their stated beliefs. Say what you will, I think it is fair to question their commitment based upon the mixed message they convey with the duality of their position.   

Yes, I’m in agreement with Fundamentalists opposing “gay marriage”, but for differing reasons other than religion.  No, I didn’t have a relapse of religion nor am I contemplating pulling a “C.S. Lewis” comeback. Certainly, I am not writing this for shock value. Other than the Fundamentalist crowd you might have a difficult time finding those that oppose gay marriage. Humanists are quick to accept and defend those practicing homosexuality but not as vocal when it comes to making a statement about gay marriage.  Certainly, this is a delicate question where liberty of thought is respected.  

I realize that this might be the first article that a new visitor might read when they come to Ex-minister, so I need to clarify a few things. I assure you that you won’t get any homophobic messages here. In fact, for the record, this is the fourth time I have broached the subject of homosexuality. Frequent visitors to this site might be surprised with this title, especially after reading Both Ways and What You Probably Didn't Know About the Birds and the Bees.  Both of these articles provide a strong anti-dote against homophobia and encourage those of faith to be more understanding and tolerant. I must confess my past reluctance to express myself on this matter due to my trepidations about being misunderstood. 

I’m with the Fundamentalist on this issue, but for totally different reasons. Religion confounds this issue. While some Christians rebel against the scriptures, others conform to the Bible but forget their “hate the sin, but love the sinner” halos! I can’t help but think that the push for gay marriage helps to fuel the fires of homophobia.  

Isn’t it evident that people perpetuate homophobia due to an innate failure to properly reason? The cures for homophobia and religion both lie within the hands of reason. Since reason cured me, I think that it can work for most anybody. In my case, reason changed my mind and cured my homophobia by unplugging me from Christianity.  Both Christianity and homophobia are unreasonable, but the case against gay marriage isn’t. I’m of the opinion that this formula will continue to work wonders, all one has to do is to keep presenting reason. Now that the groundwork is laid, I will proceed to present my case. 


There are two issues that should be distinguished here. One is tolerance and the other is gay marriage. I’m all for tolerance and against gay marriage. How might someone outside of faith oppose gay marriage? This was an easy question when I was a fundamentalist minister.  I simply elevated the sheep to the authoritarian level of the Bible. Today, I chuckle when I hear a television evangelist proclaim the authority of God’s word!  But don’t be so quick to think that in the absence of any “Heavenly instructions” that their isn’t any credible earthly source that has defined marriage! I will skip past the dictionaries and politicians and look to the noteworthy and credible United Nations. 

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in December of 1948. This Declaration addresses marriage in Article 16: 

   Article 16 

  1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

  2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

  3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. 


Do you want to fight the UN? Many fundamentalist don’t care for the UN and harbor certain paranoia's about them! People of reason  should normally respect the UN and consider this article as a fair rendering defining marriage. The utterance of spouses in line two should remove any “loopholes” of  the “men and women” of the first line. Simply put, marriage is between men AND women.  

I sense that many people feel that this is a sufficient definition for marriage. Why should anyone seek to re-invent the wheel and confuse a familiar yet lucid term? I don’t condone the gay agenda (whatever that is) but I am a proponent of gay rights! I think that marriage should be denied simply because in “gay marriage” one cannot be or have a spouse. My opinion is that any government that denies most any benefit that a married couple enjoys is lacking in compassion and understanding. There should be a way for gay couples to unite without pirating the terminology of marriage. Marriage is a wonderful union that doesn’t need to be tampered with! Furthermore, I expect the UN to honor its commitment to protect the family from the encroachment of gay marriage!


I’m familiar with someone whose parent “came out of the closet” about their suppressed sexuality. Naturally, this was quite a load for the kid to accept. Shortly after this confession the parent was in car accident and was desperately clinging for life in a hospitable. The “friend” that had loved and dwelt with the parent was denied visitation rights for some time upon their beloved’s deathbed. In time, the visitation was allowed prior to the passing of my friend’s parent. This is just one example among countless others that burdens gay couples. Society often treats pets better than they treat gay people! Where is our humanity?

The failure of the government to properly intervene for those of the same sex that love each other is a humanitarian problem. But before we get too personal and point out the government. I must ask who is the government? Isn’t it a group of people like ourselves that reacts when society pushes it into action? How dare any of us finger the government when society bandies this issue around like a hot potato! It is high time that some innovative leader steps forward and is enthusiastically supported as they seek to break the inertia of this issue! History is awaiting a hero to step up!

After introspection, this article is about taking responsibility and my love for humanity. I should use my background of religion to help seek a remedy! The gay minority is largely up against a rather large bully of the religious right. This is why I risk the fear of being misunderstood because the religious right impedes a resolution of the issue. Although the Fundamentalist is right about gay marriage and has the right to express their viewpoint in the matter, they are damn ugly to fight a reasonable alternative for gay people that desire to commit one to the other! 

Gay people that insist on pirating marriage and redefining it are their own worst enemy. Alienating folks by being unreasonable and failing to make proper adjustments will likely eliminate the possibility of resolving this problem until well into the next century. Often in negotiations, people “ask for the moon” to better position themselves for the eventual compromise. It isn’t the nature of Fundamentalists to compromise and someone needs to step in between these two for the sake of humanity. Otherwise we will continue to have perpetual gridlock!

I realize that gay couples love is every bit as real as heterosexual love is. Whatever compromise is reached between these two should be such that it doesn’t denigrate, cheapen or soften the feelings or commitment that gay couples share for each other. I don’t have the answer to this enormous challenge, perhaps a sufficient term needs to be coined?          

Earlier, I mentioned taking responsibility. It is easy to watch others try to accomplish something because it doesn’t involve any risks to be taken from your side. I could have listened to my fears, remained silent and secretly wish from my heart for a solution. This type of thinking is “BS” and similar to prayer. Otherwise known as a refuge for cowards and couch potatoes! This is YOUR life, get up off the couch and start living it!

Brian Worley     12/02/2008     All rights reserved 

To Return to the Main Page