UN To Recognize Gay Marriages

UN To Recognize Gay Marriages
Vol: 28 Issue: 30 Friday, January 30, 2004

Secretary General Kofi Annan has ruled that marriages recognized under the law of a U.N. employee’s home country will qualify that employee for all benefits provided to eligible family members. In a bulletin issued Thursday, Annan ordered the new policy effective February 1.

The ruling means that gay UN employees who are recognized as being ‘married’ will be extended the same spousal rights as heterosexual employees. U.N. spokeswoman Marie Okabe says the ruling is consistent with a long-standing U.N. policy of taking into consideration a staff member’s nationality when determining that employee’s family status.

“There’s been a growing trend over the past few years in several member-states toward recognition of same sex marriages or recognition of domestic partnerships that may involve partners of the same or different sex,” she said. “The bulletin acknowledges this trend and simply extends to these new situations the existing practice of accepting as a fact the family status of U.N. staff members as determined by the laws of the country of their nationality.”

Canada, the Netherlands and Belgium permit same sex unions. Most western European countries, along with Australia and New Zealand, also provide some rights to couples, regardless of sexual orientation.

In the US, the laws governing marriages rest with the individual states, despite the federal ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Howard Dean’s Vermont recognizes same-sex civil unions. In theory, then, UN employees from Vermont could also be extended same-sex spousal benefits.


So, what IS the big deal about same-sex marriages? I mean, why should anybody care? It is really annoying (to say the least) to have to put up with the in-your-face attitudes from gay rights advocates — but there is no Constitutional right NOT to be annoyed.

It is even more annoying to be told that I have no right to be annoying back. Homosexuals are free to criticize heterosexuals; that’s free speech. But when heterosexuals criticize homosexuals, the rules change and it becomes ‘hate speech.’

Maybe, if we just dropped our objections to gay marriage, they’ll go away and stop bothering us? What do WE care?

OK. Even if we didn’t care, it makes a difference. The recognition of gay marriage does NOT elevate same-sex unions to the level of traditional marriage. Instead, heterosexual marriage drops to the level of same-sex unions.

That is a critical difference. If they are to be treated the same way, then many of the traditional elements of marriage will have to go by the wayside. There are certain spousal rights that are extended as both a matter of long-standing tradition and as a matter of law that come into question.

If same-sex unions become the same as marriage, it doesn’t automatically mean that same-sex couples will achieve more benefits. It could just as easily mean that certain traditional spousal rights will be withdrawn across-the-board.

How will the courts handle a same-sex divorce? Will things like property division be handled the same way? In many places, common-law marriages are given equal standing under the law with formal marriages.

If a heterosexual couple cohabitate for a certain period of time, present themselves as husband and wife, if the wife takes the husband’s name, etc., then, under common law, they are legally married. Dissolving such a union can be as difficult as a traditional marriage. Remember Lee Marvin’s famous ‘palimony’ trial?

How would a homosexual common-law relationship be determined? How can such a union be equally protected under the law? If it can’t, does it mean there can be a different standard? Not if same-sex unions are equal to heterosexual marriage. It won’t be same-sex unions that will have to be redefined, it will be heterosexual ones.

What about the automatic extension of spousal benefits? One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that extending those benefits to gay couples will be expensive. Employers are not going to just gladly extend them to anybody who demands them. If same-sex unions will require proof, then so will heterosexual unions, to keep them equal.

What about the ‘adopted’ children of same-sex couples? Will it just be assumed that those children are the legal children of such a union? More likely, heterosexual couples will have to prove their children are legitimate. Or, will there be a definition of legitimacy at all?

How can you define an illegitimate child under the law at all? What will that mean for legitimate heirs? Will there be such a thing?

What will constitute a ‘couple’? Will the same rules apply, say, for adultery between two men or two women as it does for heterosexuals? A recent Vermont Supreme Court ruling says no. In that case, a man was suing his wife for divorce on the grounds she had committed adultery with her lesbian lover. Since Vermont has ‘at fault’ divorce laws, the property settlement would be different if one member had committed adultery in the marriage.

The Court ruled that a lesbian relationship does not constitute adultery in a heterosexual marriage. Would the same ‘extra-marital’ (for want of a better word) relationship constitute ‘adultery’ in a gay marriage? If so, then the Vermont guy got the shaft. If not, then the rules for adultery in a heterosexual marriage would have to be changed to accommodate the rules governing same-sex unions. ‘Adultery’ would have to be removed from the books.

It is not just a social affectation or a ‘forward-looking’ liberal social policy we are talking about here. What we are talking about is the death of marriage, not its becoming more inclusive.

Making a same-sex marriage legal is the equivalent to taking traditional marriage out of the existing legal framework and making it no different than gay unions. The rules that apply to gay unions will also apply to traditional unions, not the other way around.

And we haven’t even touched on the moral problems with it. Contrary to popular belief, the Bible does NOT say that being a homosexual is, in and of itself, a sin. It says that being a PRACTICING homosexual is a sin. Look it up.

Every prohibition in Scripture regarding homosexuality infers CONDUCT, not orientation.

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination . . .” (Leviticus 20:13) The prohibition is against the act itself.

“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” (Romans 1:27)

The Bible also says the same thing of heterosexuals. Heterosexual sex outside of traditional marriage is called ‘adultery’ by Scripture and is a sin. Heterosexual sex within a marriage is not. “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” (Hebrews 13:4)

Marriage is the basis upon which God created human beings. It is what separates humans from lower forms of animals. It is the basic model against which all societies are formed. Nationhood itself is based on the concept of family. God uses the model of marriage to explain our relationship to Him. The Church is the Bride of Christ.

“For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” (Romans 8:15)

We are given the spirit of ‘adoption’ which gives us the right to cry ‘Abba’ (lit. ‘Daddy’).

“To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” (Galatians 4:5)

“Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.” (Ephesians 1:5)

It is therefore no real surprise that the United Nations has decided to treat gay marriages as equal to heterosexual marriages. The unstated purpose of the United Nations is the destruction of the nation-state, and bringing all nations under the direct governance of the UN. Since the concept of marriage is the model for the concept of independent nationhood, the destruction of the sanctity of the family unit is part of an ongoing strategy designed to bring about the destruction of the sanctity of the nation-state and its replacement with a global government.

A truly global government was never possible before — not in all recorded history. But the Bible says such a government WILL exist. It will be truly global, and it will be truly evil. Scripture says such a global government will only happen once, and that it will last for only seven years.

“And in the days of THESE KINGS shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom SHALL NOT BE LEFT TO OTHER PEOPLE, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” (Daniel 2:44)

The handwriting is on the wall. All anybody needs to do is read it. This IS the generation that will see the rise and fall of the Kingdom that ‘shall not be left to other people’.

“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.” (Luke 21:32)

This entry was posted in Briefings by Pete Garcia. Bookmark the permalink.

About Pete Garcia

Christian, father, husband, veteran, pilot, and sinner saved by grace. I am a firm believer in, and follower of Jesus Christ. I am Pre-Trib, Dispensational, and Non-Denominational (but I lean Southern Baptist).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s