There was a time when everyone understood that a marriage was a special relationship between a man and woman. These special relationships were made even more special because most people understood that marriage was an institution of God and not of government. World societies began to understand the importance of families, and because a marriage was usually the center of a family, governments began to make laws that have a bias toward marriage, such as laws regarding inheritance, children, insurance and the right to speak on behalf of a spouse regarding medical issues. 
 
Needless to say, where the irresistible force of social change collides with the immovable faith of religion there can be nothing less than an earth shattering KA-BOOM; no Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator needed. Societies change and can change relatively quickly. (Ask the first Native Americans to  encounter Europeans.) Religions by contrast change relatively slowly. It took the Catholic Church over four centuries to “apologize’ for persecuting Galileo because he taught that the Earth was not the center of the universe.
 
Social change today is demanding that we redefine marriage (an idea created by religion) so that two women can be married or two men can be married, presumably so that they can enjoy the legal benefits of marriage. The word “redefine” is used because, frankly, that’s exactly what it would be. It cannot be understated that marriage was a religious institution long before it became a civil or legal entity. It would seem then that the simple solution (which is always preferred over the complicated solution) would be to downgrade the beneficial legal components of marriage. The “simple” solution however would leave a nasty and bitter aftertaste in the mouths in those who believe that homosexuality is an abomination.

That’s really the crux of the matter. The (fundamental) religious view is that homosexuality is sinful, worse an abomination, something so foul that it should be eradicated from the Earth. The distinction here is important. There are many sins which religious people pass over in their zeal to attack homosexuality. Thou shalt not steal, lie, covet, murder, commit adultery…the church is rather tolerant on those issues as if it’s trying to quantify them as simply being a part of the human condition. Homosexuals on the other hand are despised as being filthy degenerates, somewhere between an ogre and a human being. Surely this attitude is not held by all people who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle but many people lack compassion when it comes to the issue.

Of course a similar thing can be said of the other camp as well. Like it or not even the CEO of Chick Fil A has a right voice his opinion and we all have the right to not “Eat more Chickn”. With that being said, there are some homosexuals who view this latest social insult as another salvo of a modern crusade. Some won’t be happy until people are strong-armed into acknowledging their relationships as real marriages and not mere civil unions.  

There are those (homosexual and not) who feel this issue parallels the Civil Rights Movement. However their struggle isn’t the same one that Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, Malcolm X and Rosa Parks fought for. Those icons of the Civil Rights Movement were fighting for equality of social class and how race was used to determine which class a person fell into. African Americans and other non-Anglo racial groups were subject to various social control tactics for hundreds of years, slavery, Jim Crow, anti-miscegenation laws, “Separate but Equal”, etc. The primary reason that homosexuals are persecuted or discriminated against is because some people don’t like homosexuals. When Chick Fil A opened its doors in Atlanta in 1946 homosexuals (white ones) could come through the front door, use the restrooms and drink from any water fountain LEGALLY-could Black Americans do that?

In the end, all Americans will have to pick a side. God will judge us as He has always done.