On Our Toes, Not Our Heels
The Prima Facie Case Against Same-sex Marriages

By Pastor Dennis Tuuri

Oregon’s Christian citizenry were rocked this month by a sucker punch to the abdomen. Multnomah County commissioners surprised the nation by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Predictably, the media played its typical role. It is now common for the liberal politicians and the liberal media to throw a one-two combination punch, and this case proved to be no exception. While taking umbrage with the manner in which the commissioners made the decision, the media has, by and large, covered gay marriages with approval. They have, for the most part, treated these events as the spring-like blossoming of hidden love. These lovers of romance and all things sexual now ask “Why not gay marriage?’

The end result is that Christians have been rocked back on our heels. We are on the defensive. We are being asked to provide well-reasoned persuasive arguments against same-sex marriage. We begin to get anxious just thinking about how we will go about explaining to neighbors or friends why we think same-sex marriages are wrong.

Now, we can fight from our heels, if need be. But I suggest we get up on our toes. We should not be defensive, starting on the supposed neutral ground where our opponents want us to start. Rather than defensively starting with a series of well-articulated reasons why we think same-sex marriages are wrong, we can go on the offensive. We can claim the high ground, get up on our toes, and ask what possible reasons could there be for same-sex marriages. We can do this by making the simple prima facie case against same-sex marriage.

“Prima facie” means “at first sight” or “at first glance.” It is an “on the surface” sort of argument. It is not the end of a matter. It is only the beginning. A prima facie case against same-sex marriage is not intended to end the debate. But it is intended to start it where it should start, with us on our toes and not our heels. We can clearly and forcefully say that any Oregonian who is weighing the case of same-sex marriage should start with a presumption that they are wrong.

Instead, we are asked to provide an argument against something that is currently illegal in every state of this country. We are asked for an argument against what has been culturally unacceptable in this country since its founding over two hundred years ago. We are asked for an argument against what every major faith system in this country, be it Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, teaches is wrong. Why should the onus be placed on those in the political, cultural, and religious mainstream to bring forward the persuasive argument? It shouldn’t. Clearly the burden is on those of the political, cultural, and religious radical fringe to make their persuasive case for same-sex marriage.

Now, the argument against same-sex marriage can indeed be made, and we should be willing to make it. But we should not be willing to cede the starting point of this debate to those who see six thousand years of culture and religion up-ended and say “Well, why not?” This is precisely the wrong starting point. In effect, this is asking us to assume approval of same-sex marriage, and then to try to come up with arguments against it. It is crystal clear, however, that a prima facie approach to same-sex marriage finds it unacceptable.

Look at the obvious facts. Such “marriages” are:

• Illegal in every state of this country
• Culturally unacceptable throughout the entire history of our nation
• Immoral in Christian, Jewish and Moslem faith systems
• Biologically incapable of producing offspring from the two partners
• Sociologically incapable of both sex modeling to children
• Historically, seen in the same category of prohibited relationships that includes under-age persons, those already married and those of near relation (brother-sister, etc.).

Consider this. Public displays of same-sex sexuality offend most people. Maybe there is homophobia or bigotry at play. But maybe not. Maybe, and I think more likely, is that this is the normal operation of the good conscience of a moral people to what at first glance, is very, very wrong.

We shouldn’t expect this prima facie case to convince proponents of same-sex marriage to quit the field of public discourse. But we can call on them to play fair and not attempt an end run around the obvious starting point of this issue: same-sex marriages are presumptively wrong.