In the past week, two politicians - one democrat and one republican - came in the news regarding their comments on gay marriage. One supported it and the other came against it but both used the bible to justify their views.

 Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) told a crowd at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio the following:

“I don’t think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state,” said Obama. “If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.”

State Rep. Sally Kern (R-Oklahoma City) recently made this remark during an appearance before a group of republicans:

“I’m not gay-bashing. But according to God’s word that is not the right kind of lifestyle,” ……………”Studies show no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than a few decades,” Kern says in the recorded comments. “It is not a lifestyle that is good for this nation.”

Both of these comments have no place in the public forum. Why? Because both politicians negated each other by using Bible as a source to defend their views on a topic that is so black and white. Don’t get me wrong, it’s obvious that Sen. Obama’s interpretation is utterly erroneous.

It’s a dangerous precendent for legislators to use the Bible or any other religious document as the only ‘basis’ to make new law. Please read carefully, I’m not saying that the Bible is dangerous. I’m saying that Bible in the hands of legislators who have no clue what it says is dangerous. The Bible, if interpreted incorrectly, can be used for gruesome causes. History proves that fact.

Many Christians including well meaning politicians like Rep. Kern are not equipped to defend their pro-life and pro-marriage views without quoting the bible. The good news is that these issues can be defended using natural law and logic.

Greg Koukl, an Christian apologist and founder of Stand to Reason has written an excellent piece on how to argue against same-sex marriage by merely using logic.

Here’s an excerpt to his article and in this section he’s arguing against the rhetoric that homosexuals use to equalize their efforts to expand marriage to what the courts did regarding interracial marriage decades ago.

“They said the same thing about interracial marriage.”

This challenge has great rhetorical force, but it is a silly objection.

Consider two men, one rich and one poor, seeking to withdraw money from their bank. The rich man is denied because his account is empty. However, on closer inspection, a clerk discovers an error, corrects it, and releases the cash. Next in line, the poor man is denied for the same reason: insufficient funds. “That’s the same thing you said about the last guy,” he snaps. “Yes,” the clerk replies. “We made a mistake with his account, but not with yours. You’re broke.”

In the same way, it simply is not relevant that the same objection has been used to deny both interracial and homosexual marriage. It’s only relevant if the circumstances are the same, regardless of the objection. They are not.

Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. There is no difference between a black and a white human being because skin color is morally trivial. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman. Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex is fundamental to marriage. (read rest of the article)

I wish politicians would use rational arguments like this to make their point in the public square. No one regardless of their political/religious persuasion can stand against common sense. And yes, it is pretty logical that life must be protected at all levels and marriage is between a man and a woman. Now, let’s take the time to learn how to make those arguments.