For all its unparalleled beauty, the Garden of Eden is forever tainted in our memory by the event that ended man's stay there. That event, of course, was the first sin, which was all about pride — man rebelling against God, trying to set up his own version of right and wrong.

If you want to see how far we've come (or fallen, as the case may be) in our understanding of sin, just check out the story playing out in Houston, which modern society — as distinct from God — might call The Sin of the Garden Guy.

The Garden Guy, it should be noted at the start, isn't exactly a guy. Garden Guy, Inc., is a landscaping business run by a couple, Todd and Sabrina Farber. The Farbers happen to be Christians, as a glance at their Web site quickly reveals. They've been known to include Scripture verses on their site (as I write, it's Eph. 5:25-33 — the verses beginning "Husbands, love your wives"). On one of their pages they express concerns over the drive to replace God's idea of marriage with something amendable to, among others, homosexual activists — a trend they urge resisting by referring readers to a petition to Congress.

All very up front. And so was the Farbers' response when they were approached by a homosexual couple (who may not have read their Web site very closely) seeking their services. Upon learning of the relationship when one of the men referred to his "partner," Todd decided to turn down the job. Sabrina wrote the potential clients a straightforward e-mail honestly explaining why. Its contents don't take long to read:

I am appreciative of your time on the phone today and glad you contacted us. I need to tell you that we cannot meet with you because we choose not to work with homosexuals.

Best of luck in finding someone else to fill your landscaping needs.

All my best,

Sabrina.

You won't be surprised by what happened next.

The homosexual couple got indignant, forwarded the message to 200 people on their e-mail lists urging a boycott of Garden Guy and widespread circulation of the Farbers' message. It wasn't long before it'd been seen by thousands of people online, and the Farbers were getting deluged with angry protests, including threats to kill them and "sodomize their children." Press accounts, including one in The New York Times, soon followed.

The Farbers, happy to report, are weathering the storm. Unlike some cities, Houston doesn't have a law against their choice, as even the state's ACLU has conceded. And they say they've actually gained a lot more business in the ensuing couple weeks ($40,000) than they lost ($1,000).

"I'm not saying that to gloat," Sabrina added, saying the ordeal had been ugly and emotionally draining. But they're handling it. And in addition to the nastiness has come something positive: Hundreds of calls and messages of support that have touched them deeply. "We just cried. We have been through so much," said Sabrina. "We [have] become accidental crusaders for Christ."

Now in a free society, much less one that was historically Christian, this whole thing wouldn't have been a big deal. The Farbers' choice would be widely understood as perfectly legitimate.

That doesn't mean it was the only choice Christians might make in good conscience. Other believers might have taken the job and build a relationship with the clients in hopes that they might minister to them. In fact, Todd had worked for homosexual clients in the past. He stopped, his wife said, because he had grown increasingly "grieved" to see the lives they were living.

Believers can debate among themselves which course they would have taken in the same position. But the Farbers not only had a right to do as they did, they had a serious moral reason: They were trying not to confer acceptance on an inherently illegitimate relationship. For Christians, that's a responsibility — a matter of simple duty.

Not everyone gets this — and sometimes they're so dense about it that you have to suspect they just don't want to get it. One local commentator, Houston Chronicle columnist Rick Casey, sarcastically suggested that the Farbers should simply "refuse to do business with all sinners." In other words, they're either smugly superior or hypocrites.

There's no evidence of those attitudes. "We're sinners, Todd and I," Sabrina told the Times. "My husband made a personal choice according to something that was in his heart. It was never a judgmental choice or a hating choice or even a choice that said, 'Well, we're better than them.'"

But in drawing the line where they do, the Farbers seem to understand something that the Caseys of the world don't want to admit. There's a big difference between being a sinner and denying that your sin is sinful at all. There's an even bigger difference when you claim that sin is a virtue, and demand that everyone else effectively say so too.

And that's just what gay activists are doing, especially when they push for same-sex "marriage." They're most definitely not seeking tolerance: By definition, you can only tolerate something you disapprove of. They're seeking (demanding, really) that all society equate homosexuality with the most honored of relationships.

Note how far this movement has come from its earlier claims that they just want to be "left alone to live our own lives." You still hear echoes of that claim when they ask why they shouldn't be "allowed to marry." But "allowed" suggests they're not asking anyone else to do anything except get out of their way. In fact, gay activists want the opposite. They want society, via the state, to officially confer its stamp of approval. They want everyone else to recognize and honor that status in a host of other ways (benefits, "non-discrimination" laws, etc.). In short, far from trying to keep the government out of their lives, they insist on dragging the government in. And if they had their way, anyone who refused to play ball would be punished to the full extent of the law.

As often happens, I'm reminded of columnist Joe Sobran's comment that every time someone discovers a new "right," we all seem to end up less free than we were before. And that's part of the answer to a question supporters of same-sex "marriage" love to pose: "What would be the harm of it?" The harm, among other things, would come from the inevitable assault on people like the Farbers, whose freedom to act according to their conscience would be trampled.

But as I say, that's only part of the answer — and it's not the most important part.

The most important part is this: Same-sex "marriage" would officially ratify the notion that man can redefine an institution established by God. That notion, it is true, is already making inroads into our culture in numerous ways, including a far-too-easy attitude toward divorce. Yet same-sex marriage would be a radical step further. It would take something that God defines as good and holy — the union of man and woman — and equate it with relationships built around behavior God calls an "abomination." And worst of all, by using the same name — marriage — it would destroy our idea of what marriage is supposed to be.

Such arrogance is breathtaking in its scope. But it has, after all, deep roots. They go all the way back to the Garden of Eden: Man seeking to take the place of God.

Whatever sins committed by the Garden Guy and his wife, they should be commended for standing against the sin that got man tossed out of that first Garden.