Gay Marriage
Posted by Todd Porter on August 6, 2008
That is a blog title that is sure to garner a lot of attention. It is a topic that is a hot button issue amongst Christians and even in the political world this year. With two states (California and Massachusetts) legalizing gay marriages it has caused all kinds of reactions. You have some churches that support gay marriages, some that oppose it and some churches that spew such vile about it that I don’t think that they can be considered Christian.
I have spent a lot of time thinking and talking about it, and trying to figure out where I stand on the issue. On one hand I read the Bible and I clearly see that the homosexual lifestyle is a sin, but then I also know that there are things I have done in my life that are sinful as well. God’s grace is big enough for both sins to be forgiven. However, that is not the issue at hand. The issue is whether or not our government, which is not a theocracy, should sanction gay marriages.
I am first and foremost against a federal law or Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between only one man and one woman. I think that it is an issue of state’s rights and not something that the federal government should step into.
Second, I believe that marriage is a sacramental act and something that is founded in biblical principles and so marriage should be kept within it’s biblical context and that is between a man and a woman. But where does that leave homosexual couples that feel that in this country they deserve the right to formalize their commitment? I believe the answer is to separate marriage and civil unions. Like I said marriage is a sacramental thing and should be kept within the context of the church. A civil union is a governmental thing and thus the federal government can regulate it. So homosexuals that want to formalize their union can get a license for a civil union that can be held in a courthouse or wherever they would prefer to conduct a ceremony. And then heterosexual couples can do the same thing and if it is performed in a church then it can be formalized as the sacramental marriage.
Now a church that chooses to bless homosexual unions can do so in a church that may approve of such a thing. However, by making the unions all civil unions and leaving marriage out of the picture then you will leave churches that do not believe in gay marriages to not be forced to perform those kind of ceremonies, because it won’t be required by the government for a marriage to take place for a union between a couple. Because I would be willing to bet if gay marriages were legalized in this country that it would not be very long before a church that opposes such a thing would be sued for discrimination. Thereby forcing homosexuals beliefs upon the church, which is pretty much what they feel churches are doing by rejecting their desire to be married.
There is more about this idea that was in Monday’s edition of the USA Today. You can read the full article here.
I know some people will not be pleased with what I have written and may even call my own faith into question, but let me just say that we need to realize that our government is not Christian and so we can not force it or it’s people to uphold our Christian ideals. Instead we as Christians need to be going about changing the hearts of people by showing them God’s love for them.
Todd,
Thanks for a sane, unemotional post on this subject. I have also given a lot of thought on this subject and have come pretty much to the same conclusion as you have. You just fleshed it out for me. As a Christian, I don’t want to marginalize homosexuals by refusing them basic rights that the rest of us enjoy. I also don’t want the federal govenment forcing churches to do something that is in opposition to their beliefs. I know you’ll get the argument from some that this country was founded on Christian principles (debatable, but that’s a whole other can of worms), and therefore we should pass laws to reflect that. I would just caution people to be careful what they wish for. Whose interpratation of Christian principles should be used when drafting these laws? I personally am grateful for the seperation between church and state which allows me to worship as I please without interference from government. I also worry about how many Christians are focusing more and more on politics as a means to legislate morality. I’ve been studying the Bible lately trying to answer for myself was Jesus political? Were his disciples? And I don’t see what I read in the gospels as being primarily a political platform. I have this great qoute from my favorite Christian author (Philip Yancey, sorry Randy):
Jesus did not say, “All men will know you are my disciples… if you just pass laws, suppress immorality, and restore decency to family and government” but rather “… if you love one another.” He made that statement the night before his death, a night when human power, represented by the might of Rome and the full force of Jewish religious authorities, collided head-on with God’s power. All his life, Jesus had been involved in a form of “culture war” against a rigid religious establishment and a pagan empire, yet he responded by giving his life for those who opposed him. On the cross, he forgave them. He had come, above all, to demonstrate love. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son…”
Good stuff
ps I only question your faith because you like soccer. No other reason.
Better be careful about those soccer comments there, Joe.
Thanks for your input. Would this be consider pseudo political commenting?
Well… ummmm… yeah. If Brett Favre can un-retire, then I guess I can too. Just please don’t send me to the Jets!
Can I get the option of ensuring that my taxpayer money does not go into paying for benefits derived from homosexual civil unions the way they would derive such benefits if it was called a marriage by the state? After all, why would I want to support a lifestyle that I consider to be immoral, even if I have nothing personally against the individuals in question nor do I care for state involvement in what is a sacrament of the church?
The church and Christians can take a stand against a lifestyle they consider to be immoral without marginalizing the people. A Christian against homosexuality is not necessarily homophobic, yet I’ve heard that accusation bandied around. The way “hate crime” legislation gets used nowadays, it’s not too much of a stretch to see how federal intervention in church matters could have disastrous consequences.
In short, there’s a perfectly good reason for the separation of church and state, and it extends to this issue. That being said:
Was Jesus political? I think that by the very definition of the word, He most certainly was. And that’s why I think a person’s belief system does matter in terms of leadership. On the flip side, I’m not in favor of theocracy.
joe pop, after that football comment, maybe the best thing would be to send you to the Red Bulls.
Don’t you already support lifestyles that you don’t agree with and may even find immoral with your tax dollars? If we allowed only tax dollars to go to people who have lifestyles that everyone in America find acceptable, then there would be no need for taxes anymore. (And on second thought that does sound like a good idea.) The reality is that it is virtually an impossible notion to suggest, because we can’t regulate it and what one persons finds imoral there are others that do not. But I do understand your feelings on that.
Brave of you to write on this subject in a public forum. Obviously, I’ve given this topic much, much thought, but I’ve allowed my own opinions to be silenced in the matter because I’ve been punched in the face with too many people quoting Leviticus to me (and then when I try to rebuttal, they stick their fingers in their ears and sing “The Old Rugged Cross”).
I feel like oftentimes the morality defense is really a money defense. People stand behind the bible when a change in policy would potentially cost them more money. For homosexual couples to receive the same benefits as a heterosexual married couple would, from my perspective, fall into this money over morality heading. Personally, married or single, gay or straight, black or white, rich or poor, I feel that everyone should have benefits which would provide them with at least the basic needs (food, clothing, shelter). But, apparently this makes me worse than gay. This makes me a communist.
Was Jesus political? Yes, but not for the sake of being political. I think that is the difference.
“Personally, married or single, gay or straight, black or white, rich or poor, I feel that everyone should have benefits which would provide them with at least the basic needs (food, clothing, shelter). But, apparently this makes me worse than gay. This makes me a communist.”
Nah, just socialist.
Political - of relating to, or concerned with the making of governmental policy.
Was Jesus political? Jesus brought a message of love and redemption, and of the inate worth of every human being. And yes he talked of judgement too, as when He returns ahd seperates the sheep from the goats (but that’s His domain. I’ll leave the deciding who the sheep and who the goats are to Him). There were Jewish zealots waiting for the word from the Messiah and they would have started a revolt. They had been looking for a political leader who would lead them in defeating the Roman Empire. They never got that word from Jesus. He took a different path for social change. Admittedly this eventually led to political upheaval, but I don’t think His method matches that of today’s over politicized Christian right. When Jesus left, he left us with the Great Commandment and the Great Commission, to love others and spread the good news of His love and redemption. I think I’ll follow His lead on this one.
Todd. I guess this means I am officially un-retired. Crap! I was really looking forward to eating dinner at 4:30 every evening and wearing knee high black socks with my shorts.
Derek, who the heck are the Red Bulls. Are they a NFL expansion franchise I haven’t heard of yet? : )
joepop: “Derek, who the heck are the Red Bulls. Are they a NFL expansion franchise I haven’t heard of yet? : )” Nope, they’re just the MLS team in New York, since you’re the one who made a reference to the Jets to begin with. And no, I’m not confused about the term “football.” Even though the term originated in England, I pretty much avoid using the term “soccer” unless absolutely necessary.
Anyhoo, I think the mistake in talking about Jesus as an apolitical person comes when politics in this day and age is used as a reference point. When I said “by definition,” I meant the whole notion of “zoon politikon”: that we’re all political in some shape or form. Jesus was not a politician, nor did He seem particularly interested in becoming one, but His message was certainly political.
“Don’t you already support lifestyles that you don’t agree with and may even find immoral with your tax dollars?”
Federal funding isn’t generally provided to people who indulge in the lifestyles I find objectionable, so in at least some part, the answer to that question is “no.” This isn’t to say that they don’t perhaps benefit somehow, but very indirectly.
I would be willing to bet that there are hundreds if not thousands of homosexual people that collect welfare or social security, and use medicare or medicaid.
My tax dollars going into those federal programs (overlooking for a minute my general disdain for a nanny state and federal entitlement programs that have been ripe for abuse over the years) provide benefits for which sexual orientation has no bearing. Homosexual marriage, by virtue of the name itself, has very much to do with sexual orientation.
Is it nuancing? Sure, I’m sure there are some who will look at it that way. For the purposes of the point I’m making, it is valid to me. After all, I’m paying for federal benefits that go towards Muslims and Satanists and others, aren’t I? Then again, their religion has nothing at all to do with cashing in on those benefits.
Who gains from homosexual marriage? Homosexuals. Novel concept. And homosexuals are defined by……their sexual orientation. Surprise surpise. People aren’t getting federal benefits for being Muslim or Satanist or atheist or Buddhist, or even Christian, but in this case, the benefit would be a direct effect of the lifestyle in question.
So you can bet all you want. Put your life savings on it, even, because you’d be correct. Except for one thing: what you just said above was basically a straw man.
Hmmmm…. straw man. I like straw, tastes like chicken. A homosexual couple would be receiving benefits because they are a married couple. Not becuase they have a label attached to them that they are a Homosexual Married Couple. Just as Muslim married couples or Buddhist married couples receive benefits becuase they are married couples.
And they would receive those benefits because………their marriage would be recognized by the state based on their sexual orientation,
Add A Comment