Gay Marriage Part 2
Since I posted my first article on the gay marriage issue, I have had several great responses and conversations via my Blog, Facebook and Twitter with Christians and atheists, gays and straights, liberals and conservatives on the topic and have been encouraged by how the conversation has been progressing. Well, the topic is front and center once again as the California Supreme Court has upheld a voter approved ban on gay marriage in that state and ,of course, there are jubilant celebrations as well angry demonstrations everywhere regarding the ruling. And…here we go again, people. How is it that we cannot have a civilized discussion about this issue with both sides coming to the table rather than taking to the streets in happy support or angry protest?
I, for one, am disappointed and exhausted over the tireless staging on both sides and the vitriolic exchange that resurfaces every time a court ruling is handed down. May I suggest that we all just GROW UP and do what adults ought to do and begin to talk winsomely and constructively rather than angrily and vindictively? I think we all learned as children that talking louder does not make listening easier and that outbursts and tantrums do not win anyone over. So, I suggest we all take a breath or two, count to ten or ten thousand depending on how uptight we are, and try this again.
The first step toward constructive dialogue on this is that we all understand the primary concern for each side. For gay marriage opponents, the primary issue for us is that same gender sexual intimacy is expressly forbidden by God and is morally wrong because it undermines His design and expectation for the family that has been in place from the beginning. Though gay marriage proponents like to paint us opponents as religious kooks or wackos for claiming moral/ethical priority, the truth is that we do in fact have that priority as human history validates our claim that marriage has been defined as between man and woman in every culture and nation since the the garden.
For gay marriage proponents, their primary issue, as I understand it, is that they want to receive the same legal recognition and benefits that heterosexual couples have and see this issue as a matter of civil rights and equal opportunity. They feel slighted by a society that denies them the rights provided for other citizens solely because of their sexual orientation, and see the conservative and religious segment of society as the primary oppressors of their fundamental rights as citizens. Although gay marriage opponents tend to paint them as heathenish haters or rebels for wanting legal recognition, the truth is that they do in fact have the right to seek and push for that recognition from the government in a free but separated state and church society.
Now, that being said. Gay marriage opponents dislike and dismiss the idea that we live in a post-Christian America and that that the state and the church have been separated for the protection from one another. Though, we believe that the law of separation was written and implemented to primarily protect the church from the state, the law does also in turn provide a level of protection for the state as well. Whether we like it or not, there is a separation between church and state in this country that has been confirmed and enforced over and over again arguably beyond the way that it should be. But, the reality is that it is the way that it is. What we opponents dislike about this idea is that it seems that we have lost a voice in our culture that we once had, or more specifically, that we have lost the influence that we once enjoyed. Truly, there was a time when Christians filled posts in all legal branches of government at the federal and state levels and those influenced the legal bearing of our nation for its first centuries but we have watched those posts continually abandoned and filled with non Christian leaders who have moved the state even further away from the church.
Given the fact that we now live in a secular society, we have to live with the implications. That means we have to learn to accept that the state will not favor or even befriend our perspectives and desires and we must not expect it to do so. The state is not a friend to the church but merely a legal guardian, and this means that we should not expect her to like or even hear us. Now, does that mean that we should not speak up and out for our interests and desires? Absolutely not. We are actually mandated by Scripture to work and care for God’s interests in the world, but we must be realistic in that endeavor and not be consumed with the things that are beyond our control. The issue of same gender sexual recognition is one of those issues for us. Though we must know and express winsomely God’s expectations for relationships in a fallen world, we must not expect an unbelieving world to understand or respect those expectations. Simply put, we should not expect a worldly government state to look out for our interests but be content with it merely permitting us to have them.
With that in mind, the wise and prudent thing for opponents to do in times like these is to permit the state to do as it will without interference or protest and instead focus our attention and energy on protecting the rights that the state does provide to the church. One of those rights is the freedom to practice our religious tradition unabated. The institution of marriage is not a secular tradition but a sacred one, and it belongs to the church as it has from the beginning. The problem we find ourselves in today is that the state has legally recognized and protected our sacred institution, and we have permitted her to do so. And, in doing that, we should have foreseen and expected that the state would one day no longer feel the way that we do about marriage. Marriage is sacred, but the state has not and still does not see it that way. For the state, marriage has simply been the legal title placed on the family unit for legally recognized rights and privileges. But, for us, we do not need those rights and privileges attached for us to have a marriage covenant.
Therefore, in light of this, it seems wise for us to accept that the state will have the right to define and practice its own secular version of “marriage” and that the church will have its sacred version. In other words, the state will be the issuer of legal contracts and the church will be the issuer of divine covenants. Though, we prefer very much that the state not use the term “marriage” to prevent confusion and to respect the church’s use of the term for millennia, the state should have the right to and will likely decide to create a secular “civil union” of sorts in order to accommodate the interests of a secularized and pluralized culture. This should not be unexpected or surprising for gay marriage opponents and is a thoughtful solution to a problem that is quickly spinning out of control.
Though many gay marriage opponents will likely see this as a “compromise” or defeat for their ideals, I see this is an appropriate and winsome resolution to a polarizing debate over gay marriage in our country and as reasonable topic for dialogue between both sides at the table. If we continue to simply try to plow through this deep impasse in our culture, we will likely end up with a divided nation consisting of “gay states” and “non gay states” and a huge mess on our hands deciding whether to secede from or build walls between each other, and I don’t think that either side wants to live in a country like that.
Yep, compromise is the correct word for you. As God’s people we should oppose any form of compromise with God’s word. It’s not about our ‘defeat for OUR ideals’. This is about principalities and powers of darkness, not dialoguing with “both sides”.
It’s about upholding GOD’S word without compromise.
I refuse to stand down on the wrong direction of my country. Christian or not, I’m still a citizen and as long as I am allowed to have a say in my country’s future, I’ll do what I can to STOP the wrong as long as I am not violating God’s word. News flash: we are already a culturally divided country. Appeasement to those who are wrong is never the answer.
Thanks, Artie, for reading my blog and for posting a comment. I figure you probably don’t know me because “compromise” wouldn’t accurately describe me. Though, I do hope that winsome would.
I would submit that my suggestion for resolution to this matter is not “appeasement” but wisdom about how to best live and conduct ourselves in an oppressive secular society. I think we can absolutely uphold God’s Word without compromise but expecting our worldly culture to do the same or even respect our convictions is naive.
Sodomy is a sin. Sodomy used to be a felony. Sodomy is unhealthy. Nonetheless, Sodomy is now the height of fashion. It is all part of a homosexual agenda that working magificently.
Civil unions today. Gay marriage tomorrow. Bestiality and/or child brides in 50 years? I hope I’m wrong but I doubt that I am. Homosexual marriage was just as unthinkable 50 years ago.
Thank you for your comment, Jason. I always appreciate feedback on my blog, so I appreciate you interacting with the post. That being said, I’m not sure that you are following my argument. It’s not “civil unions today and gay marriage tomorrow”. It’s gay marriage today. We can’t just bury our heads in the sand and hope this issue goes away or scream bloody murder at anyone who is on the other side of the debate. Your attitude is one of the reasons why neither side is willing to talk to the other. I think we need to do better than just lobbing grenades at each other and seek a way to be at peace with all men…even gay marriage proponents.
Thanks Kent, but winsome isn’t the word. You stated that gay marriage opponents would call this compromise, I agreed that describes it and you. Should we just go along with wrong since the culture is going to do it anyway? As Christians we should always stand firm for truth even if the culture doesn’t. Why should our culture stop us from voicing the truth without compromise? We shouldn’t expect our current culture to agree.
It isn’t just about stopping it. When those who want get out of that lifestyle seek refuge, where do they go?
We should be there with open arms loving and willing to lead them to Christ and a way out of a destructive lifestyle. But how will they know if we are so identified with our worldly culture because of our silence. Real agape love isn’t about popularity and silence about current cultural mores, it’s being loving enough to speak the truth whether we are liked or not or listened to or not.
Artie, I don’t think that Kent is saying that we–believers–should just go along with the wrong. What he is saying is that we should do our duty as citizens and believers and vote against gay marriage but to get into proverbial shouting match with gay marriage supporters is counterproductive to sharing God’s promise to His people.
Kent’s argument is rational and thoughtful. Trying to enforce morality on people who are not in relationship with Christ is going to be counterproductive. The sin is not in the marriage of homosexuals… it is in the act of homosexuality. People will sin no matter what laws are written to forbid them to sin. Giving them the same rights UNDER THE STATE as heterosexual marriages is not enabling the sin but simply loving the sinner. I do not see a problem with civil unions between homosexuality as long as the Church is not involved. The state should execute the will of the people, the Church should do the will of God.
I finally got around to reading this, and I think it’s great. I really think we shoot ourselves in the proverbial foot as Christians when we present this hostile front to homosexuals and are so vocal in seeing that they are denied civil rights. I think if we are supportive in their fight for equal legal status, they will be more inclined to listen to us in the future. We should meet them where they’re at, love them where they’re at, and hopefully live by example, showing that there is indeed a better way and a better plan. What we’re doing now isn’t working. Thanks for being brave and honest with your convictions, Kent. I’m glad you wrote this.
Thanks, Melissa. This issue strikes close to home and found writing about it helpful for me. I’ve heard from many people who look at it the same way. I appreciate you taking the time to read it and comment.