I spent the entire seven days last week with my family at the beach. As is our common pastime, we sat on the balcony night after night arguing over controversial issues as our main source of entertainment.
We debated topics such as gay marriage, abortion, who’s to blame for the oil spill, immigration laws, the deity of Jesus, universalism etc.
While most families play ping-pong on their beach trips, or spend hours tossing horse shoes around right before they snap family photos with the seashore as their backdrop; my large Italian family battles over whether or not President Obama is the absolute worst President ever.
We’re not genuinely mad at one another for having a differing opinion; this is just what Musso’s have done for generations to relax.
My parents did it. And so did their parents. And from the little I remember about my Great Grandpa—he and Great Grandma passionately yelled about political and religious issues as well. We love to win, but more importantly we just love a good debate. I admit, sometimes it’s fun. Other times it just gives me a downright headache.
One of the hottest topics this week was gay marriage: Legalize it or not?
With Prop 8 verdict coming out at some point today, I thought I’d explore my thoughts on the subject.
While I don’t have an incredibly strong stance on the issue one way or the other, I support Prop 8. Do I believe homosexuality is the light that makes the world go round? Well, no. But my opinion on how “right or wrong” homosexuality is, isn’t the question.
The question is whether 2 men or 2 women should be able to get legally married in the United States, and to this, my answer is: Yes.
Here’s why:
1) I don’t really trust politicians or our government. Yes, I know, shocker. Because of this, I want their involvement in as little as possible. How about this—I’ll take care of my marriage and what goes on inside my home, you just keep me safe, mmmk?
2) Kind of playing off my first reason, I don’t want any laws created or taken away in the name of Christianity. I don’t want the Bible to have any bearing on how our government is run. Not because I don’t believe in the Bible, but
a) I don’t trust most people to interpret Scripture for me so I certainly don’t want the government doing it.
b) One day it’s not going to be a Christian running the show, and I don’t want someone else’s religion to be integrated with politics.
3) We don’t really know whether homosexuality is something that happens at birth or something that you choose. If it happens at birth, how can I tell others not to get married? It’s so easy to say “Just don’t.” but try not being a heterosexual and tell me how easy that is.
4) I support people’s right to choose whatever they want as long as it doesn’t affect someone else negatively or infringe on their freedom.
A few short reasons I am on the fence and not a staunch supporter of Prop 8:
1) Public schools will teach that marriage between a man and woman is “normal”— How about public school teaches math, and English and they leave the other stuff to the family?
2) Adoption agencies will be forced to give gay families children. This is a tough one as it clearly affects the child in social situation as they grow older.
Here is what some other people in my family had to say about why they DO NOT support gay marriage:
1) It’s wrong in the eyes of God.
My reply is so is getting drunk, sleeping around, sexually explicit dancing, and lying. It’s still legal.
2) If you allow homosexual marriages, someone will argue bestiality down the road.
I didn’t give this argument any weight as I thought it was incredibly weak. Two consenting adults and bestiality or marriage with children is not even close to the same. One is making someone do something against their will, one isn’t.
3) If you allow gay marriages, more people will choose to be gay.
If that’s the case, it goes both ways: This week, try and be gay. Let me know how that works out for you. And then start building gay rehabilitation centers where you just make gay people pal around with straight people. That will surely get rid of homosexuality for good.
4) It’s more prevalent today than it was in ancient days because society now accepts it.
Not sure if I agree or disagree because I don’t have the research to back it up on either end. My suspicion is that this isn’t the case but it’s just more talked about now. But I don’t know that for sure.
5) Marriage is for having children.
Well then let’s forbid barren women from having husbands.
The reason I chose to post about what appears to be a non-religious topic, is because I believe it is a religious topic, and that’s the problem I have with the law. It integrates religion and politics and that’s something I have a hard time supporting. There will be a time when someone gets in office with a radically anti-Christian perspective. When that time comes, I don’t want to give them any circumstance from history that makes it okay for them to enact laws based on their ideas about God’s will for His people.
25 Comments
jenny August 04, 2010
my favorite post to date! LOVE it!! you rock, jess!
Tony York August 05, 2010
This is such a divisive topic that I am remiss to add to the discussion but I wanted to add some thoughts that may add a different perspective.
1.> I truly believe that America has a government by the people. We do get a voice in many matters through our right to vote. Before I get comments from the peanut gallery, I am also enough of a realist to understand that it is not a perfect system.
2.> As it is a government by the people, we place votes based on our beliefs and this means that the majority will impinge its desires upon the minority across a gambit of many topics.
3.> Our votes will be a reflection of what we value thus making the government a reflection of that value system.
4.> I believe in the separation of church and state as defined by the founding fathers.
5.> Marriage is a religious institution that has been muddied by the civil system’s reliance on its definition.
Based on the points that I have raised above, I would vote against laws that would institute the right of gay marriage, however, I would be open to civil unions that allow for the civil rights for which the gay community desires.
It could be argued that the government should only recognize civil unions for both hetero and homosexual couples allowing for marriages to be only defined within the church context.
One thought that I have been interested in if gay marriage is legalized is what happens when a church refuses to marry a gay couple. Will that become a civil matter before the courts? Will pastors go to prison for refusing to perform said weddings?
Just some more things to think on.
JamesBrett August 05, 2010
jessica, well written. i’m with you on almost everything. mostly, i think the government shouldn’t legislate morality. we’re bound to have lots of problems when we let the majority determine what is and isn’t legal based merely on their personal beliefs or religion.
i generally don’t do this, but hopefully i have a little bit of credibility on your site and will be allowed. the following is taken almost word for word from a post i wrote a while back. the post in its entirety is here—http://jamesbrett.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/freedom-for-all/
in my opinion, many christians would seek to take away personal freedoms in an attempt to enact laws based on their own religious ideals. i don’t believe the government should be in the business of legislating morality, but rather that it should seek to protect life and liberty in any and every situation in which another individual’s life and liberty is not at stake.
i don’t condone homosexuality, but neither do i approve of taking away that choice. just as i don’t encourage greed — but want to allow others the opportunity to seek happiness through big houses, expensive cars, and holding millions of dollars in the bank. i don’t think they’ll find it, but they are certainly entitled to try. i don’t want a law banning pianos from church buildings, sprinkling from baptism, the virgin mary from prayers, or allah from our nation. nor do i want a law that limits kissing to those of us who find females attractive.
JamesBrett August 05, 2010
probably my argument boils down to the fact that God has given us freedom of choice, and we should give it to others unless they are infringing on someone else’s.
also, you said, “We don’t really know whether homosexuality is something that happens at birth or something that you choose.”
i (personally) don’t think this argument has any place in the discussion. if homosexuality is or isn’t sin, is from birth or not, i don’t think that should change what is legal in our country.
Tony York August 05, 2010
I concur with James on both points. We had a similar conversation on Pete Wilson’s site a few days back concerning the legislation of morality and the limiting of freedoms where safety is at stake.
One thing that James wrote, I find interesting:
“we’re bound to have lots of problems when we let the majority determine what is and isn’t legal based merely on their personal beliefs or religion”
Every vote we make is based on our personal beliefs or religion and every vote we make limits someone else’s freedom. And every outcome of the vote is based on the majority. I am not sure how we can separate this aspect from a government empowered by the voice of the people through a voting system without taking away that right to vote.
We would be foolish to think that if another religion becomes the dominant practice within the United States that it wouldn’t have an impact on legislation. Whether we believe it to be good or bad… it is the system.
Scott August 05, 2010
“The government should not legislate morality.” That is the common theme so far. The problem is that the government DOES legislate morality—that is why there are laws against stealing and murder and monopolies, for example.
“But those crimes hurt other people, homosexual marriage does not.”
Let us look at a few things that have happened in Massachusetts:http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html
Since homosexual marriage became “legal” the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000. As the homosexual lobby group MassEquality wrote to their supporters after successfully persuading the Legislature to spend that money: “With the rate of HIV infections rising dramatically in Massachusetts, it’s clear the fight against AIDS is far from over.”
Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year.
All insurance in Massachusetts must now recognize same-sex “married” couples in their coverage. This includes auto insurance, health insurance, life insurance, etc.
Businesses must recognize same-sex “married” couples in all their benefits, activities, etc., regarding both employees and customers.
The wedding industry is required serve the homosexual community if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must do same-sex marriages or be arrested for discrimination.
Businesses are often “tested” for tolerance by homosexual activists. Groups of homosexual activists often go into restaurants or bars and publicly kiss and fondle each other to test whether the establishment demonstrates sufficient “equality” — now that homosexual marriage is “legal”. In fact, more and more overt displays of homosexual affection are seen in public places across the state to reinforce “marriage equality”.
In 2004, Governor Mitt Romney ordered Justices of the Peace to perform homosexual marriages when requested or be fired. At least one Justice of the Peace decided to resign.
AND I did not include the stuff that is going on in the schools. And in public bathrooms—google the GENDA bill and ask if you want your wife or daughter using a public bathroom.
I realize that this will not be a popular post, but I do urge you to look at the rest of the link that I posted. I do not believe that homosexual marriage should be legalized and I believe that homosexuality (the practice) should neither be legalized or ill-legalized. Believers in Jesus Christ should be able to let people know what God says about homosexuality without fear of prosecution, but sadly, that is not happening. God is very clear about homosexuality (yes, I typed definitively again). Now let the temple prostitute argument begin and the verse in Ezekiel be brought out. And please do not bring up Westboro Baptist—they are a cult and not at all Christian.
JamesBrett August 05, 2010
scott, i agree with you that homosexuality is a sin. and i agree that christians should be able to say such, just as homosexuals should be able to say the opposite.
and i don’t think our government generally attempts to legislate morality; i think it seeks to provide every individual with the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness (oh, and land, too). it just so happens that the things you’ve named (stealing, murder and monopolies) all infringe on another’s right to pursue the above.
you suggested “our” response would be, “But those crimes hurt other people, homosexual marriage does not.” that is not my response. hurting people is not against the law—preventing them from experiencing the life they desire (as long as they don’t in turn prevent another) is where the laws should be (in my opinion).
but our country isn’t generally in the practice of legislating morality. adultery isn’t illegal, and neither is getting drunk, being greedy, or being arrogant.
as for that which is happening in massachusetts, i don’t know anything about it. much of it, though, doesn’t seem fair. one group seems to be infringing upon the others’ rights and getting away with it. but if we’ve done the same while in the majority, why would we really expect any different?
as for this phrase, “Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships…,” i can’t imagine that homosexual relationships are any more dysfunctional than in the rest of the nation (excluding homosexuality itself). i wonder how much is budgeted for heterosexual domestic violence? i also wonder if the violence is growing simply because homosexual marriage is legal there, so a lot more homosexuals are moving there. more people equals more violence.
JamesBrett August 05, 2010
tony, you said: “We would be foolish to think that if another religion becomes the dominant practice within the United States that it wouldn’t have an impact on legislation.”
i realize this is the case. i just don’t think it makes it the right thing to do. “do unto others, because you know they’d probably do unto you if they could.” [sarcasm]
and this: “Every vote we make is based on our personal beliefs or religion and every vote we make limits someone else’s freedom.”
i agree. and my personal belief and religion says that we should allow others the freedom to make the decisions they want, provided they’re not oppressing or limiting others’ freedoms. i think that’s what God does for us, what we should do for others, and therefore how we should vote.
i vote against abortion but for the legalization of homosexual marriage. i vote against murder but for the legalization of marijuana. i vote against corporate corruption but for letting people decide whether or not to wear their seatbelts. [i realize i’m setting myself up to likely be the bad guy…]
Jessica August 05, 2010
Scott-Since “homosexual marriage became “legal” the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts.”
I dont’ know about this fact because I haven’t researched it, but it doesn’t make any logical sense to me.
Legalizing homosexual marriage didn’t make more gay people, or more gay sex. If anything, it stopped people from having sex with more than one person because they were married. (or at least it should have) There has to be some data missing since why would marriage increase STD’s? If anything, I’d think the opposite would happen, marriage would decrease promiscuity which leads to to an increase in disease.
Tony York August 05, 2010
James,
My comment concerning other religions had little to do with “do unto others before they do unto you”. I had hoped to reinforce the thought that within a democratic society the majority decides what is acceptable within legislation. My viewpoint is that it is impossible to make decisions that aren’t impacted by your belief system or worldview. It is just how the system works.
Every vote limits the freedom of somebody else. Take taxes. If I vote with the majority to approve a new tax in my community, I have just limited the financial freedoms of all those who opposed the tax increase. The majority deemed that the tax increase would be for the greater good of the community.
If I were faced in a voting booth with making a decision to legalize same sex marriage, I would have to vote against it because of the way I view marriage in the context of my world view. I cannot divorce myself from that which I believe to be true for pragmatic reasons.
That being said, I don’t necessarily agree with the amount of money, effort, and resources that churches or organizations are spending to create the opportunity for me to vote on such a policy.
It is a strange dichotomy, I know.
JamesBrett August 05, 2010
tony, you worded what you said just fine; i understood it, and believe it’s true—but still don’t think it’s right. i believe those other religious groups would be wrong for preventing us from… worshiping on sundays (just to throw something out there), just like i think we are wrong for preventing them from calling what they do marriage. i hope i didn’t come across as rude in my sarcasm.
it is true that every vote in some way affects others, and the group as a whole is going to do what the majority believe is best for the group as a whole. i just feel like what is best for the group as a whole is to allow them to make decisions about homosexuality and what they call marriage devoid of a law. and i feel like if everyone were willing to do so, we would have a republic that truly allows for freedom of religion and equal rights.
you said, “I cannot divorce myself from that which I believe to be true for pragmatic reasons,” concerning whether or not you’d vote for homosexuals to have the freedom to marry. i’m not sure i understand. God is able to offer us freedom to choose sin despite his utter hatred of it; why should we not offer that same freedom to others?
Tony York August 05, 2010
A vote to legalize same-sex marriage is more than allowing someone to choose to sin. They are already choosing to sin. No one is stopping them from that. A vote FOR same-sex marriage is a validation of that state.
I won’t validate a sinful practice through what I believe to be a religious institution. As I stated earlier, I don’t have an issue with civil rights or authority. If we want to separate the issue, I don’t have issue with the government legislating civil unions for gay or straight couples. Let marriage stay within the confines of the church context in that case.
I believe there are precedents already set for churches being sued for not allowing same-sex couples to use their facilities to conduct a wedding ceremony. Is that impinging upon the church’s freedoms to protect their view of the institution of marriage?
I think where the conversation breaks down is in how individual people view the term marriage.
JamesBrett August 05, 2010
okay, tony, now i’m understanding much better. sorry, i just didn’t get it before.
that makes perfect sense to allow the government to do civil unions and leave marriage in the church—if you believe marriage is something that christianity instituted and presides over. i myself don’t. but i do understand now, and it makes sense.
as for churches being sued for not allowing same-sex couples to have weddings in their buildings, yes i think the churches should be protected. i think it’s wrong when churches are forced to do that which they believe is sin. i don’t think that should have any bearing on us allowing homosexuals to be recognized as married, but i do think it’s ridiculous for pastors to be expected to perform ceremonies for gays, etc.
Kyle Godbey August 05, 2010
Excellent, a debate I get to ring in on.
Let me open up with one truth: the need for democracy and authority to take ownership over the way Americans live their lives, spend/earn their money and take care of their families will divide people further and further. In a country where where we call all agree that marriage is not a matter of law, but rather just an agreement between two people (in many cases also God) then this debate may never happen.
We’d all go to work, love our families and grow old and all will be right with the world with or without gay sex happening in every other house on the block.
Another truth is that no founder placed the words “separation of church and state” together in any historic document. However both God and “their Creator” are both referenced in the Declaration of Independence, and many state constitutions reference God (especially Mass. written by John Qunicy Adams, a devout Quaker). That’s a defense that I hope the next generation of government school educated kids don’t grow up with but that’s a wild fantasy of mine.
If the sanctity of marriage is your concern, make divorce illegal. If God’s judgment is your worry, don’t, God will take care of it he doesn’t need your picket line, permission, or authority. If AIDS is your concern, don’t have unprotected sex or share needles with men and women straight or gay alike.
And finally skip this idea of voting. The decisions to grant or prevent someone’s freedom does not belong in the hands of the majority. Democracy is 3 wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner. This country was NOT founded on democracy (wasn’t mentioned in any federal document until Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration speech, and his presidency isn’t worth his presidential portrait) despite our voting practices. I do not surrender my rights to the will of a mob.
At the end of the day, you and I all very liberally enjoy our right to chose our mate in life, and we often take full advantage of that process. This is a freedom that time, tradition, and culture have not allowed until very recently in the human time line. If freedom and liberty are our priorities, then there’s an easy way to keep that in check: we each have the right to do whatever we like so long as it doesn’t infringe on the right of anyone else to do the same (clearly protecting life and property). This is our generations battle for marriage the same way as interracial marriage was our grandparents battle, and we are very comfortable with the results of that fight (liberty won).
I’d welcome any discussion about how gay marriage threatens your life and property, as long as you’ll welcome my discussion about how outlawing it threatens freedom and liberty.
JamesBrett August 05, 2010
okay, tony, now i’m understanding much better. sorry, i just didn’t get it before.
that makes perfect sense to allow the government to do civil unions and leave marriage in the church—if you believe marriage is something that christianity instituted and presides over (or should). i myself don’t. but i do understand now, and it makes sense.
as for churches being sued for not allowing same-sex couples to have weddings in their buildings, yes i think the churches should be protected. i think it’s wrong when churches are forced to do that which they believe is sin. i don’t think that should have any bearing on us allowing homosexuals to be recognized as married, but i do think it’s ridiculous for pastors to be expected to perform ceremonies for gays, etc.
Tony York August 05, 2010
Kyle…
Lots of great points.
Your analogy of democracy doesn’t necessarily stand up.. I could just as easily say that it is 3 sheep and a wolf deciding what is for dinner.. guess what it won’t be in that case.
(I hope the wolf likes grass because his freedom to eat sheep just got impinged upon by the majority.)
I don’t believe in Christians creating picket lines or waiving placards to create change. However, if an item is placed on a ballot..whether by ‘christian’ organizations or the group seeking the freedom - if the individual chooses to make a selection on that particular vote (so abstaining could be one option here) they will vote according to their belief set. Thus democracy allows for legislation of morality based on the beliefs of the majority. The bulk of humanity believes that murder is wrong and that it is punishable. It falls under the protection aspect of law.
Gay marriage is a difficult thing because some will say that there is a protection issue and others will not. Who is right? Well.. now we have a whole new ballgame because the definition of protection must be agreed upon and what then must be protected.
I agree with you that marriage is not a matter of law. I would prefer it to rest within the context of a sacrament of the church. A holy recognition of one man and one woman as ordained by God. By making that statement I alienate a large contingent of people on both sides of the issue who wish to make it a legal entity protected by civil rights. Each side of the divide wants to define those liberties and protections.
If we need a legal entity by which we contractually are able to care for a partner - then let the legal system define that. Would that appease the group who wants to recognize gay marriages. For some, yes, for others no. Would that appease those within the ‘Christian’ camp? For some yes, for others no.
I don’t have any easy answers or great ways to solve the problem. And any decision I make will be maligned by one group or another. So my only recourse is to honor what I believe is God’s desire in this area.
Kyle Godbey August 05, 2010
Hey Tom. When you give the majority power you need an authoritative body that can supersede that power to protect the minority when that body believes it must. In which case you’ve lost the ability to have democracy to begin with. This is where liberty, democracy, and the republic can’t exist together anymore, which is why the framers never wanted a democracy. Essentially, it shouldn’t matter how big your posse is I have the right to live and own property with or without your posse’s permission.
There are a few reasons government has jurisdiction over marriage. Remember, you have to get a license before getting married and the definition of a license is being granted a right that you would not otherwise have by the owner of that right. Unfortunately, marriage is not a constitutionally protected right. This was to keep you from marrying your sister, but also because there is a standing contract in each state that outlaws the rights of one spouse granted by the other.
If you look at it that way you’ll find that the government allows you, a consenting adult, to give some one power of attorney and all the other rights associated to another until your marriage is no longer recognized by the state (I wonder if the married couple are the only ones able to end a marriage in this case… hmm). The only exception is that if you, the consenting adult choose someone of the same sex to have these rights, then that doesn’t fly. That seems wrong to me. Now, I can also live with another man and write a personal contract with that man outlying the same exact agreement as marriage, and it would be valid, I just cannot call it marriage.
This is mechanical breakdown of the process as far as the state is concerned and we can see that semantics is the problem but often in law semantics is everything.
As for the religious implications… no one has a right to be married in any church anymore then they have the right to sit down at a priest’s dinner table uninvited. If the catholics (or anyone else) don’t want to marry gay couples, divorcées, children, or animals so be it. If you don’t want to marry someone of the same sex, excellent.
I whole heartedly support people doing what’s in line with their interpretation of their faith and morals, but at some point you have to also have faith that who/what you believe in can take care of his own and standing in the way of other people doing what they feel is right (when it doesn’t hurt others) will never better your own moral standing.
Tony York August 05, 2010
Kyle.. I assume “hey tom” was directed to me
I definitely agree that we need a body to oversee the majority to protect the defenseless.. let me know how that is working for the unborn child.
I also agree on your precepts of why the government oversees marriage currently. However, I believe we could redefine that to a civil unity instead of calling it marriage. My opinion is that would more clearly delineate a separation between civil and religious rites. In other words, divorce the ceremony from the legal institution - why is that not acceptable?
It is interesting that you bring in the case of the government not allowing brothers and sisters to marry. I could argue that, biologically, there is no reason beyond the increased risk of birth defects to limit brothers and sisters from marrying. Should we remove that from the limitations? Because it seems more of a moralistic limitation that impedes the freedom and liberty of those that wish to practice that state of union. Please understand that I am being somewhat facetious here but I think there is an interesting correlation.
Your last paragraph seems to imply that my (or other like-minded) are concerned about our own or others morality. That is not the case. And I am perfectly happy to allow God to be God as I am totally inadequate in that department. However, if I am asked to make a decision or to give an opinion on a matter, my hope is to best represent His teachings in my life. I totally understand your frustrations with those who wish simply to impede your or others freedoms. I tend to think of that like people doing the speed limit in the fast lane. While they are in the right to obey the law, they frustrate me to no end because I wish to use the passing lane for passing other cars at a higher rate of speed.
In the end, my decisions are not about morality but about obedience. I also would never expect someone who doesn’t share my belief system to obey its teachings. There is, unfortunately, in the course of human events (to borrow some parlance) where conflict will arise over different ideologies. My hopes and prayers are that we can work in these areas in a respectful manner.
Jessica August 05, 2010
Great thoughts, Tom
Kyle Godbey August 05, 2010
Yes, sorry Tony.
I don’t think “civil unity” vs. “marriage” is unacceptable, but would it also apply to atheists who get married at a courthouse or other religions that have rather different ideas of marriage that Christians? Or, are atheists who “marry” before the state and not God equal to those receiving the sacrament? I’d say the last thing we need is something that separates us further.
In terms of family members marrying… who really cares what other people do in their own homes? Does it make me feel a little ill thinking about it? Sure, but so do lots of things. If it’s mine to expect freedom to do my thing, it’s also mine to tolerate others doing the same.
I get the idea of sharing God’s teachings, that’s a healthy level of humility to have. However, your idea of democracy being more powerful than liberty makes your opinions quite possibly oppressive to a minority. That sounds more dangerous than it may be, but if you also happen to have the opinion that eating pizza is not healthy and shouldn’t be eaten, that’s all well and good at your own dinner table but if put to a vote with enough like minded people could cause pizza to become illegal. Yeah, it’s a stretch.
But, you could argue that eating enough pizza IS unhealthy and contributes to heart problems that lead to death, where homosexuality has been responsible for zero deaths.
The government intended by the framers had little to nothing to do with democracy. It’s not the job of majority to rule the minority (and then inflate the republic to then rule the majority) it’s job of the citizen to respect the liberty of his neighbor and the job of the gov. to protect those liberties of both equally. Granted, we’re a far cry from that today.
Today we live in a country where the people wrote that gov. can make no laws favoring any one religion. It wasn’t a majority that said that, but if the majority was to over rule that we wouldn’t be living in quite a free place anymore.
Jessica August 05, 2010
I said: “We don’t really know whether homosexuality is something that happens at birth or something that you choose.”
I’ve decided this isn’t relevant regardless of whether someone chooses to be gay. James-I think you mentioned this already and after re-reading my post, I agree. I’d support gay marriage either way.
Tony York August 05, 2010
On the thought of civil unity vs marriage, I think it could work very much like it does today with the exception that the government has no role in marriage.
One could follow the sacraments or rites of their religion to practice marriage but if they wanted the legal protections that the government provides today, they would have to apply for a civil union. This could also mean that persons could marry within the church setting and decide to fore-go the merits (or drawbacks) of a legalized civil union.
This would also mean that gay couples could apply for a civil union that gave them all the same rights as a straight couple within the legal system. They wouldn’t have to fore-go a ceremony.. that would be a choice separate from the legal definition.
Some will argue that this is semantics and maybe to some degree it is. However, it allows some autonomy between the two divisions.
Ultimately, as a believer in the Christian faith, I believe we live in a fallen world and it is not my job to redeem it but to point to the One who can.
Tony York August 05, 2010
By the way. Matt Chandler of the Village Church has a great podcast where he addresses homosexuality. I don’t think that I have heard better.
JamesBrett August 05, 2010
tony, i really like the idea of distinguishing between civil unions and marriages as you’ve suggested. but here’s my catch (and i may just be showing ignorance) :
why should the christian church be the one institution that gets to keep marriage? we didn’t begin it—we just have a strong opinion of what it should be. [an opinion which i believe fully is correct, but no more so probably than other religions and peoples believe theirs is correct.]
Tony York August 06, 2010
James,
The quick and easy answer is: we wouldn’t. Other groups could have their definitions of marriage just like they do today, but we wouldn’t be involved with their definition. The people of India have extravagant wedding ceremonies that are thrown for arranged couples. I don’t see anybody hollering that they should change how they get married today and we wouldn’t in the future. Marriage would be defined by a group of people outside of the control of government.
The Christian church could practice marriage as they understand it from the scripture.
Add Your Comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.