As you know, I haven’t written much about politics during this election season. I don’t tend to talk much about politics on this blog, but it does come up from time to time. As we are now about a week past the election of our first African-American President, it seems like an appropriate time to reflect on some of the things that have made me hopeful, angry and filled with mixed emotions.
I’m hopeful. I voted for Barack Obama. I doubt that is any surprise to you if you’ve been following my Twitter/Facebook comments throughout the past few weeks. It was never a question for me that Obama would get my vote. I first heard of Barack Obama during a family reunion in Illinois, summer of 2004. My grandpa (and all of my other Mennonite cousins and aunts and uncles) were talking about how this was a politician that we could actually put some hope in - that he was someone who cared about social justice, the poor and was someone to keep an eye on. I figured if he’s good enough for my Mennonite relatives, he’s someone I should try and keep up on.
Of course, I forgot about him a few months after that until his name started coming up for the Presidential race. Once he received the nomination, there was no question in my mind, I would vote for Barack Obama.
And yes - I think I did fall into the category of Obama-supporters who asked the question (mainly in my head and with my wife): “How can you be a Christian and honestly vote for McCain/Palin?” I’m sure I have friends who did vote for McCain/Palin and I don’t mean them disrespect, but it really did seem that a vote for McCain was simply a vote for the continuation of the leadership that Bush gave this country, four more years of the Bush Doctrine (err…what is that again?), etc. Obama was clearly the candidate who rallied a whole segment of the nation behind him and his desire for change, for hope and for a new way of doing politics in Washington.
Now, clearly Obama IS a politician and as he himself said, we won’t all be pleased with every decision he makes. But I think that watching the aftermath of the election, and the overwhelming international support for our choice of Obama, this was the right decision for the United States at this time in our history. It’s funny - I have this shirt I bought back in 2005 that says “America is Scary” on it. One of the first thoughts I had after the election was, “Do I still wear the shirt…?” Part of me does really feel different about the United States now that we have a President who embodies such a radically different worldview than President Bush. Is America still scary? Well, I’m sure it depends who you ask. I think that having Obama as our next President sure doesn’t change everything - obviously. But it does set the stage for a new shift in our politics and a new shift in the way America is perceived.
I’m angry. And I’m more angry at Christians than anyone else. It’s pretty clear that Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state of California, was passed because of the amazing capability of the conservative evangelical churches in California (as well as the LDS and the Roman Catholic churches) to fuel a massive fund-raising and awareness campaign of lies, close-mindedness and perversions of the truth. Christians all over California thought they were “protecting marriage” by voting YES on Prop 8. They thought they were protecting their children from being taught about gay marriage in schools - even though the California Teachers Union denied that it would have that type of impact at all.
It’s extremely frustrating - especially since I know some people for whom Proposition 8 has direct affects. Since when does it make sense that an entire state of citizens should have the right to vote for whether two people of the same sex who love one another can do so in the context of marriage and receive the same rights as heterosexual couples? It really doesn’t make any sense to me, or to any of these folks. I’m hopeful that, and confident, that in the future, this issue will no longer be an issue. The church will have to come to an understanding at some point that discrimination of this kind of antithetical to the message of the Gospel. I’m sure that as younger generations keep getting older and are able to vote, these types of questions won’t be such big issues, as the culture is definitely moving towards one of openness and inclusivity. I’m just sad and angry that it isn’t happening sooner.
I’m filled with mixed emotions. As Obama said in his speech, not everything he does, not every decision he makes, will be something that we are all supportive of. While I’m sure everyone will have their own issues, it seems that one of Obama’s first choices, Rahm Emanuel for White House Chief of Staff, is not a popular one with those invested in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. You can read a detailed bio of Emanuel here, but many sources cite his extremely pro-Israeli position and his volunteer service with the Israeli army. Rabbi Michael Lerner wrote a not-so-flattering piece on Emanuel at Religion Dispatches and argues that “The Rahm Emanuel selection is an early warning that the peace and justice agenda dropped by Obama after he won the Democratic nomination may be permanently on hold…”
Everyone has their own issue that they were personally invested in, and after my experience in the Middle East, this is a situation and issue that I care deeply about and would hope that Obama might be able to work toward a peace agreement. I’m not saying that’s impossible with Rahm Emanuel, but it seems that with someone who comes across as so clearly pro-Israeli, it’s hard to imagine that Obama will hear much more than that side of the story concerning the conflict.
At any rate, as I reflect back on the election results, I am hopeful for the change that may be coming. I am angry of the barriers that were erected by California citizens. And I’m filled with mixed emotions about the way in which possible staffing in Obama’s administration might affect certain issues and conflicts that I care about. But, I’m guessing those are all pretty normal feelings after an excruciatingly long campaign season. How do you feel about the election when you look back on it?
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 56 comments… read them below or add one }
Adam,
Based on your complete lack of Christocentric interest, I would charge you with completely harboring positions that are “antithetical to the gospel.” With all your liberal, pluralistic, non-biblical hermeneutics, do you even know what the Gospel is? And please, this isn’t a plea or attack being made by a fundamentalist Christian, but an individual more in line with post-conservative evangelicalism.
We could ask the same question to you, “How could a Christian vote for Obama/Biden?” Truth be told, I voted for neither because with Obama you get rampant access and rights to abortion, perhaps more appropriately titled Infanticide, and with McCain, as you pointed out, you get militant despotism. How can you, an individual who blogs as an ‘apolitical’ or disinterested entity (even Mennonite positionally), even raise such a hypocritical question?
I feel as though I cannot even speak to your position on Prop 8 since you categorically dismiss the Bible’s teaching & authority on homosexuality. Please know, Adam, that your position lies outside 2,000 years of Orthodox Christianity. I am glad that your highly enlightened and obviously intellectual position bodes well with Christian history.
And no, before any ad hoc attacks are made, I don’t believe that Obama is the anti-Christ. In many ways, Adam, I agree, Obama appears to be the best for the job in this particular time in American history, but is that going to keep us from critical investigation of his administration?
Well at least we know who to blame when this nation goes down the crapper. Most likely by 2010. God is sovereign.
And please…… no matter what McCain’s flaws, Obama is not one of the saints.
No matter what you or any other liberal says, the scripture is clear. Infanticide and homosexuality are sin. I know that neither you or your thousands of “friends” believe that it is actually God’s Word. So be it. The church should be praying for the Lord’s return even harder.
Fortunately for everyone who voted for Obama, stupidity isn’t the unforgiveable sin.
What did that goofy song by that singer from Kenya say? Oh yeah….” Obama be thy name.”
He will be a big disappointment for all of you.
Not to comment for only the first or second time with a disagreement, but I couldn’t overlook a serious flaw here. Thoughts on marriage aside, the support for Prop. 8 was hardly a conservative evangelical movement. The LDS made huge contributions, as did the Roman Catholic Church. This is why the angry mob of people who can’t accept the fact that traditional marriage has now been supported twice by popular vote in California are vandalizing Mormon Churches, Knights of Columbus, etc. It’s hardly fair to cast all your animosity on that one group. And I hope you are as disappointed in the violent reaction of the homosexual community in California. I certainly am.
Oh my…
But if God is sovereign, wouldn’t you blame God if “this nation goes down the crapper?”
And Obama does not support infanticide. Good try though.
Nice… stay classy.
Wow Chris, kinda bitter, eh buddy? Look, maybe Jesus already came back and it’s up to us to live into God’s Kingdom’s power and promise. And in this, the real world, we need to make decisions based on insight, research, intuition, etc… They won’t be perfect decisions or (in this, political case) for perfect people. But McCain…where to begin? Actually I won’t. Read my friend Wayne Jacobsen, a fairly conservative Christian and lifelong Republican who loved the circa 2000-era McCain and voted Obama.
Back to you Adam…Ditto both of these feelings. I don’t live in California, but like you I have friends who do whose lives have been affected. I too am increasingly disappointed by American Christians whose core lived convictions seem polar opposite of mine - not that I’m the Gold Standard or anything, but sometimes I wonder if we’re worshiping the same God. Or learning from the same Jesus, more to the point.
Bruce Sanguin’s recent book Emerging Churches nailed it for me in a chapter entitled “What Color Is Your Christ?” where he applies the developmental insights of Spiral Dynamics to Christian discipleship. What I’m recognizing now - through a weird interdisciplinary reading of Dallas Willard & Brueggemann on the Bible, the Medieval and early Enlightenment mystics with their stages of ascent, 2oth-century developmental psychologists like Carol Gilligan and Clare Graves, and contemporary meta-synthesizers like Don Beck and Ken Wilber - is that Christians like everyone else are at different levels of cognitive, moral, and spiritual development. I think the ‘Jesus Way’ can provide a very compelling path for personal, social, and societal transformation, but its going to take the very intentional work of those who feel they’re further along the ’spiral’ to have some patience, breathe peace, and be intentional about what apprenticeship to God in the way of Jesus might mean. I’ve come to see that its unfair of me to expect people at a certain stage in their lives to have come to conclusions they couldn’t possibly come to given their developmental and life experience. It’s my hope that post-evangelical, emergent, mainline, progressive and what-have-y0u Christians move from simply conversation to intentionally crafting a sustainable faith for the good of the world.
These are some of my post-election thoughts. :)
I think it is a bit unfair to blame Christians for discriminating on the Prop 8 vote in California. It seems to many Christians that the Bible is explicit in what marriage is. So while even I can see that not giving gay marraige equal marriage rights as heterosexual marriage could be seen as a form of discrimination…it seems to me that we should vote based on Biblical principles and voting Yes on 8 would be that. If I didn’t believe the Bible was inspired by God then I would fully support gay marriage I see the Bible being explicit about marriage being between a man and a woman I think I should vote based on my faith convictions. I get the sense that you are criticizing Christians for not being open minded enough, but I read what you have to say as being closed minded to your open minded ideals.
Just wanted to let you know, I’ve got you on my reader and enjoy your posts. I might disagree with you a bit on this particular post, however. I think I might disagree with Chris’ comment as well. Let me just make a couple of points:
Why was this McCain vs. Obama thing so divisive in the church? Why would you say (or think), “How can you be a Christian and honestly vote for McCain/Palin?” when others are saying, “How can you be a Christian and honestly vote for Obama?” As if either one of them is intentionally doing the will of God. Talk about one issue voting…could it be that some Christians replaced abortion as their one issue with “let’s not have another four years of Bush” as the new issue. Which of our countries problems can solely be attributed to Bush? Does congress bear some of that blame? Does Wall Street bear some of that blame? Do terrorists intent on killing every last one of us bear some of that blame? What about the greed that prompted people who can barely afford to rent to take out loans for $500,000 homes? Does it make me any less Christian because I voted for McCain? and not Obama? How sinful that I would base my decisions on the principle of smaller government. Right? I voted for McCain but I didn’t consider him to be God’s candidate. There’s something wrong when the church is splitting over who our next president should be…my advice…vote for those issues that God puts on your heart: abortion, same-sex marriage, poverty, smaller or larger government, War on Terrorism policies, etc. But don’t claim you’ve got a monopoly on God’s will when it comes to a vote…and I said that to my friends who voted for McCain as well.
Now, let me say a couple of things about Proposition 8. I think you should cool down your rhetoric. To begin with, you say the conservative evangelicals waged a “campaign of lies, close-mindedness and perversions of the truth”. Do you care to explain? Sure, they were active but THE reason for the outcome was because Obama won! Had it not been for the black and latino minorities and the huge voter registration machine of the Obama campaign, this proposition would not have passed, there just aren’t that many conservative evangelical Christians. It was Obama’s base that disagreed with Obama on this one issue. In fact, the three states that had similar proposals all rejected same-sex marriage. The ONLY states that do have same-sex marriage do so because of judicial activism and not because of the will of the people.
You also said, “Since when does it make sense that an entire state of citizens should have the right to vote for whether two people of the same sex who love one another can do so in the context of marriage and receive the same rights as heterosexual couples?” Did I miss something? I’m pretty sure that every man and woman has the EXACT SAME RIGHTS to marry as anyone else. If a homosexual man wanted to enter into a marriage, he is welcome to find a woman to marry just like any other human being. He probably won’t because he isn’t sexually attracted to the opposite sex. This is not a tolerance or open-mindedness issue, this is a matter of defining marriage. I have several gay friends and they find me to be extremely close and loyal to them and they to me. They would never question my love for them and they have never accused me of being intolerant. Instead, this is a matter of who has a right to define marriage? Should it be defined in favor of polygamy? Should it be defined in favor of homosexuality? What about incest? There are a lot of mutations to marriage that we could constitutionalize if we allow the state to decide what a marriage is and isn’t. Marriage is the most ancient of institutions in society established by God. Were homosexuality natural, there would be no society and no societal institutions left because there would be no possibility for procreation. This whole argument, therefore, has nothing to do with loving those who have deviated from God’s ideal, though there are some who get carried away and make it about that in their anger. I don’t advocate hate. I advocate truth. So again, what are the lies and perversions of truth that you talk about? Is it a question to you of what the Bible says? I think it’s very clear. Is it a question to you of how some conservatives are acting? Then, I think you are right, there are some who have gotten angry and have not acted righteously and may have done more harm than good.
In the end, this whole issue of same-sex marriage has only been instituted by activist judges and it has always been defeated when it has come up for a vote (some states refuse to let the people vote on the matter because they know it will be defeated). It’s not just conservative evangelicals that are voting it down, the minorities who came out in droves who helped tip the scales in favor of Obama are the very ones who defeated same-sex marriage in California. Interesting how the oh so tolerant and open-minded homosexual activists in California reacted to the majority vote…not with tolerance and open-mindedness…but with yelling and rioting…hmmmm…endearing isn’t it?
To Chris, I would just say, what is the tone of your comment that you hope to convey? Disgust? Disdain? Hatred? That’s the tone that I picked up on and I disagree with my brother Adam too. You’re calling Obama supporters “stupid”? You really want that to be in print? On the record? I hope my post will not be misconstrued as hateful or patronizing…I hope, Adam, you will receive it as a disagreement that I hope we can clarify our thoughts together. Words are dangerous things and I’ve made my share of misunderstood posts.
Finally, let me say, I thoroughly disagree with your post here, but I refuse to be one who rejects the person who wrote it…I hope to have an amicable discussion with you and hope to continue to discuss matters of Kingdom importance. Though I disagree, I’m not writing to be divisive. To the contrary, I sensed what may be a divisive tone in your post (please set me straight where I may have misunderstood) and in the plethora of posts around the blogosphere to this effect that I hope we can understand together as the Church that our hope is not in McCain or Obama or in our congress but it is in God. God has obviously allowed Obama to be our next president. The people have spoken and for good or bad this is who is in authority now. I will pray for him and support him and do anything I can to help him be successful. My hope with this comment is to expose some of the errors in thinking by Christians that arise when we think or say, “How can you be Christian and vote for ____?” Let’s tone down our political angst and be about our Father’s business in unity and respect for one another.
Thanks for hearing me out in love and respect for a fellow brother trying to think Christianly about all of these issues.
Amen to Nathan. I think he said it best in the best spirit. As if voting for evil McCain means I love war and killing people and Palin is stupid but Obama and Biden are saints with 300 IQs. Uh. Um. Uh. Uh. Some people are afraid of the continuation of Obama’s far left votes. Why can’t people be suspicious? I am in Oregon, so we voted against same sex marriage years ago, but that doesn’t mean I am evil. What I read in scripture doesn’t allow me to support these kind of acts.
I read your blog. It’s in my RSS feed. I try to keep an open mind with you because you hold views that in my humble opinion are not Christian yet you’re a youth minister in the church. It’s hard for me to comment anymore. I feel like I can’t keep my composure and a humble, grace-filled heart when I hear some of the things you say. I have tried to become more Christlike in spirit when I comment on blogs and so I tend to stay away from your comment section just so I don’t break my rules.
Adam, I love your heart. I just can’t agree with much of what you wrote today. I am sorry some have chosen to “blast” you on your blog for what you write. You are a child of God no matter what views you hold. But I disagree completely today. May God’s peace be with you brother.
Honestly, I am disappointed in this election. I am disappointed in Americans for voting someone into office based off the nebulous, never-quite-defined promises of “hope” and “change”. I am disappointed that Americans are somehow surprised at the fact that “hope” and “change” have turned into “subjugation” and “more of the same”. I am disappointed that many of the illegal and illicit things that took place during the election were forced into “non-issues” by lack of attention by the media, and lack of caring on the part of the American public. I am disappointed that people were apparently snowed by an articulate, skilled, and proficient speaker… who somehow managed to say almost nothing during the course of his two-year run for President. I am quite disappointed that, to a certain crowd, voting for Obama is somehow the “Christian” thing to do, given his obviously not-so-Christian stances on certain things (granted, McCain is no better, but neither is Obama). I am even more disappointed at the claims of racism being levied at whites who did not vote for him, but somehow blacks voting for him just because of the color of his skin (a common occurrence, whether it was publicized or not) get a pass. I am disappointed that Americans voted a person they know almost nothing about into office, and I am further disappointed that they are surprised concerning the negative things coming up about his past now. I am disappointed that Americans would vote someone so against personal rights, personal responsibilities, and the Constitution itself into the highest elected office in the country.
Does that about answer your question?
Alan, I didn’t see your comment before.
Its a good point you raise when you say it wasn’t just evangelicals who supported Prop 8 but “the LDS made huge contributions, as did the Roman Catholic Church.”
In most eras satire is often the most honest form of journalism, naming painful truths that can’t be otherwise be easily articulated. Prop 8 is no exception, as Stephen Colbert shows in this quite politically incorrect story about the role the African-American vote played in passing this.
But Alan, when you say that you’re “disappointed in the violent reaction of the homosexual community in California,” I’m of two minds. Of course I agree with you on the one hand. Any reaction that is indeed ‘violent’ is lamentable. (Not living there I don’t know: Is there any honest-to-goodness hurting-people violence going on? Or is it simply impassioned protest with a little symbolic destruction thrown in?) But even most pacifists I know delineate between the violence of the oppressor and the violence of the oppressed. It’s just not the same thing when the desperate revolt.
It might be that Tony Campolo’s solution (and I’m sure others) is the only one that will please our divided nation and faith: Get the government out of the ‘marriage’ business altogether, authorizing instead civil unions for all couples desiring them. See ‘marriage’ as the province of one’s faith tradition, letting churches recognize it as each communion sees fit.
Mike, I don’t think there is any “honest-to-goodness hurting-people violence,” but there is vandalism. I will show my hand (in case it wasn’t obvious), and say that I agree with Prop. 8 (for reasons of religion and legal precedence). But, I support the right of its opponents to PEACEABLY protest. It’s the defacing and destruction of property (at least that’s what’s being reported) that people on both sides of the debate need to condemn.
I will agree, however, to some extent with you contention about letting churches define marriage. Christians need to realize that only God defines marriage. If the government started allowing gay, polygamous (another important issue), or whatever other type of marriage, it doesn’t change the fact that there is only one type of marriage defined biblically. This doesn’t mean I want to see anything besides traditional marriage, but that if they do begin to allow some other type of marriage, my faith is not shaken.
Adam… I agree with you 110%. I don’t really have anything else to add, and I’m not really “up” for a debate with the commenters on your blog. Just know, that you’re not alone in your thoughts.
As I look back at the election, I mostly think…phew. Thank God that’s finally over. I mean, seriously, I was spending WAAAY too much time anguishing over poll data. I suppose that’s a better thing for a pastor to look at during office hours than porn or eBay, but it still ain’t what I’m called to do with my dwindling supply of neural tissue.
I’m pretty hopeful, but then again, I’m a centrist. I think that Obama’s inclination will be to run to the center-left, in essentially the same style as Clinton.
Wow - so…I guess there are a few thoughts out there on politics…thank you for those of you who, while completely disagreeing with me, were able to do so in a way that actually compels me to come back and join in some of the conversation, though my comments will be brief.
@Alan, thank you for your thoughts - and you’re right, there were many more groups than just the conservative evangelicals who got behind Prop 8 - and I have corrected my post to reflect that.
@Tyler, I understand that you and I don’t agree on gay marriage and you cite your belief of the inspiration of the Word. I’m okay with that. I have friends who don’t believe in gay marriage. But by voting YES on Prop 8, people were allowing discrimination to be written into the state constitution. These type of Biblical beliefs are understandable, but should not cause other people to not live into their calling by God.
@Nathan, you have a good point - and one that I overlooked in my blog post. You are right to mention that the Black and Latino vote which did go overwhelmingly for Obama - also was a vote that didn’t go for gay marriage. And that makes sense - I think I heard commentators stating that many of the minority groups are more conservative when it comes to issues of marriage, etc. I just wish it wasn’t true. Although - I do have a problem with how you went so quickly from homosexuality to polygamy and incest - a move often done by those who are against gay marriage. To automatically make that move and to imply that homosexuality is on the same level as incest is one that I cannot accept, and one that I’m guessing your gay friends would have issues with as well. Thank you for the tone of your comment, though.
@Big Mike Lewis: Thanks again for your humility in your comment - I do appreciate that. I don’t really know what to say about you thinking I hold view that aren’t Christian. I’m sure that we come from different backgrounds and are definitely at different places theologically - but I’m not sure why that must lead you to think that they aren’t Christian. Why can’t they be Christian - and just not the ‘flavor’ of Christianity you adhere to? Why can’t the body of Christ be more diverse for you? I say this after having spent 3 days with a few fellow Presbyterian pastors the other day who also hold many different opinions than I do theologically, and yet we were able to worship together, pray for and anoint one another and generally engage in conversation and fellowship. I think you and I probably could do that as well, but I’m not sure you would agree.
Thanks for the comments to this post.
One addition I must make: Even though it may have sounded like it, I don’t actually believe Obama is the Christ, the second-coming or the Messiah. I don’t think he will be a perfect President (and he doesn’t think so either). But I do think that he is the right person for our country at this time in our history.
Thanks Adam. I am praying Obama will make good decisions and be protected from harm. Even though I didn’t vote for him he’s my president. My hope lies in God alone.
Wow. What a crazy election year this has been. Ironically, as a lifelong democrat and ultra-liberal, I *did* vote for McCain this year, mostly out of loyalty to the 2000 McCain–one of the most liberal Republicans ever nominated, although I realize you wouldn’t know it from his campaign. (Umm, Adam, can I still be a Christian, please?)
Still, maybe because voting Republican this year was a “one off” thing for me and not the norm, I’m more than happy to come back into the fold and support President Obama, even if I didn’t vote for him. Yeah, I think he’s human. No, I don’t think he (or ANY Republican) could ever be the savior of the country/world/universe. But if God is sovereign (that’s another big assumption, by the way–especially if “sovereign” means “agrees with me”) then Obama is the perfect man for the job and the times.
And I certainly don’t think that McCain would have been any more “pro-life” than Obama, especially when life is viewed in totality, from conception to death, as it should be. Let’s not forget that God (via angel of death in Exodus) might be said to be guilty of infanticide as well.
On this whole Proposition 8 thing, there are intelligent, faithful, God-filled pastors well-versed in scripture on both sides of the issue–I think that to affirm anything less is blasphemy. Nevertheless, a vote is a vote. The will of the majority in California has indeed spoken, and that’s the way democracy works. But Adam also has foresight to realize that democracy and majorities evolve.
I believe that so does the church. If you strip away the idolatry of Greco-Roman Neo-Platonism and its “immutable, unchangeable god/forms” from Christianity then you’re left with a very Jewish Jehovah God who also changes and evolves over time. We used to kill gentiles at the command of God (rather than converting them), but now we love, accept, and welcome them into the faith–without requiring circumcision, I might add. Perhaps God is telling us (through dreams and visions like Peter and Paul) that it’s time to love, accept and welcome our GLBT brothers and sisters into the faith as well–without “circumcising” them. That’s how I read scripture. Holistically, not selectively.
Thanks for your response Adam.
An interesting thing about prop 8 is that many Obama supporters actually voted yes on prop 8.
I’m not sure if anyone pointed that out but I didnt want to read anyones posts, I mean comments.
I think its sad that people have put so much hope in Obama though. It would be awesome if people truly trusted Jesus the way the trust some guy for Illinois because basically Nancy pelosi just wants him to be her yes man. I want to know if the dem congress really wants to do everything Obama wants to do, cause he can only say yes or no to them.
I think it would help if those who want a country based on the Bible rather than the Constitution (it’s sad that judges who are upholding the constitution are activists) would start their own theocracy somewhere else. If you aren’t for a country ruled by law and the constitution, even above the Bible, then you really aren’t for America. We are not a theocracy and were never meant to be. Iran is a Theocracy. So using the same logic as many of the posters here, christians who want a country ruled by the bible are more like iranians than they are like the first americans.
This has actually been pretty widely debunked. While Blacks (and Latinos, to a lesser extent) did support Prop 8 in greater percentages than Whites, the Barack Obama turnout machine had little to do with the passage of Prop 8.
FWIW, deciding that a law goes against the Constitution is NOT judicial activism.
No it is not, at all. Please do some research on the history of sex and the history of marriage.
Not even close. What you mean is that if every person were gay, then there would be no procreation. But you need to understand that natural and prevalent are the not the same thing. And natural does not mean that all, or even most, people are that way. Using your implied definition of natural, you would have to say that being left-handed is not natural.
First off, i know Adam and know he has a beautiful and enriching faith in Christ.Second, We ought not judge people. Our faith is between God and ourselves. i could say the same about some of the commenters here and wonder if they really are Christians. But, that is pointless for me to do, unproductive, and divisive, which Christ is not about at all. Lastly, i am a queer Christ-follower. It really hurts to hear many of the comments here about people like myself.
So now i’d like to share some thoughts for you to ponder and chew on about prop 8, which affects me and my spouse:
1. We are ALL created equal under the Constitution. i pay taxes like everyone else in this damn country. Yet, i am a 2nd class citizen because i cannot marry.
2. To those of you who say just give us civil unions: Civil union rights vary from state to state, if they even have them. Marriage affords couples way more rights and protections than civil unions. Civil unions mean separate but equal.
3. Civil marriages do not need churches to perform them.
4, Yes, there were same sex unions in ‘the olden days’: http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b
4. The Bible was written by imperfect humans inspired by God, yet still fallible and able to miss it. That does not mean there are not truths to be gleaned from the Bible. i am not a literalist when reading the Bible, but that does not mean the stories don’t teach truth. Nowhere in the Bible does it state it is “the INERRANT word of God.”
5. “The majority ruled, so get over yourselves”. So, if we followed this mentality many moons ago, i guess blacks could still be sitting at the back of the bus, women would not be voting, slaves would still be around, and interracial marriages would still be illegal. The Constitution is meant to give freedoms, NOT take away freedoms. Majorities are NOT always right.
6. “Traditional marriage” threatened by gay marriage.” HOW? marriage used to be a contract between a man and the father of the woman he married. Women were property. If you feel threatened, then don’t marry someone of the same sex! Divorce, spousal abuse, spousal murder, etc. are more dangerous are what threatens marriage!
7. Separation of church and state. These churches spent tons of money and told their congregants how to vote on prop 8. REVOKE their tax-exempt status. They lied and said churches would be required to perform gay marriages. NOT TRUE! They lied and said schools would have to teach children about homosexuality. FALSE! We cannot impose religious beliefs on others who may not believe the same things. This is NOT a theocracy.
8. This a civil rights issue. It’s a HUMAN RIGHTS issue. Where is love and inclusion? This is what Jesus spoke about. He never spoke about homosexuality.
9. This vote for Prop 8 is a slippery slope. Your rights could just as easily be put before a vote and taken away too.
10. i don’t come into your bedrooms, so why don’t you all who fight against me and others in the LGBTQ community stay out of our bedrooms. It’s REALLY NONE of your damn business.
Respectfully,
Adele
Marriage is a long-term “family contract” that exists precisely because, in nature, sexually active heterosexuals produce children who have a right to long-term provision and education. The marriage contract therefore protects the material rights of all parties involved in the partnership, especially children. The State has an interest in this issue because this heterosexual relationship is the machinery responsible for producing and educating the citizenry. This reality is concrete and self-evident—it is based on nature, not religion or dogmas.
“Gay marriage,” therefore, is a misnomer, as gay sex does not produce children or the citizenry. So whereas heterosexual marriage is essentially a “family contract,” gay marriage is a “romance contract” or “sexual attractions contract.” Society cannot afford to legally redefine marriage as a romance contract for all, *so long as children and their material rights are at stake.*
Despite the fact that all are equal under the constitution, not every relationship is eligible for marriage. A mother cannot marry a son. A man cannot marry two women. Four college frat buddies cannot marry. Five business partners cannot marry. Two brothers cannot marry. Likewise, two men cannot marry. Nor can two women marry.
Marriage is a social contract for heterosexuals alone *precisely because* their sexuality produces children who have a normative right to long-range care from the people who sired them. Marriage protects the material rights of the children and the woman from material abandonment. Gay sexuality doesn’t procreate people or the citizenry.
Next, this is not a religious issue, it is an issue of nature and society. The State has an interest in the issue because heterosexuality is the machine responsible for creating and educating the citizenry.
Next, we live in a democracy where the majority makes the rules. Period. Every state has the right to make the rules that its citizens agree to live under. There is no better system on earth for organizing a free people. If gays overturn democracy in California by a handful of judges, let’s just go back to having kings and dictators. It’s the same thing.
How is traditional marriage threatened? By redefinition, that’s how. When a legal contract is re-written around an entirely new set of stipulations, that’s serious! By definition, marriage has always been a permanent social contract made between two sexually active heterosexuals arising from the fact that their sex produces children. “No-fault divorce” kills the contract by eliminating its indissolubility/permanence. “Gay marriage” kills the contract by eliminating the very reason for the contract in the first place: children.
Next, if gay marriage becomes legal, why would it be wrong to take 1st graders on field trips to view gay weddings, as they did recently in San Francisco? If gay marriage becomes legal, why not have books for kindergartners that teach a prince can marry a prince (see children’s book: King & King - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_&_King)? If gay marriage becomes legal, how could a church refuse to marry two women or two men without violating discrimination laws? So, the Yes on Prop 8 people were absolutely truthful and correct. This law has massive consequences for families and churches who disagree.
Next, Jesus upheld the righteousness of the Law of Moses, which condemned homosexuality. Also, though Jesus never preached against bestiality and child love, these are also prohibited in Christianity. Romans 1 explains that homosexuality is a confusion of mind, an inability to abide by nature’s intent.
Finally, no one is going into the bedrooms of the LGBTQ community. I don’t think anyone cares what people do behind closed doors, for the most part. People can do what they want in the bedroom. Just don’t call that “marriage.” Remember: marriage isn’t about romance or attraction, it’s a family social contract.
Mr. Manning,
We do not live by majority rule, we live by the law. The courts are written into the constitution to protect all people from the tyranny of any other party, congress, executive branch and/or the majority. Don’t rewrite our Constitution to castrate the power of the court system simply because you do not like it’s decisions. Their charge to ensure that the law is being followed hardly makes them kings or dictators.
Your interpretation of marriage is your opinion but can hardly be held up as absolute. There are many couples who never have children. Should we require people to commit to having children or adopting children and take away their right not to have children? And many couples do adopt, including gay couples, so by your rationale those couples and children should be granted the same rights and privileges of all other citizens.
You resort to the fear card when you talk about schools. Homosexual relationships exist and age appropriate recognition of this fact by schools and society is healthy. You cannot be taught to be gay.
You say it isn’t about religion but then you operate on an assumption that homosexuality is morally and religiously wrong. Your interpretation of Romans 1 takes liberties. The word homosexuality does not exist in Bible. The practices Paul observed, adult men having sex with boys was the most common, are far different than a mutual and consensual relationship.
And if it isn’t about religion then why is this even in the argument?
Churches are protected by the Constitution they wish to disregard. The state cannot dictate who the church marries or what the beliefs are. As a clergy I can refuse to marry heterosexuals who do not meet the standards of the church as I see fit.
Christians need to be pluralistic here. Even Jesus told us to be pluralistic when it comes to government “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” We are fortunate to live in a society that protects our freedom of religion. If we start messing with the freedoms of others in this great country then we may find an increasingly secular majority less tolerant and willing to fight for our freedoms even when they do not agree with them.
So is any “marriage” that does not produce children also a misnomer? And marriage has nothing to do with producing the “citizenry.”
Huh? How does gay marriage have any impact on children’s rights?
Show me where such contract exists for the purpose of producing children. Just because you say something is true doesn’t make it so.
Please. It condemned a LOT of things that none of us have problems with today.
Again, says who?
But further, even IF it is a social contract, you are very wrong when you say that same-sex relationships cannot also have the same social contract.
Mr. Gough, “the law” is created by the majority in a democracy. They are the ones who write laws and govern themselves by majority voting and representative voting. The courts exist merely to interpret what the majority in the legislative branch has said. If judges do anything beyond this, such as overruling the will of the people based on their own whims, we live under a dictatorship of judges, not a democracy of the people. Judges in America do *not* have power to legislate. Judges who do so anyway are acting as dictators, not American judges.
The people of California have determined what the law shall be in that State, enshrining it in their constitution. No one has the legitimate authority to overrule the will of the people. If a panel of judges overrules the will of the people of California from their own personal opinions and no explicit written laws, then that state lives under a dictatorship, not a democracy.
Next, my “interpretation” of marriage is absolute, as it is based on a million years of natural history and anthropology. Also, it is based on the norm of human sexuality as experienced by 98% of human beings throughout all ages. The sexuality of our species is dynamically reproductive and thus requires a social contract for the well-being of the children and the state. To turn marriage into a love-n-romance contract (as gay marriage does) destroys the whole concept of marriage, which exists to create legal protections for the citizenry produced through heterosexual sex. (And by the way, nature itself requires heterosexuals to commit to having children. Our sexuality is wildly procreative by nature — unless we should engage in mass sterilization of males or females, which isn’t going to happen).
As for adoption, we don’t let any social arrangement of humans adopt. We are very selective about which social arrangement is assigned children, since building the most stable and permanent society for the child is of the UTMOST importance. And the most stable and permanent relationship known to humanity for the raising of children is heterosexual marriage. That being the case, the law matters. For example, the foolish creation of “No-fault divorce” in the 1970s was an attack on children, as it destroyed the permanence children require in their first society. Likewise gay marriage destroys marriage via redefinition. Both of these novelties focus on the romantic feelings of adults and not on the rights and protections of children. As a result of the demolition of marriage, children are directly harmed and thrown into chronic chaos and poverty and ruin—without any legal recourse.
Next, I am not “resorting to fear” about schools. Gay activists have for years targeted elementary schools with gay propaganda (See “King & King”). Mayor Newsom of San Fran promotes taking elementary school kids to gay weddings as an educational field trip. This is social re-engineering at its most transparent. Moreover, the gay view of sex education for teens never thinks about the responsibility of raising children. Yet, 98% of humans *must* *MUST* think about the responsibility of raising children. Sex and raising children go hand-in-hand for heterosexuals. The focus on children needs to be foremost in sexual education for heterosexuals. Gay sex is entirely focused on orgasmic pleasure. Totally different focuses there.
Next, the idea that gayness is entirely hard-wired is absurd. The porn industry has disproved this long long ago (as has science, which documents identical twins with different orientations). Sexual desire has a range and can be quite fluid—there is both nature and nurture to our sexual drives. People who self-identify as “straight” can be influenced to get into gay sex, bestiality, and pedophilia. Likewise, people who self-identify as gay can be influenced to settle down and have a family with a partner of the opposite sex. The human will can be activated and influenced and shaped by society, law, and culture.
Next, this issue is not about religion. I simply was rebutting someone else’s claim that Christianity doesn’t condemn homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia etc. Far from being a religious issue, marriage is a legal matter based on the reality that heterosexuality is wildly procreative, producing children who require long-term nurture and education from the people who sired them. That’s what “marriage” means from a natural and anthropological perspective. To redefine it arbitrarily around romance or sexual attractions is nonsense. Who needs legal protections for mere orgasmic pleasures and romances???
Finally, the State can indeed dictate who the Church marries and hires and many other things. The State can do whatever it wants. In Massachusetts, for example, the Catholic Church’s adoption services were entirely forced to shut down because the State mandated that the Catholics *had to by law* place adoptions with gay couples. So, laws matter. They determine what people do in a society. In Canada, clergy and priests are being accused of bigotry and hate for not marrying homosexuals. Discrimination laws will make such “discrimination” punishable by fines and jail time. Clergy will NOT be allowed to oppose the will of the State. And the State, which has the power of law and law enforcement, will use that club to beat the churches into submission (as has been seen time and time again in history).
To Dave:
Statistically speaking, in nature there is no such thing as heterosexuality that doesn’t produce children. And of course heterosexuality produces the citizenry—human beings (the citizenry) don’t drop out of the sky from storks.
I will explain again that marriage is a family contract that came into being to protect the long-range needs and rights of children sired in heterosexual sex activity. That is what marriage is for heterosexuals. Thus, “gay marriage” is a misnomer, for gays do not produce the citizenry, nor does anyone need legal protections for mere sharing of orgasmic pleasure.
Next, the law itself says that marriage is a family social contract. Go sit in on a divorce proceeding of heterosexuals and you’ll find out. There are steep financial penalties for the breach of contract (as there should be), and these reward the victims of the breach so as to protect their material well-being from the contract breaker. None of this applies at all to gays making love.
I can tell we will not reach any agreement here. You claim absolutes that are purely a part of your subjective bias.
Some things to think about for the rest of you:
I am sure those infertile couples out there would not appreciate being told their marriage is invalid because they cannot reproduce.
Homosexuality has existed as early as our written records and probably earlier. Perhaps it does serve a natural function and raising children is the purpose for some but not for others. Homosexual c0uples who adopt offer a great service in raising children that heterosexuals, for a variety of reasons, cannot and do not raise. There is also a population issue. This could be a very natural way to balance population levels and yet provide individuals who use their energies for the benefit of society. Surely you do not believe the only energy that benefits society is that which is used to raise children. Why didn’t Jesus marry and produce children then? or did he?
Marriage also provides a means of intimate companionship that is protected by law and celebrated by society. It is not just romantic or orgasmic as you put it.
Courts have ruled against the majority before, so do you think it was wrong for them to do so? Their role is not to reflect the majority. Their role is to ensure that the majority and the legislature is not violating the fundamentals of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The California Constitution is superseded by the US Constitution and this change should be tested by the courts. And it will be.
oh..and could you provide a link to that scientific study that the porn industry conducted on the genetics of sexuality? I hadn’t heard of that one. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3735668.stm
Mr. Gough,
A million years of heterosexuals producing children who have a right to be raised and cared for by the people who sired them is not “subjective bias.” It’s natural biology and anthropology.
About infertile couples. Infertility is a medical-physical handicap and doesn’t overthrow 99.999% of fertile humans. Countries make contracts or and legal policies around the rule of something, not the rare exceptions to the rule.
You are right that homosexuality has existed forever. But homsexuality has always been infertile forever, too, which is why no contract arose around homosexuality. There is no need for a contract when two gays have sex. There is a need for a contract when two heterosexals have sex, as they will produce children who require a life of care and education from the people who sired them.
As a society, it makes no sense to look to other “alternative” human relationships to raise families— a childcare company, three business partners, or three gay men—when a million-year-long social contract already exists for that precise purpose. Nature itself assigned heterosexuals the task of producing and educating the citizenry. Nature made a call here, and societies simply comply with it because such takes place at a 99% rate. Gays have simply *not* received the historical or genetic circumstances for taking on that role. In this case, biology is destiny.
Finally, marriage is not and never has been a companionship contract. If it was, than a father and son could marry, three college roommates could marry, a board of directors could marry, a grandmother and her grandchildren could marry. Rather, marriage is a family contract based upon the biological certainty that heterosexuality produces babies who require decades-long care and education from the people who sired them.
Technically, courts are not allowed to overrule any legislation unless one piece of democratically produced legislation explicitly and directly contradicts another piece of democratically produced legislation in the same state laws. The fact that many judges have begun making decisions based on *personal opinion* and not on explicit prior legislation is a slide into dictatorship and a slide away from democracy.
Since the Constitution and the Bill of Rights say nothing about marriage, it’s up to each state to decide how it will govern this issue itself. And, as you know, the federal constitution *can* be amended/updated via a legislative democratic process (thus the brilliance of our founding fathers). If gay marriage is to exist in our country, let it be the people who decide it. Let’s not become a dictatorship.
Of course… as I am sure that you already know, this social contract that you speak of is a relatively new phenomenon in history.
Dave: Of course… as I am sure that you already know, this social contract that you speak of is a relatively new phenomenon in history.
T.R. Manning: Wrong, dave. The contract has been implicit for a million years. For example, when two people in a society come together and have a child, is that child my child? Is it your child? Am I expected to raise it for the next 20 years? Are you expected to raise it for the next 20 years? No. No. No. And no. Society intuitively knows that the people who had sex are responsible for their child—and it is THEIR child. They belong to the child and the child to them.
In the eyes of society, the people who sired the baby together are tasked with the responsibility of caring for and educating that child. This implicit reality is made explicit and legal by the marriage contract.
As we see from this discussion, marriage has nothing to do with gay sexuality, and gay sexuality has nothing to do with marriage. “Gay marriage” is a misnomer. If it can be show that gays in high numbers require some kind of social contract of their own, let one evolve around their circumstances. But don’t use the marriage contract, which doesn’t apply at all.
Actually, not. It was not “the people” that were tasked with the responsibility of caring for and educating that child. It was the mother. While the father went to marry other women, sleep with other women who were not his wives, and have little responsibility of caring for and educating that child. It was the mother.
If you are going to use the “million years” argument, does that mean that all men should be allowed to marry multiple wives?
Hey Dave,
In the eyes of society, the father was always *expected* to gather food, create shelters, and fight off warring tribes for the mother and the children, as the mother could never do this while nursing and raising 2, 5,even 8 kids. The failure of each party to fulfill his/her respective role equalled destitution and even extinction. Today, destitution is the common result of cohabitation and divorce, so far as the women and children are concerned. So, we continue to need strong marriage law.
Again, marriage exists to provide the material needs of women and children. That implicit expectation I have described that has always existed was made explicit and legal by the marriage contract. That’s what marriage is. Even if we removed all laws from society today, people would still intuitively expect that two heterosexuals that have a baby are responsible for that baby’s long-term care and provision. Never would society intuit that two heterosexuals can have babies and just hand them off to the neighbor. Never.
Marriage is hard-wired into heterosexuality via biological and anthropological realities that we can’t change.
So lets sum this up, so you don’t have to keep saying the same thing over and over and over again. You believe that marriage only exists for procreation, and in turn caring for children. Right?
And same-sex couples have no ability to procreate or care for children.
Of course, you are dead wrong about each point, but that sums them up well, right?
Dave, I think you’ve pretty much summed up his position. But he is right about one thing. Ultimately, the Constitution can be changed by the majority. Sadly, California did not see this as an issue needing a 2/3 majority as our Federal Constitution would. Statistics clearly show the majority moving more liberal on this issue. So my question to you Mr. Manning, when the majority finally does support gay marriage what will you say then?
(and saying that the majority spoke already is not right, the majority is fluid and so can change it’s mind anytime and vote as many times as it likes)
For those who doubt the violence that has resulted from these anti-prop 8 protests, you should read this article. Regardless of your feelings on this debate, such violence is always unacceptable.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/11/18/proposition-8-protests-turn-violent-is-that-necessary/
To Dave and Mr. Gough:
Marriage exists because of procreation—namely, because children produced by heterosexuals have material needs and a normative right to provisions from the people who sired them. The need for the contract emerges out of the fact that children and women are at risk of material destitution as a result of heterosexual sex acts. The contract therefore ensures their material protections under penalty of law for breach of contract. (Gay adults have no such similar circumstance or material risk. They don’t produce babies, they don’t have material risk.)
Finally, if ever a majority does support gay marriage in the U.S., I will say that’s the law of the land. So, yes, while that gay definition of “marriage” will have no protections of children or women arising from procreation, it will still be the law of the land. And children and women will be the ones materially harmed by such laws (as is already the case with “no-fault divorce” laws).
And, any society whose laws don’t ensure the material care and discipline of new populations will weaken and decay until a stronger and more ethical society moves in and takes it over.
@T.R. — you’re not married, are you?
By your reasoning in your last comment, I’m guessing you think that Greece and Rome must have been a pretty ethical societies, since they lasted for so long. Oh, and the Vandals and Visigoths who sacked Rome must have been even more ethical, right?
Don’t worry. Had you lived at that time, you would have made a good eromenos…
Hey Locke,
All married couples know *experientially* the truth of what I’m saying. In fact, divorced women and cohabitating women know the truth of what I’m saying even more. They and their children are being devastated by their unscrupulous sexual partners, and they have no legal recourse whatsoever. The loss of traditional marriage as a preeminent social contract has doomed the masses to cycles of chronic poverty and single-parent exhaustion—again, with no legal recourse or protections.
As for national ethics, I’m not speaking of some sort of mystical ethics magic. I’m talking about concrete social policies and their direct results/consequences. When a society begins mass producing neglected, abandoned, beggarly, delinquent, and dropout populations, that society is doomed to the dustbin of history, and nothing can save it.
Such weak nations make easy conquests for stronger more orderly societies. Survival of the fittest.
This web site is a perfect example of why I find Christianity boring. Adam, why are you a Christian? Your views lack anything distinctively Christian. They sound basically like a warmed over version of the elite liberal academy. Why not just give up the facade and become a secular humanist or even an atheist with moral convictions?
Like I said, T.R., you’re not married, are you?
Of course I’m married. But I suspect you might not be.
And my final comment to Mr Gough is this: In matters of democratic governance, whatever the majority determines to be the law is what’s “right,” whether we personally agree with it or not. Do you know of some cosmic rule book I don’t know about, by which the “rightness” of laws is decided???
Cheers, everyone. Over and out.
ok I thought I was done with tennis match but…
Why Mr. Manning, yes I do, it’s in the Declaration of Independence…Inalienable Rights or natural rights. However, I concur that there has to be a way to decide what those are but they are not always what the majority wants them to be. So it puts us in a dilemma of discerning those natural rights and by what basis. However, the democratic theory of natural rights has to hold that a right given to one must be given to all. I think the Bill of Rights does a pretty good job at this.
Marriage hardly protects children’s rights. Parents who stay together often do not support their child’s education, abuse their children, exploit their children, neglect them, etc. How does marriage guarantee anything? It does not. Marriage is a social construct. What you are talking about is parenting. Two people who create a child are not automatically married. Marriage is something that society creates and establishes and sets standards for. It has to be enforced by society.
And in California, as i n most states, if you father a kid and do not marry then you pay child support whether you get to see your kid or not. You are not forced to be married but you are forced to take care of the financial needs of that kid. And yes, there are cases when parents should not be allowed to keep their kids, for the safety of that kid.
This is why I do not understand your dismissal of adoption. Adoption is vital to any well functioning society and the ability for parents to pass their inheritance rights to children who they did not physically create is essential to a society being able to overcome the shortcomings of those who neglect their duty.
I would also argue that allowing gay marriage is contributing to a more orderly society. It encourages stability in relationships and healthier behavior and self-image. It does not infringe on anyone’s rights, it allows our energy to be spent on things far more beneficial, ie., ending poverty.
Ok I’m done. How about we debate this:
Why aren’t the churches spending as much money, time, and energy on ending poverty as they are on banning gay marriage?
Mr. Gough,
The Constitution/Bill of Rights says not a thing about marriage. It’s therefore a states-rights issue, and California decided what the law shall be for Californians—marriage is between men and women. End of discussion. There is no cosmic rule book of the universe that says they are wrong. Sorry.
Next, marriage protects children’s rights by ensuring under penalty of law that children will be parented and provided for, and not abandoned, by the people who sired them. That’s the legal force of marriage law. The vast majority of parents who stay married do indeed provide for the material and educational care of their children, at least up to their 18th birthday. In cases where the parents divorce, or where no marriage contract is in place to begin with, full abandonment of children by one or more parents has reached epidemic proportions! So, marriage laws are quite effective in preventing this. Remember, a spouse who breaches the marriage contract becomes materially liable and must pay reparations/compensation to the children and spouse. That protects the woman and children.
You are right about child support, but that does not help the woman’s career loss, or the fact that she will now have to work full time and leave the kids with no one. Moreover, child support came into being when society realized that the popularity of no-fault divorce left children without any protections. Moreover, when the man remarries a new woman, he now must provide for two sets of families by law . This economic burden is unsustainable and results in personal bankruptcy.
As for “gay marriage,” I see no reason that gays need a legal contract. What exchange would the contract entail? What penalties would be enforceable for breach of contract? What would constitute breach of contract? There is simply no tangible reason for a contract for gay people.
Finally, you asked why churches aren’t spending money/time/energy on poverty? They are. In addition, poverty’s primary causes are illegitimacy and divorce. So, a strong marriage policy is the No. 1 cure for poverty in America. Juan Williams of NPR has written an entire book on this cure. Look it up: Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America — and What We Can Do about It
I think there are two issues at play here. I’ll deal with the easier one first. While I’m completely in favor of giving LGBT the right to marry, if religious sticklers are going to have cows over it, we need to be consistent. Forgive me for repeating myself - here is more detail - one way to this consistency is what Tony Campolo proposes:
“I propose that the government should get out of the business of marrying people and, instead, only give legal status to civil unions. The government should do this for both gay couples and straight couples, and leave marriage in the hands of the Church and other religious entities. That’s the way it works in Holland: If a couple wants to be united in the eyes of the law, whether gay or straight, they go down to city hall and legally register, securing all the rights and privileges a couple has under Dutch law. Then, if the couple wants their relationship blessed – to be married – they go to a church, synagogue or other house of worship.
Marriage should be viewed as an institution ordained by God and should be out of the control of the state…homosexual couples could go to churches that welcome and affirm gay marriage and get their unions blessed there…isn’t that the way it should be in a nation that guarantees people the right to promotion religion according to their personal convictions?”
Now here’s the tougher (and longer) matter: what of LGBT relationships themselves? How ought people of faith process them? This is a re-post of something I wrote for a discussion forum months ago:
This issue remains a ‘flashpoint’ in the culture wars, and a kind of barometer for spiritual/theological/generational differences these days. It’s not just dividing culture, but historic denominations and churches.
How to relate? Responses to this question hurt so many people coming from so many places. Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people feel marginalized, sidelined, and un-loved. Those who hold to (what they see as) ‘traditional morality’ often feel just as unloved, like they’re the last minority that it’s okay to openly mock and ridicule…this must be the ‘curse of political correctness’ that I hear a person or two responding to in this thread.
I grew up in quite the politically/theologically conservative home. It was a great home, very loving and supportive. And I had pretty much the default fundamentalist/evangelical cultural opinion of homosexual persons, which on it’s most charitable days was a variation of “God loves you just the way you are, but He loves you too much to let you stay there.”
All of this was strongly challenged a few years ago when a friend and mentor of mine, 30 years my senior, began reexamining his own rather entrenched views on the matter. This author and traveling minister had, in the space of one month, two church elder friends of his and one on-fire-for-God missionary niece come out of the closet! These weren’t ‘backslidden’ people, but rather people in the prime of their spiritual lives dealing with this at time confusing orientation. My friend didn’t know what to do with this, so he took it to Father in prayer for a season. In the meantime, it was like a whole new world was opened up to him: LGBT Christians, confused about their sexuality, trying counseling, nonmarried celibacy, ‘deliverance’ sessions and more to make their orientation conform to their theological beliefs - with a 0% success rate. People whom Jesus had delivered from many other addictions, problems, and hang-ups in life…what to do about this apparently immovable object?
My friend didn’t come to any hard-and-fast conclusions regarding the ‘meta’ of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in this case. He simply decided what we *all* need abundant grace to make it, and that he’d make himself available to LGBT Christians (and non) in a ministry capacity. It was then that the invitations started rolling in. Evangelical and charismatic gay and lesbian congregations all over the country began getting wind of this preacher of grace who was not offended by what he didn’t understand, who longed to hear a message - not about how their sexual orientation was ‘okay’ - they were adults who would wrestle with God on that one on their own - but someone who would treat them like beloved human beings and share the riches of Christ. I wouldn’t be shocked if there are a plethora of MyChurch members who wrestle with questions of orientation and once again sink in despair at it being treated like a ‘topic.’
With this said, what follows is not an attempt to change anyone’s mind about the sinfulness or blessedness of homosexual orientation and practice. We all have our perspectives, and they change like glaciers, not ice cubes. Rather, I want to lay out in as concise a manner as possible my own readings, prayer, and reflection in this these past few years, showing essentially four different options people of faith have in this regard. I’m pretty sure we all fall into one of these four understandings. My goal in showing them in a descriptive, matter-of-fact manner is to humanize all four perspectives, so that we don’t demonize one another.
By way of a quick prelude: I will not be handling any Old Testament passages that describe or seem to describe homosexual activity as an ‘abomination.’ That is because these very same passages (as God Hates Shrimp humorously points out) describe many other things as ‘abominations,’ our English translations belying the fact that this word simply denotes that which is cultically unacceptable to the ritual purity of set-apart Israel. So I will exclusively look at the three New Testament passages, which all happen to be by Paul (Jesus doesn’t mention homosexuality in the Gospels). I’m not even going to go into Paul’s passages in-depth, but they’re the ones in I Corinthians 6, Romans 1 and 1 Timothy 1:10.
The four options, as I’ve seen them, is as follows:
1.) Paul *is* addressing contemporary homosexual orientation/practice and this *does* matter
2.) Paul *is* addressing contemporary homosexual orientation/practice and this *doesn’t* matter
3.) Paul *isn’t* addressing contemporary homosexual orientation/practice and that *does* matter
4.) Paul *isn’t* addressing contemporary homosexual orientation/practice and it *doesn’t* matter
1.) This is the standard view in most evangelical churches as well as the official Roman Catholic and East Orthodox perspective. In essence, our English translations of ‘homosexual’ in the NT are to be trusted and affirmed as addressing precisely the same kind of homosexual orientation and activity as we see today among monogamous and non-married homosexual persons. Because Scripture is inspired and profitable for teaching, we should see this as prescriptive for moral and Godly living today, teaching it accordingly.
2.) Paul is talking about contemporary homosexual orientation/action, but it’s up to us, the Church, to decide whether this is binding for today. Now lest you think this is an option only for hippie-dippy liberal revisionists, think again: The church *always* interprets Scripture for today. The evangelical church, for instance, decided that was Jesus told one guy (Nicodemus) about being ‘born again’ was binding on all people everywhere, whereas what he told another guy (the rich young ruler) about selling all possessions and giving them to the poor was virtually never applicable! We’ve also decided that Peter’s admonition of women not to wear braids or jewelry because of sinful pride was culturally-conditioned and temporary, as is Paul’s admonition of women to wear head-coverings, even though he seems to appeal to some pretty cosmic and universal principles for doing so. In the same manner, some good Christian people (and churches) conclude that Paul was simply mistaken about homosexual orientation & practice, or that his teaching was culturally-appropriate for his era but actually harmful and contrary to the Gospel for ours. We the Church are always ‘binding an loosing’ interpretations of our Holy Writ…an awesome and wonderful responsibility.
3.) Many biblical scholars puzzle over the actual meaning of arsenokoitai, the Greek word Paul used which is translated from King James on as ‘homosexuals.’ (See explanation) In short, many think that Paul is writing about pedastry - man-boy love - and temple prostitution where otherwise ’straight’ people become ‘gay for a day’ (only not really) to engage in debasing pagan rituals. So Paul is in fact, according to this perspective, writing about the primacy of love and consideration, and against harmful idolatry. 2,000 years of translation later and we lose sight of context and original intent. Most sociologists agree that contemporary loving, monogamous homosexual orientation didn’t even exist until relatively contemporary times…therefore we are dealing with, strictly speaking, an ‘extra-biblical’ phenomenon that should, perhaps, be looked at through a different lens than seemingly ‘obvious’ passages in Scripture. We should instead appeal to Jesus and Paul’s clear teaching on love, freedom and liberty of conscience, while upholding healthy Christian standards of monogamy and sexuality that we’d encourage anyone of *any* orientation to keep as best as possible.
4.) Number 4 is a bit of a non-sequitur, as I think you can see. : )
My personal .02: I think it’s possible to hold any of these four (really three) perspectives with love and integrity, shining Christ’s life into everyone we meet. I also think it’s possible to hold any of these with pride, fear, and hostility, using them as battering rams to force those who disagree into feeling marginalized, sinful, and ‘less than.’ One of the things I’ve appreciated about certain trends emerging expressions of faith is that people who hold to all three of the above (and yes, there are plenty of ‘emergers’ who hold to #1) can peacefully coexist and even encourage one another.
I used to advocate for Tony Campolo’s plan. I just don’t see that as realistic (that’s a whole lot of marriage lawbooks to change) and they would squawk about that too. I think it better for the state to give the same marriage rights. However, nothing can stop the church from proclaiming that their church only performs their own definition of Christian marriage. They could call it “true Christian Marriage” or whatever satisfies them. Many already believe they are the true way to God and are quite proud of themselves for doing so.
The church already does this. It won’t, for instance, marry two Buddhists. The state doesn’t make them. They’d have to dance around the 1st amendment to do so. And some churches would marry gays and some wouldn’t. Let the churches make the distinction, not the state.
I don’t want to live in Mr. Manning’s world. I don’t know if I’m reading him right but it’s a world where every couple who has a child is forced to marry and divorce is criminalized? What is one to the married man who has a child with another woman?
He seems convinced hetrosexual marriage is the key to fixing all of our problems if we only enforced it more. Should the government police marriage?
Marriage is a social construct in a chaotic world. There is no reason why society cannot adjust that construct.
To Mr. Morrell, it’s not a religious issue. It’s a children’s safety and provisions issue. Marriage is a legal contract that ensures the protection and education of children mass produced by the billions via heterosexuals.
To Mr. Gough: you already live in “my world,” as OUR world has legal contracts everywhere, and they exist to protect the material rights of people and children. Sadly, my sense in talking with you is that you never even knew that marriage was a contract. Even worse, perhaps you don’t know anything about contract law, and why it matters to humanity. As a result, my points appear to fall prey to your ignorance.
To conclude my comments, contracts are *necessary* for heterosexuals because they mass produce children by the billions, and these children require decades of material provisions, care, and education. The only way for humanity to effectively and constructively manage this procreative fact of our existence is to enter the marriage contract, which was designed because of the procreative fact of heterosexuality. It’s so self-evident and concrete as to hardly need explaining. Yet, sadly, there are many uneducated members of society who think marriage is a mere romance contract—and one that can be dissolved at any time without penalty. What an educational crisis! Think of the infants and children, and you will understand what the marriage contract is and does for society.
Despite your ignorance, it is a fact that mos