Unfortunately, I accidentally published this last night. I meant to sleep on it and think it over before deciding to publish it. So those of you with RSS feeds already saw this, although I made a few minor changes. When I originally wrote it, I wasn't sure if I was ever going to publish it, but since it is already "out there" here it is...
I was thinking about this particular issue the other day, and it kept me up all night.
When that happens, I know I have to blog about it! I almost never get political, and this is actually not a political post. I only want to clarify two fallacies I believe people make in their thinking about this issue.
The first argument I generally hear in favor of gay marriage is that it is patently unfair to give some people the legal benefits of marriage and not others. That Constitutionally, we all should be treated exactly the same.
This argument sounds logical on its face, but there is a problem if you really stop and think about it. By saying everyone should be given the legal status of marriage if they desire it, you are opening the door to any and all situations. Should a brother and sister be allowed to marry? What about two women and a man? What about four sisters? What about a mother and her daughter? What about a man and his dog? If it is indeed patently unfair to deny marriage benefits to some, then these people should not be denied either.
I know some of you are having the knee-jerk, How dare you compare homosexuality to incest or bestiality! reaction. I am not comparing them, I am simply coming up with a variety of situations that can make the same "fairness" argument. Play at home. Come up with your own situations.
Now if you think one or more of these examples is over the line and the state should not recognize a marriage in that particular case, then you believe there is a point at which some will be denied the benefits of marriage. Our quibble then becomes over where the line should be drawn. And since marriage was instituted by God, I figure He should get to define it. Not me. Not you. Not four judges. It's His creation, His definition. Let Him draw the line.
The second common fallacy is the false "either - or" conundrum. Generally it is expressed as, Well since heterosexual marriage fail at a 50% rate, we're not doing such a good job upholding the sanctity of marriage. We might as well recognize gay marriage since we are doing such a crummy job of it. Basically it's: Either we do this marriage thing perfectly (or pretty darn close) or we accept gay marriage.
But this is a false proposition. Where do we apply this anywhere else in life? Either Western medicine provides infallible solutions to our health problems or we elevate Voodoo to an acceptable form of health care. Either I am a perfect person who never screws up as a parent or I cannot instruct my child in the ways of right and wrong. Either our church practices Christianity perfectly and is full of perfect Christ-followers or we have no business telling others Jesus is the only way to a relationship with God.
Yes, we screw up the institution of marriage. We have come nowhere near doing it right! Is the church somewhat to blame? Sure! We do not honor marriage the way we should. We do not provide all the resources we should. We do not have the expectations we should. Generally, we as a people, suck at marriage.
But so what? What does that have to do with recognizing gay marriage as legitimate? Nothing. That we fail at maintaining a high standard does not mean the standard should be tossed.
I believe we have missed a very important point in all of this. God instituted marriage on day one of human existance. It was the first institution He put into place. Before worship, sacrifices, the law, or any other practice He devised.
He painted an unmistakable picture of His love for us. He wanted to show us in terms we could understand how devoted and committed He is to us. He is faithful to the very end of time. He wants to be intimately aware of who we are. He will never leave us or forsake us. He loves us with an undying love. He uses the marriage analogy time and again in scripture. We are His bride! He wants to be our husband. He has set up the roles in marriage to mirror our relationship to Him. Marriage is His best and most perfect analogy of the kind of relationship He wants with us.
We have screwed up His picture.
But His ideal remains. If the church could really dive deep into just what marriage is and why marriage was instituted by God, they would see that clearly, anything outside of what God set up, muddies the picture He is providing for us.
Perhaps we have erred in letting the state have a hand it what rightfully belongs to God. I don't know. I think churches/God should be who gets to define marriage. But then you run into the problem of each church coming up with its own definition. Perhaps a church somewhere will sanction a man marrying a herd of cattle. These kind of haphazard "marriages" would ultimately result in the disintegration and rejection of marriage altogether. We have only to look at the post-marriage society of Europe to see where that leads. Europe as we know it is literally dying and will be replaced by Muslim culture in the space of a generation. I love our country and our civilization too much to see it die. The only way I see to preserve marriage in our society is to have the state sanction it. Yet having the state involved in the province of religious decisions is very problematic. While some would say we should get out of the legislating morality business and allow God to change individual hearts. But in the meantime... I just don't know.
But above all, I do know that the beauty of marriage belongs to God. The enemy would love nothing more than to mess up His metaphor, distorting our view of a loving, sacrificial God. So he messes with our marriages and he messes with our definitions...
I know some will see this as a hate-filled anti-gay post. It is nothing of the sort. God wants that intimate, marriage-like, love relationship with every person - gay or straight. He loves each one of us, sent His son to die for each one of us. He wants each one of us for His bride, if we will but choose to follow Him.
So I am following Him, loving my husband and obeying Him as I obey Christ. He is loving me as Christ loved the church. For now, that's all I can do...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

11 comments:
There is a difference between a civil marriage and a religious marriage. One is the business of God, the other is the state. I think you are conflating them.
If you don't believe in same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. It is that simple.
Many people believe in same sex marriage. They do not see it as simple a "desire" that should be honored. Instead, they view same sex relationships to be equal to heterosexual relationships. There is no slippery slope for them.
People will disagree on this issue. However, usually when there is a disagreement, especially one where people claim God is on there side, Western civilization usually accommodates liberty for both sides to keep and practice their opinion.
Nobody is advocating an end to opposite sex marriage. The two can coexist. Look at Canada. Look at Massachusetts.
Anonymous - have a backbone and put your name on your post. Let people know who you are and what you stand for - don't hide behind the veil of anonymity!
I disagree with you completely. There is a difference between same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage. It is defined in the Bible and it is defined in our laws. Our codified laws were established based on the Judeo-Christian values that were held by the founding fathers of our Western Civilization. In that, the principle of marriage being defined from God's law (Old Testament/Tanakh). It is no different from the laws codes that define murder, theft, libel, slander, etc.. these codes or laws were set up to keep moral order in our society.
Unfortunately, there is a special interest group that is seeking to establish a change to that founding principle. A change to the very definition of the word marriage. Not a clarification, a re-definition. The whole idea that is based on our American principle of liberty. Unfortunately, we also have a group of nominal Christians & Jews that are feeling that there is no difference between what God says is right and what humans are saying is right. WHAT? Yes, God followers are second guessing their own God. Trying to water down the truth to make it more acceptable for society today - as if society is too stupid to understand Gods rules.
Just because you believe something doesn’t make it the truth. It isn’t a matter of belief that same sex marriage exists – it does – it is a matter of not SUPPORTING it. Your argument that a desire should be honored is scary. I know a pedophile, he desires to abuse children – can he borrow yours… I know an abusive husband who desires to beat his wife – you willing to support that? How about a tax evader – should that desire be supported? Or someone who desires to speed on the freeway, in the wrong direction – Your argument is illogical.
The assertion that people “claim God is on there (sic) side” is also false – God is on the side of what is right, wholesome and pure. Heterosexuality, as God set it up is RIGHT – Homosexuality or any aberration of sexuality is sin and that is WRONG.
For too long now the church is calling sin, “not God’s best” in an attempt to make it more palatable for today’s peace-loving, freedom endorsing, liberty embracing society. Stop it. It is wrong.
And finally, I can’t let your comment about looking to Canada for moral integrity. Give me a break! Canada is bureaucratic despotism run amok. Canada is ok with all same-sex stuff as well as polygamy – You admire them so much, go there. Oh, wait, I guess if California continues its current path, it will be just like Canada eventually. That turns my stomach.
By the way, thankfully our Federal Government will not recognize same-sex marriages.
hhhhmmmmmmmmm.........I am going to say thank you to Rick for getting to the point and the heart of the issue. Pleeaasssseeeee dont come on here and say we as christ follwers think God is on our side. It's his law, his truth, his desire. We have a choice to serve him and so essentially we are on "his side."
oh and Canada? Seriously?
Hey Michelle,
Thanks for sharing, and thanks for commenting over at my blog, too. When I saw it in my RSS feeder and saw you took it down, I was kinda wondering why.
There are things you say that I agree with, and some that I disagree with. Surprise! ;)
But I think you really get to the heart of it for me. It's a church and state question for me. I think we feel the same way about it theologically and morally. For me the question is whether, in our current cultural context, it's really worth the POLITICAL fight for me. But we do need to continue to teach the truth of God's Word in our churches.
Problem is, while God may have instituted it, now marriage is more a government issue in many respects, culturally. And there is no way they are going to get it right without Christ. So do we try to take it back completely (unrealistic in my opinion) or do we work to protect the sanctity of it within our Christian community. So it's not an either/or, you're right, but most of our churches, all the good ones anyway, aren't trying to marry homosexuals. So let's put more energy into protecting the marriages that exists.
that was longer than I planned. And when I see you sometime, I'll have to share a story with you about the incest argument. Not a blog comment type of story. But I think I might see you at Rick's house in a couple weeks.
Bobby: Well put.
Michelle: They do have silly accents, but some of my best friends are Canadian. Not a bad people.
Rick:
Anonymity has been a pillar of political speech since the pen, and embraced by our forefathers. (And by Michelle in her Blogger settings.)
First, I feel your post attempts to shut down real interfaith dialog happening on the blog. Your statements suggest your faith has a monopoly on morality, as if the Atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus would rape and pillage if it wasn’t for Judeo-Christian values.
Second, I am not sure you read my post right. I presented no religious arguments and I said supporters DO NOT see it as a “desire” to be honored.
Nonetheless, your arguments against liberty invoke a slippery slope. Slippery slopes sound reasonable, but when you examine them, they tend to unravel. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a balancing act. You say without Judeo-Christian limits, there is nothing stopping men from beating wives and so forth. However, in the cases you present, liberty limits liberty. Liberty of the wife protects her from violence. Liberty of all drivers dictates the necessity of traffic laws. Taxes, while most Libertarians will say taxes are too high, to outright avoid them is to steal from the citizens, an attack against their liberty.
These are similar to the slippery slope examples of bestiality and man-child marriages. Consent is at the heart of a Libertarian argument. Animals and children cannot consent. Without consent there is a violation of liberty.
In an interesting bit of history, it the modern rights movements that have increased the age of consent and animal rights over the last century. If anything, we have been moving farther away from possibility of child marriage and bestiality.
It is the women’s rights movement that outlawed marital rape and domestic violence. The movement removed inequality of the genders in our modern civil marriages. This social change, made in the last century, is the precedent led us to this heated debate.
What about polygamy? Polygamy is so far from our civil marriage laws, there would have to be structural changes to the entire legal framework to account for polygamist relationships. Not to mention, even polygamists would disagree on what the legal institution a polygamist civil marriage would look like. To say that we are one gay marriage from polygamy, as a slippery slope implies, is outright unrealistic.
What about changing the legal framework to accommodate same-sex couples? Actually, the only thing that has changed is the terminology bride/groom. Nothing structurally has changed since our civil marriage laws already are gender neutral. Again, the radical change happened years ago in the name of women’s rights.
Last but not least, Canada? Evil? Really? Are you not a hockey fan? Did you have a bad experience with a mounty? My point was simply that Canada and Massachusetts have not plummeted into chaos since same-sex marriage.
Anonymous - Coward. No wonder you like Canada.
Love the discussion. I never made the "slippery slope" argument. I actually don't like that one. What I argued is that if you or a judge or I redefine marriage for the very first time in all of human history, then ANYONE can redefine marriage. You may want to just tweak the definition or add a few additional situations, but by allowing marriage to be redefined AT ALL, you may end up with a definition you don't like! That's why I argue God gets to define it. If He changes His mind, He can let us know!
First, I think if you read most religious texts and history books on marriage, you will find marriage has been defined differently throughout civilization. I’m not sure what you are considering a tweak or a real difference. Personally, I think wives not being considered property is a huge change. Polygamy has definitely been around forever, and still exists today. You might believe polygamy is not as God intended, but it doesn’t change the fact has and does exist in civilization.
Which brings me two some questions…
If a couple of your faith exchange vows in a church by a church official, but they neglect to fill out a marriage certificate, are they considered married by God?
If two heterosexual atheists sign a civil marriage certificate in a non-religious ceremony, are they considered married by God?
My point is there is a difference between religious marriage and civil marriage. Only religion can define religious marriage. Only the state can define civil marriage.
If you are arguing that they should be merged, then I think you have to justify why your religion should speak for everyone under state law. (You mentioned in your original post that religions would disagree and you could come up all kinds of marriages if EVERY religion defined marriage for itself.)
However, at this point we are probably not getting much further in our conversation. I, like Bobby, think civil and religious marriage can coexist. It is what allows religious freedom from the state. Many people on this blog do not.
Thanks for the dialog.
People should read this.
Post a Comment