To begin with it's an inaccurate term. Gay people can already get married, just not to each other. The real term is "Same-Sex Marriage." It may seem like I am nit-picking here, but proper terminology is very important in these kinds of discussions.
Obviously, my post is timed to address the recent developments in the "same-sex marriage" debate. In case you have been living in a media-free zone the last 2-3 days...I will recap.
1) Vice-President Biden came out last Sunday strongly in favor of gay marriage.
2) The New York Times ran an article on Tuesday (an election day with a marriage amendment on one ballot) about how popular and not controversial gay television characters have become.
3) An amendment to affirm traditional marriage passed in North Carolina on Tuesday by a wide margin (61-39).
4) President Obama chimed in yesterday as he revealed in an interview that after some “evolution” he has “concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”
And so, with all of these recent headlines, I wanted to take a moment and chime in on the issue. I want to start with a few paragraphs from blogger Rod Dreher (he incorrectly uses the term of gay marriage but its worth the overlook):
The main reason for my despair on the gay marriage question is not that I lie awake in bed at night worrying that somewhere, some same-sex couple is going to be happy. That has not the least thing to do with it. What makes me despair is not same-sex marriage itself, but rather two things:
1) that it marks a major milestone in the loss of Christian truth, as expressed in culture, which I believe means a deep turning away from the Truth of the human person — a turning away that will have grave consequences; and
2) under the US Constitutional order, the freedom of Christians (and other religious believers) to live out what we believe to be true about the human person will not be tolerated, with grave consequences for our own liberties, and ultimately our souls.
The reason gay marriage is so widely accepted by young Americans is not because the media have propagandized them (though it is certainly the case that the media have played a significant role in normalizing it), but because same-sex marriage follows naturally from what young Americans already believe about sex, intimacy, love, liberty, and the nature of the human person. Same-sex marriage logically follows from these convictions, which are ubiquitous in contemporary American culture. This is what it means to live in a post-Christian world.
To be perfectly clear: I think the mainstream is very wrong about these things! But I don’t see any prospect that the Christian view is going to prevail anytime soon. Many Christians don’t even believe it anymore. This cultural — indeed civilizational — moment has been a long time coming.
If I thought there was nothing to be done but surrender, I wouldn’t even bring this stuff up. My sense is that we Christians and other traditionalists had better plan for resistance in the long run. My fear is that by focusing so many of our resources on fighting for ground we’ve already lost, we will have left ourselves unprepared to build the structures and strategies we are going to need to pass on what we know to be true to future generations in a culture, legal and otherwise, that is going to be ever more hostile to those beliefs.
Remember, hope is not the same thing as optimism. I am not even slightly optimistic about any of this. I am trying to find reasons to be hopeful. God knows I am grateful for any political victories these days, but until and unless orthodox Christians and other traditionalists start winning more fundamental hearts-and-minds victories, any political wins will evaporate very quickly.
A couple of points now on my thoughts and this article:
1) Being attracted to members of the same sex is probably a genetic proclivity, similar to what those predisposed towards alcoholism experience.
2) Having a proclivity towards a behavior does not mean that one must or should act in accordance with those urges. There are lots of comparisons...here are two.
a) I may be genetically predisposed towards physical violence as my primary means of anger release (maybe I had Viking ancestors), that does not mean that I should act on it and go around "boping" folks on the head because it "feels natural."
b) I might be inclined to think that 10 year old girls are pretty attractive, but I am not at liberty to pursue them for companionship regardless of how "right" it feels.
There are many feelings that can be genetically born into us, but that does not mean that we should automatically make those into behaviors and condone them. It is fundamentally a question of morality over genetics...is this behavior "right or wrong?"
3) There can be two views of morality for people in this matter and I see same-sex marriage failing both ways...
a) It is the position of historical, orthodox Christianity that the only appropriate type of relationship is one man, one woman, in a lifelong monogamous covenant that primarily represents Christ and the church, with procreation a close secondary reason for the union. This is objective morality and it make clear that same-sex marriage is wrong, in fact it is a sin.
b) It is a historical fact that marriage has traditionally been between a man and woman for the purpose of raising kids. This is something that has been a common theme across all cultures and all time. It is the natural order of things and many studies have shown us that having a mom and a dad is the healthiest way for a child to grow up. This position isn't based on objective morality, just common sense societal norms.
4) If we can conclude that same-sex attraction is sinful/ wrong despite any genetic proclivity, due to either objective or normative morality, we can obviously make the plea for those facing such urges to exercise a great deal of self-denial for the good of themselves and our society. It is actually quite heroic to be predisposed towards something and overcome it. We certainly applaud those genetic alcoholics who remain sober.
5) I think it is quite clear that gay people, even those practicing the lifestyle, can be saved. Sanctification happens at different speeds and intervals for people, it is a progressive thing. I would never say that a gay person can't be a Christian. I would say that the Bible is clear that no one who practices sexual immorality should be in any vocational or lay leadership position within the church.
6) I think that Christians need to be more inclusive in the sexual immoralities that they publicly decry. We tend to focus on homosexuality as a group when, as the article mentions, we have let sins like adultery and divorce go largely unchallenged. This singular focus can make us look "anti-gay" instead of "anti-sin."
7) More than being "anti-sin" even, lets just be "pro-Jesus." Homosexuality isn't the issue, neither is any other sin. The problem is that people don't have Jesus in their life. The best way to combat the sin in our life and the sin all around us is to be faithful to preaching the Gospel to ourselves and to others regularly. People without him need Jesus and people who have Jesus need to draw closer to him.
8) While we focus our efforts on fixing the root problem of unbelief, it is still ok to treat the symptoms like same-sex marriage. You can be involved in politics to try and defeat same-sex marriage through legislation. However, be sure to do so in a respectful and loving way. Be thoughtful with your words and the way that you engage in the debate. If you don't have the ability to discuss this issue without lots of emotion clouding your reason, back off and let others.
9) Lastly, as you engage in discussion and evangelism on this topic, don't be fooled into the idea that is so prevalent in society today...same-sex marriage is not about equality and it isn't comparable to the civil rights issue. Gay people are already provided equal protection under the law in every way. Advocating for same-sex marriage is not about bringing gays up to par with other's rights...its about asking for a new paradigm in society. Its about asking society to approve of this "new right" - one never before given any legitimacy. Its nothing more than a rhetorical ploy to try and make this issue about "equality. "
a) In the same way, a behavior isn't a characteristic. To discriminate against a person based on a characteristic that they can't control (like ethnicity or gender) isn't the same as society saying that particular behaviors are unacceptable. We condemn particular behaviors every day with things like pedophilia or fraud. Saying that a person was genetically predisposed towards a "bad" behavior shouldn't give that behavior any new status. It is either a right behavior or a wrong one. Same-Sex attraction, and by extension same-sex marriage, is a wrong one.
