I don't know if you've noticed this, but on May 8, 2012, there's going to a vote on an amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. I plan to vote against this amendment and I'd like to tell you why.
To start this out, I should put all of my cards on the table. I'm a straight, white male living in a mid-sized city in the South. I have and have had some casual gay friends and acquaintances, but I don't have any gay family members or any gay friends that I'm extremely close with. I'm also a Christian. I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and I use it as a guide for my thoughts and behavior. I'm involved in a local church and, while we don't have an official church stance on Amendment One as far as I know, our pastor has spoken in favor of the law from the pulpit. I'm not writing this post in a spirit of rebellion or with the idea that I'm somehow superior to anyone who disagrees with me. I'm not trying to stir up strife within my church or the Christian Church at large. I'd like to think that my thoughts have a firm logical and Biblical foundation and, if nothing else, they've been prayerfully considered. I welcome any comments, positive or negative, that those within or out of the Church may offer, but I ask that you read the entire post carefully before making them.
Having said that, I'll get to what seems to be be the crux of the issue. I do believe that sexual activity between people of the same sex is sinful. The Bible's stance on homosexuality is not just a part of the Old Testament Mosaic law as some believe, but is laid out clearly in the New Testament as well. Here's the thing though: The same parts of the New Testament that condemn homosexuality also condemn people who are "covetous," full of "malice," "envy," "strife," "deceit," and "maliciousness." "Gossips,", "slanderers, "haters of God." "Insolent," "haughty," "boastful." "Disobedient to parents," "foolish," "faithless," "heartless," "ruthless." (Romans 1:29-31 ESV) These characteristics are the natural state of man without God. In fact, as a believer, I've
still committed most, if not all, of these sins. But somehow homosexuality is different. We like to say that we love the sinner and hate the sin, but we ostracize gays and lesbians and treat them like second-class citizens. We send our homosexual kids off to special deprogramming camps and pray that lightning will strike the local gay bar. Why aren't their deprogramming camps for gossips, boasters, and ruthless business men. Why aren't there people holding up protest signs that say, "God Hates Adulterers?"
This dovetails nicely into one of my reasons for coming out against the gay marriage amendment: whatever your "actual" reason may be for supporting the amendment, those in the gay community are only going to see it as bigotry. Supporters of the bill can talk all day about how they're just protecting family values or tradition and I do believe that many people genuinely feel this way, but the gay people in our state only hear, "I hate you. You don't deserve the same rights that I have." Do you truly believe that sending that message is the best way to show the love of Christ or does the love of Christ only apply to straight people?
This brings me to my next point: you can't legislate morality. Some people seem to be under the mistaken impression that our system of laws is a moral code. This is patently false. Our laws were put into place to protect individual citizens from each other. While one could argue that some of our drug laws don't follow this principle, the general idea is that the laws of the state are designed to keep your neighbor from doing you harm. As I've already mentioned, there's a huge numbers of immoral acts that are completely legal. There's also a lot of illegal things that are otherwise perfectly moral. Some of our laws obviously overlap with general morality and the Christian concept of sin, but they're not one and the same. At this point you may be asking, "So why don't we make sin illegal then?" Because, simply put, it doesn't work. Sin is a matter of the heart and only God can change a heart. Making a sin illegal does nothing to stop it. America may be a "Christian nation" according to some (newsflash: It's not.), but it's most definitely not a theocracy. Until God decides to come down himself and render decisions through a cloud and a pilar of fire, any theocracy will quickly turn into a dictatorship, with religion used as a convenient excuse to shout down all opposition. That's not how America was founded and it's not what it should become.
Now that I've spent some time discussing this issue from a Christian point-of-view, I'd like to cover some political thoughts on the matter. Frankly, the most ridiculous thing about the amendment is this:
Gay marriage is already illegal. Amendment One could be unanimously defeated and it wouldn't change one thing as far as who can and can't be married in this state. As a Conservative, I believe in smaller government and less intrusion. How can I stand by those principles if I support this wholly unnecessary, bureaucratic waste of time? And given that gay marriage is already illegal, both nationally and on a state level, how can anyone blame the gay community for seeing this amendment as a big, fat middle finger extended in their direction? "Hey gays...we know you can't get married anyway, but we just want to make it extra clear that it ain't gonna happen." Yeah. Great. As far as the notion that we're "protecting the American family" with this endeavor, I'll believe that when there's a similar amendment on the ballot that outlaws divorce and extramarital affairs. The fact is that straight people have already done more to desecrate the institution of marriage than homosexuals ever could.
Another argument that I've heard from a lot of people is that allowing gay marriage would be horrible because it would redefine the word marriage. Actually, I made that same argument myself a few years ago when my views were slightly different. One of the people I was debating with gave me a response that really made me think: Is it worth denying people rights over a question of semantics? And he was right. People's lives and rights and infinitely more valuable than the definition of a word. So "marriage" may someday mean "a committed union between two individuals" instead of a "committed union between a man and a woman." So what? As a straight man, that would do nothing to change my life or the lifelong commitment I plan to make to my future wife. Right now, I'm sure there's someone asking why we can't just call it a civil union. Here's the thing though: homosexuals didn't grow up on Mars. They grew up in the same communities as you an I. They watched the same movies and read the same fairytales. They don't want a partnership. That's the language of business. They want marriage and all the connotations that come with it. How would you like it if you were forced to treat your wife like a business partner or to call your child a "legal dependent"? Gay marriage is a question of legal rights, but it's so much more than that.
And here's where the religious arguments come in again. How can we, the capital-C Church, say that marriage is not a union between a man and a woman when the Bible clearly states that it is. My answer is that we don't have to. As it stands, there's already two definitions of the word marriage. There's religious marriage and there's civil marriage. These things often occur together, but they don't always have to. Couples are already free to be married by a justice of the peace instead of a religious official and even marriages performed by a minister must be backed up by legal documentation before they bestow any rights. I wouldn't want my pastor to officiate a gay marriage because, as I noted, that doesn't line up with God's law. That doesn't mean, however, that I can't support civil marriage for anyone who truly wants it.
Next, I feel like I should tackle the "slippery slope" issue. This argument is a little ridiculous, but lots of people take it seriously, so I suppose I should try to as well. Some people have made the case that, if we allow gay marriage, that's only the first step in the road to nationwide Sodom and Gomorrah. Next thing you know, people will be marrying children. Within a generation or two, we'll allow men to marry their dogs or robots or their toaster. Where does it end? My answer to that is that it ends where we, as Americans, decide that it should end. You can make the slippery slope argument about any law. Has allowing the death penalty led to us executing people for speeding? Did giving women and minorities the right to vote lead to cows in the voting booth? You can't ignore a civil rights issue simply as a precaution against where you think it might lead. Besides that, there's a humungous difference between allowing two consenting adults to marry and allowing a man to marry his cat or his BMW. I don't doubt that there a lot of changes to come in this country, but I'll be very surprised if meows and car horn honks become legally binding.
To turn back to the Church's role in this once more, I'd like to remind my Christian brothers and sisters of one simple fact: Right now, we're the majority. Clearly, there's a difference between those that profess Christ and true followers and there's no doubt that this country is becoming more secular by the hour. But statistically speaking, the majority of Americans say they believe in the Judeo-Christian God and have at least some respect for the Bible. We in the Church like to act like we're some kind of persecuted minority, but the fact is that we have a lot of power in this country and around the world. We may end up with a Mormon president come January, but an atheist presidential candidate wouldn't even get out of the gate. Unfortunately, this power we have will no doubt evaporate at some point in the future. Some data suggests that the "No Religion" status (which includes deists, agnostics, atheists, and theists) is the fastest growing belief demographic. If you believe that the book of Revelation is a picture of the end times, then Christians will some day be a pretty small minority. When that day comes and secularists hold all the seats of power in this country, I'd like it to be known that the Christian community took a stand for love, acceptance, and personal freedom over bigotry, hate, and governmental intrusion.
Finally, if there are any homosexuals reading this blog post, I'd like to close with this message: I can't lie to you and say that I support all of your actions. I believe in the truth of God's word and, while I sometimes wish that I could change it, I can't argue with what's written there. I don't hate you though. I love you. Because you're no different than any of my other unsaved friends and you're no different than I was before God's free gift of grace changed my heart. I hope that you can understand this distinction even if you don't agree with it. Regardless of our theological and social differences, you're welcome in my home and in my church any time. I don't know that this blog post will change anyone else's vote, but you can count on mine if nothing else.
