Christianity Today magazine released a sobering article online (click here to read it) about the decision of U. S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker regarding Proposition 8 and its implications for Christian expression, and religious expression in general, found in the full text of the ruling.
What the ruling seems to say is that only opinions shaped by secular wordviews have any place in public discourse. In this respect, however, the ruling seems to be following what is a growing public point of view, that Christians have no right to allow their beliefs to form their opinions.
The outcome of the ruling, however, is what most people will be thinking about as the battle continues to work its way through the legal process.
In that regard, what I have read is that the “sides” on this issue are polarized and that there little, if any, middle ground.
I don’t think that is true.
An article in the online edition of the L.A. Times (Aug. 4, 2010, Gay marriage foes vow to appeal Prop. 8 ruling [Updated] ) includes the following portion of a statement by“Edward E. Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, with which I think everyone can agree: “Homosexuals certainly have every right to the love, companionship and support of another person…”
However, he goes on to say, “ -- but the courts do not have a right to distort the meaning of marriage.”
Let’s just focus on the first part of that statement. Christians have been painted as being “anti-gay” in this debate. I don’t think that is accurate or fair, and it is part of what polarizes a discussion. It’s what makes us talk at stereotypes and not with people as they are, and it happens from both “sides”.
Christians believe that all people are created in God’s image, that all sin and fall short and need a savior, and that all people are loved by God.
I think there would be a lot more light and a lot less heat in this debate if we could start with that.
27 October 2008
ReplyDeleteI have a solution to the “problem” of the gay marriage issue. It is so very simple and straightforward and sensible that it probably would not be considered, but here goes.
1. As US citizens, it is my hope that we all prescribe to the desire that all citizens are given the same rights and privileges under law. Apparently, this is not the case now. Married couples are granted special privileges under law when it comes to property rights and hospital visitations to name a couple.
2. People of some religious persuasions relate back to the Bible’s rules of conduct that say very specifically that Man should not have sex with a man as with a woman. I note that the same set of rules condemn me to death for eating shrimp, working on the Sabbath, and profaning God’s name. But the rule that seems to interest most people is the rule against homosexual coupling. So be it.
3. To me it is really a stretch to say that allowing homosexuals to marry is doing harm to my and my wife’s marriage vows. Before I would start picking on the homosexual community to cause harm to the institution of marriage, I think we heterosexuals have to clean up our own acts---multiple sequential marriages, living together sans marriage, disrespecting our obligations to spouse and children, these and many more things we heteros do are much more damaging to the rite and contract of marriage than any acts of homosexual people. Let’s get real.
Now, here’s my solution to the problem;
a. We grant the right to marry to homosexuals under the exact same rules, privileges, and constraints as presently granted to heterosexuals under the law.
b. As often we do in our society, we change the meaning of words. Our Society, especially teenagers, do it all the time.....good is bad, cool is hot, Democrats are now Republicans, you get the idea. So, we heterosexuals revise our definition of marriage as it has been used, to include the legal union of any two people regardless of sex. We don’t lose anything but we are gracious in “loving our neighbor” that we give them the word, marriage, something they seem to value, maybe even more than we heteros.
c. People of the various Faiths who follow the rules of Torah, or Bible, or Koran who have their unions blessed according to the tenets, ceremonies, and rules of their specific faith and religion give the word “marriage” over to the legal union of any two people as indicated above, and when describing a heterosexual union which is celebrated in their religious community, refer to it as a “sanctified” union. Sanctified indicates they have had a legal civil ceremony called marriage, but as well, have followed the tenets of their specific faith and are “sanctified” in that faith.
This requires the people following the rules of their faith to be loving of their homosexual brothers and sisters, also defined by their faiths as having been created by the Creator, to enact that love by giving them a word.....marriage. Thus the legal equality is established, and the sanctification of their union is established as defined by the rules of their specific faith.
Then, it becomes incumbent for the specific faiths involved to determine for themselves whether to grant sanctification to homosexuals as well as heterosexual couples. That becomes then, a faith problem......separate from the legal problem. In this case, the separation of church and state is maintained. All citizens have the same rights.
Problem solved. The arguments are place with the individual religious communities, where it should be. The government is out of our bedrooms.....where they should not be in the first place.