Marriage in California

I am continually struck by how strongly I can affirm, respect and agree with someone one day and then just be blown away by something the next. John Mark Reynolds is a brilliant philosopher and I often read even his political works knowing that they will contain wisdom and insight that many other "conservative" writers posts do not. Reading Reynolds article about the upcoming Gay Marriage Ban vote here, I could not help but feel compelled to respond. It lacked his usual well thought out and well stated arguments and simply equated to a schoolyard "I saw it first." This last election has been rough on Moral Majority Republicans I know, but one cannot allow a series of stinging defeats to disintegrate the level of discourse. I am fairly certain he will never read this but hopefully it will provide you all some talking points to discuss among coworkers and friends.

First and foremost, let me lay out that this is a political and philosophical argument, not a theological one. I affirm, as a Christian what the scriptures say about homosexuality. I also affirm what they say about submitting to authorities and yet often change lanes without signaling thus have trouble justifying the harsh treatment people who are homosexual receive at the hands (and blogs) of those claiming to be Christian. All this to just reassure you that I am not part of the (oft discussed in right claiming Christian claiming) gay agenda. I simply try to treat people equally as Christ did. Christ loved the least and the lost, do you? I will end my plea to not be destroyed as a heretic to Conservatism and/or Christianity (which are not linked) please note the ever so wise Thomas Jefferson to the nation during his first inauguration in 1801, "Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle."

What we have here is a fundamental misunderstanding both on the role of government and the authority of the church as well as a scary overlap in the two (anyone remember the great Reformation?)

Churches are debating this issue as much as voters. Thus, having the government step in and make the decision for us sets a dangerous and terrible precedent. What's next? Do some theologians in the dispensationalism or covenant theology debate get the government to decide that Biola University or Westminster Seminary need to change their theology (I know at least one A-Team Blogger has his fingers crossed.) Of course all (well most) Christians can agree that this is preposterous. How about at your office? Should the government solve that pesky TPS report debate? (Office Space reference for those not in the know.) Absolutely not. It is the sole decision of churches, denominations and parishioners how they will handle same sex couples wishing to be married. Reynolds got it right here, marriage is largely a religious institution. Why is he then advocating government intervention when some churches disagree? Some churches are theologically liberal and take the approach that the homosexuality passages in scripture were cultural constructs. Some churches take another stand and say that homosexuality brought down the Roman Empire and we are next. Others see homosexuality as wrong, but like me do not want the government to be involved in religious decision making.

The government should never have gotten into the business of marriage. And make no mistake it is a business, having married recently and lost a marriage licence I know they are making some cash. The requirement for marriage licences in U.S. has been justified on the basis that the state has an overriding right, on behalf of all citizens and in the interests of the larger social welfare, to protect them from disease or improper/illegal marriages; to keep accurate state records; or even to ensure that marriage partners have had adequate time to think carefully before marrying. But all of these things are not the role of government as outlined in the Constitution. Prior to the mid 19th century marriages were not regulated by the state, but once the influx of "inferior races" started they became important to "protect the social welfare." What redemptive value does alienating people and making them hate you have? C. S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity that Christians shouldn't be trying outlaw divorce by legislation. The church is clear on its position, he said, and we would know who was really a follower of Christ and who wasn't by their conduct, so there was no point in trying to force people to obey Christian morality. After all, he went on, we wouldn't like it very much if the "Mohammadans" came in and tried to outlaw alcohol! As I write this in a nod to Lewis I have cracked open a can of Pabst Blue Ribbon (I know really high class). I think the implications of this hero of the faith to the modern debate are clear but just in case you can substitute the words "gay marriage" for the word "divorce" and the argument still makes a lot of sense.

Last thoughts here. To be certain there are a ton of competing viewpoints here. Reynolds (and most Moral Majority Republicans points) article makes it seem like their are two choices: Christian or Not. It is my contention that the gay marriage debate has more to do with one's opinions on the role of government than one's faith in Christ or even moral values. To set up such horrible dichotomies, and us versus them, viewpoints only serves to further de-legitimize Christianity's influence in our culture. So here is my Pauline statement on the matter (referencing Acts 17:17-34), "I am amazed at how focused the US is at making sure that people have equal access to marriage licences."