The Good Book and Gay Marriage

To further extrapolate on why I believe that laws barring gay and lesbian couples from legally marrying violate the First Amendment separation of church and state, I invite you to read my blog on this subject: http://www.skeeterbitesreport.com/2008/11/prop-8-unconstitutional-injection-of.html

Lisa Miller's observation that there is often a "messy conflation of civil marriage and religious matrimony is a gross understatement. The fact is, this "conflation" is an unconstitutional intermingling of the two that neither gay-marriage supporters nor religious opponents are willing to address.

Both sides have lost sight of the historical fact that civil marriage came about as a direct consequence of the refusal of many religi9us institutions to accord the sacrament of matrimony to couples in which one spouse was of one faith and the other spouse was of another.

The Roman Catholic Church for centuries refused to accord the sacrament of holy matrimony unless both husband and wife were Catholic; If one spouse was Protestant or Jewish, the couple was out of luck. Even today, certain ultra-Orthodox Jewish synagogues will not accord matrimony if one spouse is not Jewish. Certain Muslim mosques will not accord matrimony if one spouse is not Muslim.

Religious opponents of gay marriage can cite the Bible all they want, but it is perfectly understandable to refuse the religious sacrament of matrimony to gay and lesbian couples, it cannot be used as a standard to bar gay and lesbian couples from partaking in the legal institution of civil marriage. To do so violates the First Amendment separation of church and state -- PERIOD.

California's Proposition 8 -- and all other laws baring gay and lesbian couples from legally marrying -- are an unconstitutional imposition of religious approbations against homosexuality in state and federal law that cannot stand under the First Amendment.

I'll comment quickly on the article. My thanks to Newsweek, Mister Wylie-Kellerman, and Doctor Duke for an interesting, informative discussion. While I tend towards the beliefs of Wylie-Kellerman, I was pleased to read that the Southern Baptist Council is working on enlightening itself. I believe that there is a rational compromise that is lawful, compassionate, and respectful. I also believe, and would fight for, the rights of churches to set their own agendas and beliefs free from government intervention.

Perhaps there are people who read this and believe that the government would some how *require* their church to sanctify gay marriages. Such a thing is impossible under our constitution. Even so, if the government were to try to impose such a course, there would be many people, me included, who would fight such an action.

I believe in, and support, the complete separation of church and state. The two mix, at best, uncomfortably, and at worst, millions can die. Whether we sit, kneel, or bow at our place of worship, whether or not we have a place of worship, whether or not we have a belief in any sort of a greater being, we are all protected by the first amendment.

A government that ascribed to our particular belief system might seem nice on the surface, but what if the government was instead a different belief system. Where would we be?

To me that is where this discussion leads. This is not about the rights of Christians to believe in Christ. This is not about the right of Christians to believe as they will, to worship freely in their homes and churches, and to carry their beliefs with them out into the world. It is about the right of people who may not subscribe to the Christian belief system to have their own beliefs and live free of persecution. This is an issue for anyone whose beliefs are not in line with a religious majority, whether you be a liberal Methodist, a Moslem, an Atheist, or a Buddhist.

Moslems, you are aware of the denial of female students their right to follow hijab in public schools in some European countries. Liberal Christians, you are familiar with the refrain of not being "Christian enough," of not passing the litmus test of Christian Conservatives. Buddhists face annihilation in China. Bahai's are continually oppressed in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Atheists are ridiculed for their belief in rationality. We lose sight that the first amendment exists as much to protect the infidel as it does to protect the pious.

I am tired, I am going to bed, but this has been an interesting discussion. My thanks to all in here who have cross commented with me in a polite fashion. I learn from you, as I learned from this article.

I bid you peace this holiday season (whether your holiday be Hanukkah, Christmas, Kwanzaa, or just a day off of work -- what ever.)

-Joe G.

It is good to hear a theologian refer to theological bludgeoning. Thanks, Mr. Wylie-Kellerman! I spent 45 years being bludgeoned by the Catholic Church. Most (White, heterosexual, male) Christians seem to be in denial that it even happens. I have "seen the light however, and no longer let religion beat me up. I heard for a long time about a "God of love" but most of what I observed was hatred and judgement.
Like Dr. Knig, I am happy to be "Free at last! Free at last! Thank...." OK, so I'm not that free yet, but I am clearly moving in that direction!

I am glad to hear a theologian refer to theological bludgeoning. I spent about 45 years bring bludgeoned in the Catholic Church. I have since "Seen the light" (as it were) and left religion behind to "bury their own dead" as Jesus said. Mr Duke's comments remind me of how happy I am to not be being bludgeoned by religion any longer! I am reminded of another Duke, David E. Duke, leader of another Christian group, the KKK. Hatred and bludgeoning seem to be a part of the Christian tradition. I hear about a "God of love", but his henchmen seem to be full of hate...
Like Dr. King, I am happy to be "Free at last! Free at last! Thank...(OK, so I'm not that free)...
Joe Crowley

As far as what is the basis of my belief, not your business. But i will tell you it is built on the King James Bible, my education in history and philosphy, my experience as a human being in this life, my own personal relationship with God, my failures, my prayers, my tragedy and my exaltations. All these things are from God, blessings and terrors at times.

Experiences have sent me back to Faith over and over again that Faith says love is the righteous path. Whether it is straight or gay has little consequence. We know what is love. We know what is caring. We know this is the path of Christ if we just take a minute to think about it.

My point Dr. J is that God has provided insight into his truth through the ages. God has also provided us with intelligence. Both are gifts. To not recognize that every insight ever provided has been filtered through the minds of the men and women that put them to paper is simply sillly. To not recognize history and its influence on the written word is beyond folly. Faith transcends all this. The true message of Christ. Believe, not in some book (which was not then written) but believe in the purest sense.

As far as being a wannabe theologian as stated by other writers, who is not a wannabe. What makes a theologian? That is the point. Faith is a belief in God. Nothing could be more personal.

If you have Faith and attempt to describe it then you are inherently a wanabe theologian.

If you worship pages in bound in leather then you are missing the point. It takes no words to have Faith. If you are fearful of the questioning of a bound text then you should really question your own understanding of Faith. It is unconditional. It is without need of printed proof.

WTF is "faith-based" debate? Do people in faith-based debates agree that all statements are to be taken at face value, rather than questioned with intelligent reason? What then is there to debate? Why pander to all these wannabe theologians Newsweek?

The Bible has made it very clear in both the new and old testaments that a marriage is between a man and a woman. The original Hebrew and Greek text also support this, so don't even bother saying it is a recent addition caused by a translation. This article is just another attempt to shroud the truth in a blanket of lies in order to justify ones own love a sin. if the author bothered to read the Bible they would know this. God loves us but hates our sin. He commands us to not sin. Greed is a sin, glutony is a sin, lust is a sin, adultery is a sin, homosexuality is a sin. Just look at the woman caught in the act of adultery. What does Jesus say? He who is without sin cast the first stone. Well all of them, like us, have sinned, so no one threw a stone. Then Jesus says "Go and sin no more". Wow, you mean we are not suppose to go around sinning? You mean Jesus is telling us not to make a sinful union a sacramental marriage? Yes. It just astounds me how people are so willing to abandon their morals and beliefs for social relativism. They justify themselves by saying they just want to be happy or this is the way God made me so it must be ok. Well, that is an awful flimsy stance to use as your moral guideline and you can not back that up using the Bible. If you follow their logic, then you need to justify a man marrying many woman or a father marrying his adult daughter or a mother marrying her adult son. Why shouldn't we allow it using their logic. I leave you with this for all those who are twisting the Bible to fit their moral relativism. Read 2 Peter Ch 2. (someone please tell the author that is a Bible reference). The whole passage is applicable to the world today, but look at what Peter (a married apostle) said starting in verse 14 "They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have left the straight road and gone astray, following the road of Balaam son of Bosor, who loved the wages of doing wrong. ... For they speak bombastic nonsense, and with licentious desires or the flesh they entice people who have just escaped from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption; for people are slaves to whatever masters them. " Sin is a choice.

The episcopal pastor speaks a lot about the "many" loving, successful same sex partnerships. This flies completely in the face of research that shows the exact opposite. These are exceptions rather than the rule, with much higher divorce and AIDS rates than heterosexual couples. The reason for this is simple; there is objective truth, and it belongs to the God of truth, the God of the Scriptures. Its not a matter of dogma or some fideistic relativity, but objective, testable reality. God's Word lays out God's plan, which is by nature the best plan, period. The reason that this rubs people the wrong way is because it is so black and white, a concept that America has almost done away with in its entirety, to its own downfall both socially, politically, and globally in her standing amidst other nations.

Amendment ten says: the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. --there is nothing in the constitution about marriage period this is left to the states and the people and the people have spoken. All of the liberals out there think it is so great to say that we live in a democracy yet when democracy goes through its motions you get upset. there is another thing in the constitution also in article 4 section 4: the united states shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government. --do you notice it does not say a democracy the reason is in a republic every persons rights are equally preserved in a democracy the minority will always lose rights. So keep on saying we are in a democracy it does not make it anymore true. the fact of the matter is we live in a constitutional republic and if we lived by the constitution there would be no gay marriage dispute and that is a guarantee.

I get so tired of this relativism theory. Christ spoke in parable so that parable can be relatively applied to other aspects of life. Otherwise what does a mustard seed have to do with anything? Or how could tales of Samaritans deeds be applied to anytihing but no longer existant Samaritans? Religious dogma is inherently relativistic. Faith is not.