I've been saying for a number of years now what I believe the solution to the gay marriage problem that keeps coming up here in California is. I've said it in a number of private and semi public forums, but I guess I should just own it right out here.
The most obvious answer to me is to just not have marriage at all. No separate but equal provisions, no "one man, one woman" marriage and "everyone else" civil unions. Nope. Just no marriages for anyone by the state. Civil unions, or civic partnerships or whatever you want to call it would be it. Let the state recognize the unique business relationship that can exist between two people, but don't call it marriage. Let any two people, and I mean that - any two people, enter into this business relationship. It would allow for the transfer of certain assets tax free, allow for caretaking, special medical provisions and a whole host of other rights that we now only give to married couples. An elderly mother and her son, two men, two women, whatever. We are not making any moral judgements about the union. Which the state should not do, but rather, we are recognizing a unique business partnership. After all, isn't that really what the state does now? We run down and get a marriage license, have it witnessed and the state sanctions the relationship.
Now, where does this leave marriage? In the church, where it belongs. Many different religions have different views of the importance of marriage. For example, in the Catholic Church, it's a sacrament. Right up there with baptism and the eucharist. It's not a sacrament in protestant churches, but it's treated as a religious ceremony. In the LDS church, marriage is an important part of the path to heaven. This is why Prop. 8 was so important to these churches - it's an integral part of their worship. The mistake we keep making is not following our own instincts regarding the separation of the church from the state. Let's not continue to confuse sacramental marriage with the legal recognition of a unique relationship.
A friend pointed out in a Facebook posting that this would require a change in thousands of laws that reference marriage. It's a valid point, but I think the issue is important enough to make those changes. With computers these days, can't we just do a "Replace All?"
Marriage --> Civil Unions 3843 instances will be changed Yes No
I'd press yes.
The most obvious answer to me is to just not have marriage at all. No separate but equal provisions, no "one man, one woman" marriage and "everyone else" civil unions. Nope. Just no marriages for anyone by the state. Civil unions, or civic partnerships or whatever you want to call it would be it. Let the state recognize the unique business relationship that can exist between two people, but don't call it marriage. Let any two people, and I mean that - any two people, enter into this business relationship. It would allow for the transfer of certain assets tax free, allow for caretaking, special medical provisions and a whole host of other rights that we now only give to married couples. An elderly mother and her son, two men, two women, whatever. We are not making any moral judgements about the union. Which the state should not do, but rather, we are recognizing a unique business partnership. After all, isn't that really what the state does now? We run down and get a marriage license, have it witnessed and the state sanctions the relationship.
Now, where does this leave marriage? In the church, where it belongs. Many different religions have different views of the importance of marriage. For example, in the Catholic Church, it's a sacrament. Right up there with baptism and the eucharist. It's not a sacrament in protestant churches, but it's treated as a religious ceremony. In the LDS church, marriage is an important part of the path to heaven. This is why Prop. 8 was so important to these churches - it's an integral part of their worship. The mistake we keep making is not following our own instincts regarding the separation of the church from the state. Let's not continue to confuse sacramental marriage with the legal recognition of a unique relationship.
A friend pointed out in a Facebook posting that this would require a change in thousands of laws that reference marriage. It's a valid point, but I think the issue is important enough to make those changes. With computers these days, can't we just do a "Replace All?"
Marriage --> Civil Unions 3843 instances will be changed Yes No
I'd press yes.
posted by Lou Schwing at 12:42 PM
12 Comments:
Lou. You're a Christian and know how God views marriage and homosexuality. Why condone something that your God and savior condemns? Because it's popular in your homestate? Because "the world" will "respect" you? Take a stand. Stand up for what your God has taught you. You can--and should--do this with compassion, but please don't bend to secular "wisdom."
My savior? Show me one instance that Jesus condemns homosexuality. Just one. Go ahead.
How do you know my heart? Am I "bending?" Or maybe I've done an exhaustive study and decided that marriage should be between one man and one woman. I also believe that in the USA we can't legally discriminate. Which are two very different things. My desire to protect marriage as something holy leads me to eliminate it as a state contract. Reread what I propose - I'm protecting marriage, not messing with it.
Here's a few Bible verses that address the topic of marriage and homosexuality:
Leviticus 18:22 (New International Version)
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Romans 1:24-27 (New International Version)
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version)
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
in Matthew 19:4–6:
“And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?” So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.’”
Christ quoted directly from the book of Genesis (and its account of the creation of Adam and Eve as the first man and woman—the first marriage) as literal history, to explain the doctrine of marriage as being one man for one woman. Thus marriage cannot be a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.
Follow that with Hebrews 13:4
Hebrews 13:4 (New International Version)
"4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral."
Hebrews 13:4, I believe, calls on Christians to stand against gay marriage proposals. I’m delighted that in a state that leans left as CA typically does, that proposition 8 PASSED.
You didn't answer the question. You had made the specific assertion that my Savior condemns homosexuality. I asked you to find one instance of that condemnation. Of course, you can't find one - Jesus never speaks about it. Instead, you gave me a bunch of OT proof texts - and some of Paul's words, and other verses about marriage. Leviticus? Do we also practice animal sacrifice, avoid shrimp and lobster and rend our clothes? No - because we have a new covenant. Picking and choosing proof texts is a dangerous business.
Now on to the actual topic at hand. First, recall that I am not arguing for same sex marriage. I am in fact proposing that we do away with that completely. I also recognize two practical factors - the State of California must provide equal protection to all, it will probably do so by recognizing same sex unions. My proposal is to limit the vocabulary the State uses. That is, get the State out of the marriage business. Let the State protect its citizens (recall that I would allow this union between any two people, not just same sex couples) but allow the churches to control what marriage is. This isn't a theological debate over the concept of marriage - it is a civics debate over the role of the State in equally protecting all of its citizens. I also would like to get our churches out of the States business - why on earth should a Pastor intone the words, "By the authority vested in me by the State of California, I now pronounce you....?" Isn't the Pastor's authority to perform a marriage coming from God?
This isn't about same sex marriage - it's about the State getting out of the church's business, and letting churches decide what marriages should be.
Hi Lou. I see you have contention with my statement that Jesus Himself condemns homosexuality. I will concede that he doesn't, not directly. You're right. I cannot locate a specific verse anywhere in the Bible where He Himself utters the words.
However, I believe in 2 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version)
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
So, when I listed Paul's words from Romans and 1 Corinthians, I am claiming them to be the word of God--based on 2 Timothy 3:16--and therefore because of the triune God, they are also the words of Jesus.
My question to you then, is my claim a semantics issue (who wrote the words, Paul or Jesus?), or a fundamental Biblical principle we're are disagreeing on--that God and therefore Jesus inspires all the words recorded in the Bible and therefore He DOES consider homosexuality immoral based on Paul's (God inspired) writings?
Once we get past this issue, then I can debate your proposal for CA and other states regarding marriage/no marriage. . .
Now, regarding my quotation of Leviticus, I somewhat agree with your discontent. Agreed, much of the OT laws no longer apply. We are under a new covenant through Jesus. However, Jesus himself quotes the OT during his sermon on the mount and at other times. Refer to my posting from Matthew 19:4-6. Jesus is directly quoting Genesis 1:27 & Gen. 2:24. Therefore, I cannot just discard the OT because Jesus Himself does not. That said, I'll concede that just choosing "proof texts" is dangerous. Quoting the Bible out of context has been used to justify all sorts of things.
So, ignore my OT verse in the previous post and let's discuss the NT, as you've already stated we're under a new covenant (which I assume means you follow the NT).
Once we get past this issue, then I can debate your proposal for CA and other states regarding marriage/no marriage. . .
Sorry, that's a proposal I'm not willing to accept. I'm not interested in debating homosexuality at all, much less on a blog. I wrote a paper on the issues pertaining to biblical interpretation in seminary, and I think I'm done with it.
I've already said that the proposal to allow the state to create Domestic Partnerships between any two people is not a matter of same sex unions, although I recognize that they can (and already do) occur. The larger issue is ceasing the State's use of the term marriage, and allowing it to only be used in the church, where it can be protected.
If you want to discuss theological matters - including interpretation of biblical verses as they pertain to homosexuality, join the Reborn discussion list. You can do that at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=REBORN&A=1
Finally, I'll take a little bit of the bait, and point out that using Scripture to prove Scripture is a circular argument that proves nothing. In addition, the Scriptures that are referred to in 2nd Timothy are the Old Testament Scriptures - since the New Testament ones were not yet considered Scripture. So... since those are Paul's words, they aren't referring to Paul's *other* words in different books. I also think it's quite a stretch to use the Trinity to assume that Paul's words are God's words and therefore Jesus' words. That's all I have to say on that subject, at the moment. Maybe I'll have more energy for that at some other time.
Thanks for commenting, I appreciate your efforts....
Just for clarification, in the statement "Once we get past this issue, then I can debate your proposal for CA and other states regarding marriage/no marriage. . ." "issue" refers to the origin and veracity of the Bible--the debate, in my mind, had moved from the discussion on your proposal to abolish state marriages to the Bible itself.
So, I was trying to say once we had moved past the disagreement on what is contained in the Bible and why, then we could get back the marriage proposal you made.
Hey Lou,
I was going to check out the "Reborn" discussion group link you provided, but it has an executable listed in the URL (.exe) is that a nefarious link?
No, I wouldn't send you a bad link. It's a form to join the list.
I needed to look up the definition of a word at work this morning, so I turned to the dictionary. I found what I was looking for, and it gave me an answer that made sense. But then I wondered what a dictionary is. So, I looked it up. Sure enough, there was an entry for "dictionary." But then I thought back to your argument about circular reasoning and realized the dictionary itself was defining what a dictionary is. I shouldn’t use a self defining source; therefore, I can't use the dictionary to define any other words and must discard it.
So, I no longer know or trust the definition of the word I initially looked up and am even more confused than when I started. I thought the dictionary was an authoritative book, but it includes circular reasoning so is worthless. But, I don't know another source I can turn to to find the definitions of words. Maybe a thesaurus would be a good choice? It won't define words, but maybe give me some other choices that sound better to me. Perhaps offer me words that I want to hear . . .
Now I'm worried that encyclopedias include a section on what an encyclopedia is, and I'll be forced to discard those too due to "circular arguments"!
All of my reference books will soon be on the trash heap and I'll be left with only fiction books to guide me!
Here's an interesting argument related to the "inerrancy and infallibility of scripture." Let's see if you recognize the source of this text:
"...are there other key issues? What about the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture? The Confessing Church Movement makes three claims in particular - Jesus alone is Lord and Savior, that Scripture is the infallible rule of faith and life, and that God's timeless standards for holy life have not been negated by political, cultural and social changes. I easily agree with the first two, and mostly agree with the last one. It's not that I disagree in substance, I disagree in application. I don't think that God has changed the rules or the standards, but that their application in a society so terribly different than the one in which God's standards first came to us must be examined critically. How do the standards of a pre-literate society (for the most part) apply to one in which technology and information flow from one part of the world to another in seconds? Is there a substantial difference between a society that had standards from God sent on stone tablets and one where a blog can appear within seconds of the thought occuring? (Not that any blog is the Word of God, mind you!!) This is the sort of non-theological wording that leads easily to varying interpretations, causing splits and divisions."
The above quote is Lou's. Seems a bit contrary to a more recent point of view. . .what say you Lou?
Post a Comment
<< Home