Preserving the Non-Sanctity of Civil Unions
It occurred to me, as the New York State Senate recently choked on its historic opportunity to provide equal rights to my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, that the problem people are having with gay marriage is the word “marriage.” We hear lots of talk about “preserving the institution of marriage” (bullshit) and we can almost see the panties twist when you put the words “gay” and “marriage together.”
This is my State Senator, Dale Volker. He voted against this. He’s a dick.
So lets not put them together anymore. One of my former students, a devoted libertarian, suggested that we take the power of “marriage” away from the state and confer upon the state the power of civil union. That way, anyone who wants the legal benefits of lifelong partnership can have it.
I think people would eventually get used to the idea of having legal civil unions, and it would take a lot of hypocrisy out of the system. The hypocrisy is even more blatant in my case because the Queen of my Universe and I were married by a gay judge, who performed the ceremony at the last minute of Valentines Day because she owed my gay friend, who managed her re-election campaign, a favor.
This will return the sacrament (if sacraments are your church’s thang) to its rightful place: the church. Let churches determine who they will or will not hate on, thus carrying on the long and rich tradition of religiously-inspired hatred in America.
I wouldn’t mind “reducing” my marriage to the status of “civil union.” That would give me impetus to have a church ceremony. I could even scoot down to Boston and have the Reverend Mother Robert Coats “marry” me to the Queen of my Universe.
That way, I’d have a state ceremony performed by a gay judge and a church ceremony performed by a gay minister.
And ain’t that America?
Filed under: Politics on January 9th, 2010
Just a question… does disagreement with a principle imply hatred for a person?
You said, “Let the churches determine who they will or will not hate on.” The churches disagree with gay marriage as an institution and view homosexuality as wrong. So there is disagreement. But I guess that I would not equate disagreement with hatred.
You disagree with me on practically every issue. Does that mean that you hate me?
I agree. I have always thought that no one should go to church to be married for the simple act of becoming united, the civil laws come into play.
In my mind, instead of a litany of how marriage is perceived in the eyes of God, a couple should take a course in the legal ramifications of their union. Pros and cons, write up a partnership document and go with it. After all, when the deal goes south, there is no talk of God and the loftiness of love and sunshine, it all boils down to who gets what.
Just starting out that way and updating it as fiscal changes in the partnership take place, makes a lot more sense.
It sounds a bit colder, but I believe many people taking the step to partner up with someone, would think twice about it in the cold hard light of the law…
Yes, leave God out of it except as far as personal faith is concerned, and go for legal civil unions. God bless you if you want, but in the final showdown, by separation voluntary or otherwise, and even a death of a partner, you will pretty much end up with a lawyer, and a judge. Best to have things agreed on when the relationship is young and calmer heads prevail.
AMERICA’S reaction to homosexuality is based on fear. Fear which is based in ignorance and hidden behind a combination of false political statements and false religious statements which are used in the belief that their “moral” imperative against homosexuals and homosexuality is buttressed by a divine mandate when in actuality their “moral” imperative is a nest of lies, and falsehoods.
In reality the fear is their loss of power. They might have to alter the entryrules into the country club. The unspoken belief that “they” will take over. Knowing that “payback is a bitch” they fear what will happen if that were to occur. .
I think the phrase “hate on” isn’t meant to imply hatred in its common use. I think perhaps a better word would be intolerance, which I suppose may or may not imply hatred.
I think the ability to marry whoever you want is a basic human right that’s given to heterosexuals and not homosexuals. When one group of people who happens to write the rules society lives by, and withholds a basic human right from a group of people within that society, that is intolerant.
I’m not sure if the Reverend Mother was quoting Jesus recently when he wrote
“I tell you truthfully, in so far as you did any acts of kindness, care, justice and mercy for one of the those whom society deems to be the least of humanity, you did them for Me. I also solemly declare to you, in so far as you failed to do any acts of kindness, care, justice and mercy for those whom, in the estimation of society are declared to be the least of humanity, you failed to do them for Me.”
I’ll leave the theological debate to Robert and Allison over what this means, but I agree with whoever wrote this passage.
Now I’m getting confused by the semantics. I certainly hope you don’t hate me Allison, and we wouldn’t have such a wonderful relationship if we didn’t disagree on everything, but if, at some level, we can’t see eye to eye on something, does that make us intolerant of each other’s views? Or is that just agreeing to disagree?
Mr. Coats,
Of course I do not hate you! I agree that it is definitely possible to have a good relationship with someone without seeing eye to eye on every issue, or even without seeing eye to eye on most issues (ask yourself how Patrick and I were friends for so many years!) But that is exactly my point.
You said, “if, at some level, we can’t see eye to eye on something, does that make us intolerant of each other’s views?” No, it doesn’t make us intolerant just because we disagree. But I would apply that to the church. Just because the church disagrees with the views of homosexuals does not mean that they are being intolerant or hateful.
This does not mean that the church will accept that homosexuality is a valid way of life, but that does not mean that they hate gays. I do not hate you because we disagree, even though we disagree on the issue of homosexuality. But neither would I hate you if you were actually gay. I would continue to disagree with you, and I would not condone the lifestyle, but I would not hate you.
The church would be unfaithful to itself and to Jesus if it were to say that homosexuality were okay, just as it would be unfaithful to itself if it were to say that lying or pride or jealousy were okay. Because this is what the Bible says and what God says. However, the Jesus that we serve calls us to love everyone, those with whom we agree and those with whom we disagree.
On one level, this love may express itself in the very disagreement with homosexuality that society condemns in the church. Christians believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle that is displeasing to God and will bring negative consequences in this life and in eternity. With this in mind, it is not loving to tell people that something is okay which will bring them harm, any more than it is loving to allow a child to touch a hot stove. Even if you believe that Christians are mistaken, the motive is not hatred, but loving concern.
That is not to say that every Christian is always loving in the way that they treat homosexuals (nor is every Christian loving in the way that they treat liars, thieves, or anyone else they consider to be doing something wrong). But to act in a way that is hateful toward these people is not loving. It is not what Jesus did or what Jesus taught.
The quote that you referenced was not an exact quote, but essentially a paraphrase of Matthew 25. You are right in saying that Jesus calls his followers to love and stand up for the rights of all people, especially those who are oppressed, misunderstood, and hurting. In fact, if you look at Jesus’ ministry, he was condemned by some because he hung out with prostitutes and people they deemed “sinners.” But this is who he calls to himself. He said that it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick–that he did not come to call the righteous to repentance, but the sinners.
I think you would really appreciate the sermon that my pastor preached this morning, actually. One thing that he said that has stuck in my head is that Jesus seeks worshipers among the outcasts. He talked about how the birth of Jesus was announced to the shepherds, who were, at that time, viewed as the scum of the society. And that is who we were. It is only by the grace of God that we are reconciled and made right. There is nothing of arrogance or judgment or hatred in this. It is humbling to acknowledge that we serve a God who saves, redeems, and restores, and we are absolutely nothing apart from him. We are the sinners and outcasts that Jesus came to save. That is why we are called to love all people and to reach out to the hurting and the misunderstood. Because that is who our God is.
Sorry if this is a super long tangent and if I have lost your attention. I loved the sermon this morning and I could probably go on about this idea for a real long time. While you are in the business of listening to things to and from work, such as an audio version of the Old Testament, perhaps you would like to listen to a 40 minute message? It is not posted yet, but will be soon at http://www.journeyontheweb.org/resources/sunday-messages/ If you are interested. =)
Proverbs 6:16-19 declares, “There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: 1) haughty eyes, 2) a lying tongue, 3) hands that shed innocent blood, 4) a heart that devises wicked schemes, 5) feet that are quick to rush into evil, 6) a false witness who pours out lies, and 7) a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.”
Funny, I don’t see “homosexuality” on this list?
There are more references to sexual sins committed between men and women then the VERY few which may possibly be mentioned in Scripture, yet isn’t it interesting how straight people are keen to say to us “let us point out your ’sin’ but lets ignore our own. Jesus specifically FORBIDS deivorce yet do you ever hear a sermon on the sin of divorce? As Jesus said in Luke 6;42 “How can you say to your brother, Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
Interesting; I’m no expert, but I can’t find any evidence that Jesus had anything to say about homosexuality at all. Though indeed he has strong words on divorce.
Allison, I’m slogging my way through Samuel at the moment, then on to Kings, and then The Shock Doctrine: The rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein. I’ll try to squeeze that in there somewhere though!
Regarding the words of Jesus on homosexuality…
I don’t think anyone can make the claim that the gospels are exclusive, that everything that Jesus said and taught is contained within those four books, especially in light of John 21:25, “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”
So the fact that the Gospels do not describe Jesus specifically condemning homosexuality does not mean that he condoned it. However, from what was recorded, Jesus does reference the order of marriage that was established at creation (Mark 10:6-9): “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
So this quote seems to establish that Jesus supported the understanding of marriage that was held throughout the Old Testament and continued in the New Testament, that is, one man and one woman in a covenant relationship before God. (On a sidenote, addressing the divorce issue, yes, Jesus clearly did condemn divorce, as is shown in this quote… but more on that later.)
Aside from that, I think that, when you examine the rest of the Bible, a pretty clear case is made against homosexuality. Jesus clearly accepted the authority of the Jewish Old Testament, and thus those who hold to the teachings of Jesus must do the same. In both the Old and New Testament, references are made to homosexuality:
Leviticus 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
1 Timothy 1:9-10 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine
[by the way this verse also condemns slavery, for those who make the claim that the Bible supports slavery...]
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Do 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 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
[I like this verse because it describes how wickedness is something that we all came from. But there is forgiveness and justification in the name of Jesus. It shows that there is hope for change by the power of God. Though these things are terribly displeasing to God, even damning, there is still hope. These are not primarily verses of condemnation but verses of hope.]
So the Bible does condemn homosexuality, but not as a sin that is more damning than any other sin.
On that note, let me address the issue that was brought up about heterosexual sins, including divorce, extramarital affairs, and premarital sex.
Yes, these things are clearly wrong. They are unbiblical and terribly displeasing to God. And I think most (all?) Christians will acknowledge this. I will have to disagree with the statement that no church preaches sermons about this, considering that last year, my pastor preached an entire series on “Sex as God Intended It,” which basically looked at God’s intent for marriage and sex. [I will grant you that this is not quite your average Sunday series, but it is certainly something that needs to be addressed...]
And I would argue with probably equal conviction about these issues as well, if they were under contention right now. Yet there are few people who are going around saying that polygamy is good, or that extramarital affairs are good. No one is saying that this is the way that God has made these people and they should be allowed to practice these things.
The difference with homosexuality is that there is an active political movement to identify homosexuals as a distinct group of people who were born this way and who can do nothing about it–and that, on that grounds, they should have special rights and privileges. There is an active movement to say that this is okay, that it is acceptable in the eyes of God. A church that holds the biblical view that this is displeasing to God cannot compromise on this issue any more than they could agree with someone who said that stealing was acceptable and simply a character trait that people are born with.
So basically, my answer would be that the controversy is there because the challenge is there. The battle over truth will be seen wherever truth is challenged. Thus, the reason why I probably have more conversations about the ethics behind homosexuality than divorce, stealing, or lying, is because more people are actively challenging the biblical understanding of heterosexual marriage than are challenging those other issues.
However, I will agree that it is certainly easier to condemn a behavior that does not implicate you personally, and it is certainly possible that some people who condemn homosexuality do not recognize or care to deal with their own sins. But this cannot be applied universally. In fact, I would say that, virtually without exception, every Christian that I know personally would say that a homosexual is not fundamentally a worse person than themself; we all simply struggle in different areas. [I say "virtually without exception" not because I can think of exceptions, but just in case I am forgetting something or am ignorant of a view that is held by someone I know...]
Furthermore, even if some Christians are hypocritical in the way that they express themselves and the way that they live, the foundation for the argument is not our words and actions, but rather what God has to say. The mistakes of Christians do not negate the truth of Scripture, on which authority the claim is made that homosexuality is wrong.
Gay rights are human rights. Marriage for everyone!
I really don’t think God cares about what we do with our genitals. I’d like to think He/She has much more important things to worry about.