A couple days ago, North Carolina passed an amendment to their constitution defining marriage to be between a man and a woman. I don’t agree with such an amendment, though I’m not as fired up (and frankly, as closed minded and vitriolic) as others who have been lambasting the vote.
A few things about the State here…
- I don’t see why the state should be involved in this question.
- That said, citizens in North Carolina have a right to define their laws via constitutional amendments…
- …which is an epically stupid way to run a state, as California can attest to. Referendums are a horrid way to govern. There’s a reason why we have a representative government. The people are short sighted. Mob rule has never and will never work. My apologies to the communists and anarchists. It’s against human nature for the individual to look out for the good of the community.
Despite the civic forum, however, this is primarily a religious question. And the concept of gay marriage does fall into the religious arena. Like it or not, the Bible is clear on the issue. At risk of being burned at the stake as a heretic…that still doesn’t matter in this case. The Bible Inc never trademarked any of its terminology. Marriage, as recognized by Christian institutions, should adhere to the rules of the specific religious institutions. Marriage, as a civil union between consenting individuals, is outside of the church’s scope.
The church (could use a capital C for the Church universal) is a body of believers. Unbelievers get married every day. Well, at least every weekend. The church doesn’t seem to mind this – unbelievers mimicking the Christian institution of marriage. In fact, I think that the church agrees with this idea. As a God-ordained sacrament, marriage is an instrument of common grace. It exposes sin, it roots out selfishness, it can act as an agent of sanctification. So, if the church sees marriage as a useful tool for evangelism, why limit it through the creation of a legally binding glossary?
If I were to guess, however, legal marriage is only half of what the gay community wants here. I’d guess that they not only want to be allowed to be married, they want people to agree that it’s not wrong for them to do so. Can you imagine a state legislating “Gay marriage is both legal, and it is illegal for you to say that it’s wrong?” I don’t think we’re particularly close to that happening. Nor should we write a constitutional amendment condemning the wrongness of certain varieties of lifestyle. We have a sort of constitution that already does that, and, while all men will one day be held accountable to its judgment, the state is not that court. The Bible was never meant to be a basis for a Christian Sharia law. We can’t be so aghast about Islam’s legislative morality if we’re so eager to pass our own brand.
So why did this pass so overwhelmingly? Because people interpreted the amendment as a call to arms. Because people thought that they were being asked “Please check YES for ‘Good’ and NO for ‘Evil'”. Because this topic is a shibboleth, a representative issue used to prove your holiness against a tide of worldliness. But I don’t think this sort of legislation helps Christendom.
I’ve been wondering what I’d do if I lived in North Carolina. I don’t like the question, so I would not provide an answer. If this were put to a vote in my presbytery, I’d vote. But in my state…it’s not a battle that I think needs to be fought.
well reasoned and cool headed thoughts friend. keep up the good work.
Plenty of heteros get married every day without believe an iota of whatever it says in the bible, so why should it be any different for homosexuals? You either have to be against anyone who isn’t a textbook bible follower getting married, or you have to be for everyone getting married. Otherwise you’re implying that even if marrying heteros themselves don’t believe in the religious oaths they’re making, whatever YOU think it says in the bible secretly overpowers that and makes the whole thing OK with God’s plan for a world of Adams & Eves-not-Steves. And THAT is on par with Mormons baptizing dead Jews.
So you’re agreeing with me in an adversarial kind of way.