Thoughts on Prop 8

I no longer live in California, but I still have great interest in my home state for my earliest years, and for much of my life since I graduated from college -- back when Jimmy Carter was still President and I was still a Republican.

On November 4th a slight majority of Californians voted to enact a Constitutional amendment that legally defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. In doing this, the people voters overturned a California State Supreme Court ruling that overturned a previous statute that said pretty much the same thing. This vote puts into limbo about 16,000 marriages between gays and lesbians and prevents the state from affirming further legal marriages. Other states enacted similar laws, but California's is unique in the sense that it responded to a court action giving rights to gay and lesbian Californians to enjoy the benefits of marriage.

That the voters acted as they did shouldn't be surprising. We as a nation are still wrestling with this issue. Most Christian denominations don't allow for clergy to be involved in gay and lesbian weddings, although my denomination does not prevent me from participating. That it's not surprising doesn't make it right.

The California Supreme Court acted as it did on good precedent. They followed the lead of a much earlier state Supreme Court that overturned a ban on inter-racial marriage. Think about that for a moment. Our new President-Elect is the product of just such a marriage, one that was illegal in much of the US at the time his parents were married in Hawaii.

It is unfortunate any time that we act to rescind rights already guaranteed. To enact a constitutional amendment to do this is even more disheartening.

All that being said, there is a silver lining here. It is small comfort to those already married under the previous understandings and those who hoped to be married. But the good news here is the margin of "victory" was narrow. I imagine this isn't the last we'll hear of this issue in California. It only takes 50% of the voters to overturn this decision. That this will happen is seen in the demographics of voters who supported and opposed this measure. By and large this is a generational issue. Older voters were much more likely to vote for Prop 8 than younger ones. That suggests that the trends will lead to change, sooner rather than later. As I said, this might prove to be small comfort, but there is hope for those who wish to join in married life.

As a pastor I would just as soon get out of the government business. I think there is value in looking at the European model that separates the civil and the religious aspects of marriage. Perhaps if we did this, then the civil liabilities that have been enacted could be dealt with while the rest of society deals with the theological issues involved.

As for the charge that gay marriage undermines families, I'm sorry but we heterosexuals have done a grand job of undermining families. Letting loving gay and lesbian couples marry will only enhance family, not destroy it.

Comments

Anonymous said…
God says that a marriage is the union of a man and a woman. A marriage requires a husband, which must be a man, and a wife, which must be a woman.

"Same-sex marriage" is an oxymoron. Those who promote such wickedness will have to answer to a just and righteous God for perverting God's design.
John Shuck said…
God says...

When a sentence begins like that you know you are dealing with the delusional.

Good post, Bob. Good connection with the inter-racial marriage issue as well. I hadn't made that connection with Obama's parents.
Anonymous said…
My understanding on this issue was it was the pro-gay marriage movement that put this up for the vote. Since it lost, it seems there is so much screaming at the discrimination of the whole movement. I struggle with this.. if we are governed by the people and the people vote down the law.. then the people have spoken. Simply rolling the dice until we get the answer we want seems a little manipulative. This is the "political answer".

I am conservative Christian and I personally believe the scripture does address this issue specifically. HOWEVER, I do struggle with how do I reconcile this in our country. A union is a "state" issue, marriage is a harder term. Is that a church blessing? But I agree with you Bob, I wish this issue could be split some way. If the state wants to allow it, then I have to tolerate it.. just like pornography, strip clubs, etc. But just b/c its legal by the state doesn't mean the church has to bless it. Sorry if this comes across harsh, the intention is simply to share a view point.. nothing demeaning and feel free to disagree as I admit to wrestling with this issue.
Anonymous said…
Amen. It's so absurd to imagine that, of all things, gay marriage is what's threatening the family lives of heterosexuals.
Anonymous said…
john shuck,

Anytime someone implies that God has never said anything, you know you're dealing with either an ignoramous, or a fool. Which one are you?
Country Parson said…
Dear John and Gary,
Go back and read your scripture carefully. It, not God per se, does refer to marriage a number of times as between husband and wife, but it's never prescriptive. The Church has created the rite of Holy Matrimony, although not without scriptural warrant. What the state does, and whatever they call it, is essentially irrelevant to what the Church decides is or is not Holy Matrimony. My own take is that state sponsored marriages are never anything other than civil unions, and I would like them to be open to gays and straights alike. What the Church does with that is an entirely different matter, and it is a struggle to discern where God might be leading us on that.
CP
Anonymous said…
Gary,

I agree, God has spoken, God is not silent. So what do you make of this quote from Isaiah 56:

3 ... and do not let the eunuch say, "I am just a dry tree." 4 For thus says the LORD: To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, 5 I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.
...
7 these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.

A Eunuch is someone who is sexually damaged and can never be 'normal' again. Because of his sexual deformity he was deemed unclean, defiled, and denied access to the Temple.

I want to read your comment before I share mine.

John
John Shuck said…
We never know what "God says" about anything. At best we have texts in which their authors spoke about things using literary characters representing gods or "God."

How we use those texts to form opinions about what might be done in the present is no simple matter.

To say "God says" is either to express a private revelation or to state an opinion and attempt to buttress it with appeal to authority.

Neither attempt refers to what "God" says, and to think it does is to delude oneself.

Besides if God is the symbol we use for Truth then who is to say which texts are God's texts or for that matter that God/Truth is limited to texts at all?

Further, as Steven points out, civil marriage has nothing to do with the church.
Robert Cornwall said…
Interesting conversation! Just one clarification. It wasn't the pro-Gay community that put Prop 8 on the ballot. It was the anti-gay marriage people, who responded to the Supreme Court's decision to open marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

The governor of California, a Republican, vetoed two legislative attempts to open marriage up to gays and lesbians, stating that it was the Courts that had to decide this. He also came out strongly in opposition to Prop 8.

The courts did their job. They looked at the Constitution and said that from a civil perspective marriage should be available to all, gay or straight.

However, that doesn't mean that religious groups must ratify any union. I am in no way compelled to marry anyone against my conscience. The 1st Amendment protects my freedom.
Anonymous said…
Thanks for the clarification. I will confess this was a second hand comment from a coworker.. best to do my own research!

I think your last paragraph Bob should capture the argument. The argument is best served when the issue is divided between church and state. There are some "die on the sword" issues for me.. I just hate to see this one put at the top. I may disagree with same sex marriage from a theological view point (Romans 2) and if the government forced church's to marry certain people.. then yes, there would be revolt in the street. Personally, I think if the church wants to address a real issue inside its own walls.. it needs to take on internet pornography. Thats a much BIGGER issue within the church!!!

-chuck
Anonymous said…
anonymous john,

The only comment I have about that scripture is that it has nothing to do with the subjects of homosexuality or same-sex marriage. Eunuchs are not homosexuals.
Anonymous said…
Gary,

It seems that you have no problem discarding the words of the Lord too lightly when you find them unhelpful to your position.

Eunuchs are not normal sexually speaking (mostly because their condition prevents them from participating in procreative sex) and because of their condition there are many words of scripture which categorize them as unclean and otherwise marginalize them, including explicitly prohibiting them from the Temple.

Homosexuals are not normal sexually speaking (mostly because their condition prevents them from participating in procreative sex) and there are many words of scripture which categorize them as unclean and otherwise marginalize them.

The change of tone from the Lord as described by Isaiah should not be ignored. The Lord is the Lord of everyone, and he has plans for them, to prosper them, all of them.

Why is it so painful for you to consider the possibility that God's love and compassion and mercy extend even to those who commit sins which you abhor?

Do you really think that you are loved and forgiven by God and not them?

As for homosexual relationships, God said that it was not good for man to be alone. Having created homosexuals to abhor heterosexual relations, would a compassionate God then deny them companionship altogether?

The greatest sin is not murder or even homosexuality, but the sin against the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of loving kindness.

Is loving kindness so hard a thing for you? Most of what I read from you is contempt and judgment.

John
Anonymous said…
anonymous john,

You are a theological ignoramous. Eunuchs are not homosexuals, and there is no rational connection between the two. You are twisting and perverting scripture to suit your own wicked purposes.

If you are going to claim that God created homosexuals and likes them the way they are, you could say the same thing about murderers, thieves, drunkards, liars, etc.. Your argument is nonsense.

Homosexuality is a sin. God can, if He chooses to, save certain homosexuals out of their sin. But if God chooses to have mercy on some, that in no way proves that God considers homosexuality a good thing.

God saves some people out of their adultery. That does not mean that God approves of adultery and that the person has God's permission to keep doing it.
Anonymous said…
Gary,

But God did create homosexuals. I am sure will agree that true homosexuality is not a chosen condition but one which is genetically based.

Whether He is happy with the way they are I don't know, but I know He likes them. In fact I know that He loves them.

I really don't pretend to know for certain what His response to their condition is, but, if I can trust Scripture, it would seem that He would respond with compassion and forgiveness.

His response to the Scripturally unclean Eunuchs is instructive, if not predictive. I would say that to interpret Scripture in a way which incites exclusion or in anyway which invites anything other than compassion is perverted.

You are like the crowd who brought forth the woman caught in adultery Sure, she was guilty - but the sin which concerned Jesus was not hers, but the sin of those who accused her, those who were preoccupied with the sin of others. Jesus response to her was one of compassion - His response to the accusers was to call them to self-examination.

As for my purposes, I sense that you have no idea what they are, wicked or otherwise. But I can say I was once as certain as you that Scripture called for rejection of the homosexual as well as a variety of other sinners. As my faith deepened I came to realize that their sins were no more heinous than mine. I also came to realize that Scripture is not a weapon but a light, and that fair interpretation of Scripture must always, always, result in a response of compassion. If my interpretation does not result in a call to compassion then I am in error and I need to spend much more time with Scripture and prayer until I can discern the situation through the eyes of Jesus.

John
Anonymous said…
Interestingly, I sort of split the middle on you guys on this one. I interpret Romans 1:26-27 as pretty straight forward on this issue:

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.

BUT, to agree with you John, keep reading in Romans 2 and its a warning on judging.

The way I read this.. and its one sinful man's interpretation, is to treat it like alcoholism. Do I think its is a sin, yes. Do I kick the person out b/c of it, of course not. I want to support ministries that help people with sexual issues. You can thrown in addiction to internet pornography as well in this conversation. We want to see God redeem his people, we don't banish them to curb and build walls around who God will reach.

Chuck
Anonymous said…
anonymous john,

Does having compassion for homosexuals mean that I must consider them righteous when God calls them abominations? Does it mean that I must endorse same-sex marriage? Does it mean that I must stop telling them that God considers homosexuality a perversion of his design and intent, and that if they refuse to repent of their sin, God is going to put them in Hell? Because if that is what it means to be compassionate, then I won't be able to do it.
Anonymous said…
Gary,

You asked: Does having compassion for homosexuals mean that I must consider them righteous ... endorse same-sex marriage ... stop telling them that God considers homosexuality a perversion of his design and intent, and that if they refuse to repent of their sin, God is going to put them in Hell?

You need not consider them any more righteous than you consider yourself. After all God loves us all regardless of the degree of our righteousness. Who can say who is righteous and who is not?

Jesus asked adulterous woman's accusers to renew their accusations after self examination and they could not. Yes, it means you have to stop being preoccupied with their conduct. A sin it may be, hell they be headed to, but your job is to care for them and embrace them as fellow sinners. Judgment, and perhaps damnation is up to God, not you.

You really need to stop assaulting them for their conduct. They have heard your point of view; your hostility to them, arising out of your claim of prophecy, does not reinforce the message but in truth only detracts from its force - who would want to worship a God whose prophets are so hateful toward them? My understanding of God is that he responds to people's woundedness with love, not damnation. Isn't it more likely that this understanding of God will elicit a positive response then threats of damnation.

You need not endorse or support same sex marriage - that is a very different animal than attacking them as more sinful than you, or their sin as more heinous than yours.

Compassion is not something of which everyone is capable - especially those who have not received it.

John
Anonymous said…
john,

I have never claimed to be without sin. I have never said that my sin is better than anyone else's sin. But I have acknowledged my sins before God, and repented of them. I find no such acknowledgement or repentance amoung the overwhelming majority of homosexuals, or their defenders and enablers.

It was God who decided that homosexuality is a sin, not me. It was God who decided that unrepentent sinners would be put in Hell, not me.

Your demand that I ignore what God has had written in the Bible about sin and judgement is not something God requires, just what YOU require. I'm not judging homos, God has already done that. Acknowledging what God has already decided is not judging.

What God has instructed me to do is warn sinners of the consequences of their sin. Judgement day is coming. It would be far more cruel to pretend that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality than to tell them they are sinners. Most won't repent, but at least they've been warned.

God has also instructed me to resist their(and your) attempts to justify their sin and have it accepted in society. That is why I oppose same-sex marriage, civil unions, hate crimes laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc..
Anonymous said…
Gary,

You said: "That is why I oppose ... hate crimes laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc.."

Then you would legalize hate crimes and encourage discrimination!?! What caused you to become such a seriously venomously angry person?

You said: "I find no such acknowledgement or repentance amoung the overwhelming majority of homosexuals, or their defenders and enablers."

I highly doubt that you have spent a significant amount of time with any homosexuals, let alone with the overwhelming majority of them to know the state of the spirituality or the quality of their relationship with Christ.

I am curious: I suppose you see me as an enabler - what then would you have me repent of? Am I guilty of accusing God of being too loving, too forgiving, too compassionate? Am I guilty of praying too fervently that other sinners should find forgiveness and a more abiding relationship with God?

You said: "I'm not judging homos, God has already done that. Acknowledging what God has already decided is not judging. ... Judgement day is coming."

While you assert that judgment is complete, you later assert that Judgment day is coming - which is it? Are you going to act toward homosexuals based on the judgment you know has been rendered or on the basis that they have not yet been damned?

Are you going to pray that God grants them mercy? Even in the midst of your rage against their sinfulness, could you pray that God finds it in His heart to forgive them just as you pray that He forgives you for the sins you repeatedly commit?

You said: "But I have acknowledged my sins before God, and repented of them."

So what if you have repented, Jesus didn't say 'Let those who have repented of their sins may cast the first stone.'

Genuine repentance would involve turning away from a sin forever. "Create in me a clean heart!" Your anger at homosexuals is a sin, and not you have not turned away from this sin, not momentarily, and not permanently.

Matthew 5:21-24 says: "You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not murder'; and 'whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, 'You fool,' you will be liable to the hell of fire. So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift."

You are angry at homosexuals, you insult them, and you make no effort at reconciliation. You demonize them and see them your enemies. And there is no room in your heart for love of these enemies.

With each indictment you make, you give the lie to your claim of repentance, ignoring again and again Jesus' warning to those who would stone the adulteress.

I agree that I am a poor theologian, but I see nothing Christian in your attitude: no forgiveness, no compassion, no humility, no love of enemy, no love of neighbor, no thought of reconciliation, and no joy.

You indeed are Jonah, wishing damnation on those you oppose, and resenting even the thought that God may love them as much as He loves you.

John
Anonymous said…
Chuck,

Homosexuality is not an addiction, and it therefore cannot be "cured" or "treated".

If one is genetically rendered a homosexual, (or as Romans 1:24 states it: "God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts...."), they were in fact created that way. I agree that homosexuality is not consistent with God's usually pro-creative methodology, but it is not life threatening, nor is it necessarily threatening to the community. In that case does it mandate a drastic negative response from the Christian community?

Does it make sense to castigate homosexuals for what God and nature have made them? Is it Christian to threaten them with judgment and damnation if they do not overcome their created natures.

For me it makes more sense to leave them to work out their relationship with God, while praying that God is ever merciful no matter the sin and no matter the sinner.

Gary calls this enabling, I think it is simply the compassionate response that Jesus calls us to: "Love one another as I have loved you."

I like Romans 2:1-5:

"Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. You say, "We know that God's judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth." Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God's righteous judgment will be revealed."

John
Anonymous said…
john,

I don't want to waste any more time talking to you, so I'll just say this and be done: I believe that you are a theological and moral pervert. I do not regard you as a Christian, but rather as someone who promotes sin and justifies the wicked.

I plan to continue to oppose your agenda for legitimizing sexual perversion. That means I will oppose everything that you and your sodomite companions want. I am utterly unconcerned with how you feel about that, since I know your judgement to be as perverted and wicked as your morality.
Anonymous said…
Gary,

You are so very hard hearted.

You said: "I do not regard you as a Christian, but rather as someone who promotes sin and justifies the wicked."

So what does that make Jesus who said on the cross, "Father forgive them for they know not what they are doing?"

Did not Jesus at his death forgive the wicked and with his death justify the wicked - even though they gave no thought to repentance - even though they were certain that they were right in what they were doing? Did he not plead with His Father in Heaven for their forgiveness? He certainly did not call down judgment and damnation upon them.

You and I can agree that we should pray that all sinners are converted and repent, and whether they do or they don't; then should we not also pray that God will be merciful and compassionate to all sinners.

But why in the name of Jesus would you ever pray damnation on anyone? "Or do you despise the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience?"

Funny you should criticize me for being a companion of Sodomites - Jesus' opponents criticized him for being a companion to whores, sinners and tax collectors.

Should I take that as a veiled compliment?

Don't you see Gary that with your every sally, your position becomes more obviously at odds with the message of Christ?

But you are right - the bridge between our points of view seems too far to cross at this time.

John
Anonymous said…
From what I can tell, the No on 8 people didn't work the kind of ground game that would have ensured its defeat. They seemed to rely on the popularity of Ellen DeGeneris, instead. Not smart. Now they are blaming African-Americans and Mormons instead of doing the outreach in these communities that would change things.
Tim said…
I think you should look at this the opposite way. Not that same-sex marriages are promoting wickedness but instead that a marriage between and man and woman is a covenant between God and man. Marriage between a man and woman should point us at our relationship between ourselves and god and that is why most Christians fight so hard to preserve it. Christians aren't trying to penalize people of different views but instead protect something hat is greatly important to them...

Just my thoughts!
Anonymous said…
timsson,

The desire to preserve and protect a beautiful and sacred institution is praiseworthy.

But what then do we Christians say to homosexuals? I am not suggesting that a Christian message must include sanctification of same sex marriages - but it could.

And in any event, when religiously driven self-protectionism is taken too far it becomes dangerous, violent and anything but Christian. Gary, who seems to have taken it that far, said above that he opposes the anti-discrimination laws as well as the outlawing of hate crimes.

Civilly speaking, there needs to be a balance in favor of toleration. Spiritually, we need to discern a response which embodies the love and compassion of Christ.

In working through these issues I haven't reached my own final conclusions yet, but those conclusions will certainly involve inclusion and compassion.

John
Anonymous said…
If same-sex marriage, or civil unions, were ever to become law where I live, my faith would prevent me from accepting it. I don't know how my government would treat me, but I just couldn't acknowledge that such laws were valid.

Popular Posts