first!/A Christian Argument Against Prop 8

Hi everybody! This is the start of what I hope will be fertile ground for thoughtful dialogue on issues of faith from a Christian perspective as well as politics, international relations, and socioeconomic stuff.

Over the course of the last year, there have been plenty of times when I see an article or an online post where my faith is misrepresented by others. Sometimes it will be too judgmental and politically charged a point of view, or sometimes it'll be a statement that is too culturally accomodating and doctrinally unsound. Sometimes it'll be a statement unrelated to faith that's just plain ol' erroneous.

In any case, whenever I see this stuff out there, I want to write a letter to the editor/writer/etc. to try to come at the issue from a more thoughtful/prayerful/correct point of view. So I thought, why not just blog instead? So anyways, I'm taking a stab at this and we'll see how it goes.

To start things off right, here's a facebook note I wrote about why I voted "No" on California's Proposition 8 (the bill "Removing the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" according to the Ballot's official title for it.) I wrote this before the election, but I'm posting it now as a sample of how I try to approach issues. Enjoy!

A Christian Argument Against Prop 8

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi everybody. There’s a lot of focus on this election for the obvious reason of the presidency, I think we can all agree. Record numbers of turnout on both sides, increased media focus, fundraising records being shattered, the electoral map shifting, groundbreaking nominations on both sides…but I think those of us living in California, while we hear plenty, are far more removed from the general election process than someone living in say, Ohio, Florida or Virginia.

We’re one of the safest blue states on the map (although I think we went for Reagan in ‘84). Even though we make up about 10% of all the votes and are by far the biggest state in terms of population, neither candidate really uses California for anything other than raising money, or bugging us to drive to Nevada to knock on doors. (Anyone on the Obama campaign’s email list knows what I’m talking about.) So, all this to say, even though Barack Obama and John McCain have brought the largest, youngest, and most diverse groups out of the woodwork, from sea to shining freaking sea, it can be easy to feel like if you live in California, your vote doesn’t matter as much.

But it does. If you’re reading this on Facebook, I’d be willing to bet that you’ve heard of this summer’s California Supreme Court decision, which recognized marriage for same-sex couples. And you’ve probably also heard of Proposition 8, the ballot measure that came into existence almost immediately afterward. On the sample ballot, it reads “Eliminates right of same–sex couples to marry.” If passed, this law would define marriage in California and legally recognize only heterosexual marriages. In the last few months, a lot of passionate feelings have been raised on both sides of the issue, so let’s clear a few things up. This law is not to decide “yes” or “no” on gay marriage, this law is to say that a same sex relationship cannot be termed “marriage” in the state of California. Marriage for same-sex couples has already been granted through the legal system of the state, and this is a law to, in its own words, “eliminate” that “right.” This is an issue of legal rights, not of some imaginary LGBT conspiracy out there conspiring to erase our values and beliefs.

No one is pushing their beliefs on you. I read on a friend’s post on this issue that only 3% of the population is gay and is “forcing their beliefs” on the other 97% of the population. Now, leaving aside those HUGE assumptions (that that percentage is accurate and that 100% of that 97% of straight people oppose gay marriage) it’s just not true that “they” are forcing “their” beliefs on “us.” Judges, appointed officials who administer the law, acted to protect rights for an alternative lifestyle. One of the problems with California’s referendum laws is that anyone in the state can do things like hang the rights of a minority group (up to 49% of the population) on a simple popular vote (which any veteran of the civil rights or women’s rights struggles would tell you is a bad idea).

But let’s talk about why you shouldn’t vote yes in this popularity contest. Since it’s a change to the California state constitution, there should be a good reason to pass it. I’m arguing against this proposition and not FOR anything other than letting the Constitution stay as it is now, so these will all be reasons why you should vote “no,” not necessarily in support of gay marriage as an institution or homosexuality as a lifestyle choice.

1. It doesn’t protect marriage. How will redefining a civil marriage under the law protect marriage? The institution of American marriage is not under assault today, at least not more than it has been by its rising divorce rate for the past few decades. (50% of first marriages!) American marriages have been in trouble for a while; the culprit is not homosexuality and never has been. I’ve heard the argument that male or female roommates might get married to each other out of convenience to get lower taxes or health benefits; marriages of convenience happen between heterosexual couples as well, and we’ve never cared before.

2. No one’s forcing YOU to get married or condone being gay. This is where that 97%-3% argument falls to pieces. The fictional 3% aren’t forcing the fictional 97% to get married to people of their own gender, they just want to be able to choose for themselves. No one is forcing you to legitimize homosexuality as a lifestyle, or admit that it comes from genetic rather than environmental factors. It is entirely about the same rights under a country that bills itself as free of religious influence.

3. Here’s a big one. No one is forcing you to deny your Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin. Your church will not be forced to marry same-sex couples or hire same-sex employees, unless MAYBE you somehow receive state funding. (Which I don’t think tax-exempt churches are allowed to do, but I’m not 100% sure)

4. Your kids will NOT be taught that homosexuality is ok in public school if Prop 8 fails. (It has nothing to do with that!)

5. From a strictly legal point of view, marriages offer far more legal benefits to a same-sex couple than a civil union. Power of attorney, legal right of kinship, joint federal income tax filing, etc. Civil unions are NOT the same and this proposition does actually deny people their legitimate rights, for living outside the majority opinion of a marriage (whether or not you want to classify gay marriage as a “right,” you have to agree that THOSE are rights).I can’t tell you that I know how Jesus would vote. That would be presumptuous on my part, especially given what I’m about to say. I’ll just have to go with what I’ve come to after a lot of prayer and thinking about the issues in the light of what Scripture says. Your religion can and should influence your vote. THAT isn’t what the separation of Church and State is about. It comes down to voting to specifically forbid someone else a right that’s been extended to them (when it in no way affects you, your beliefs, or your relationship with God) to let those who disagree with the Bible live with all the rights we have, and I can’t in good conscience do that.

If Jesus could vote in a secular state like ours, would he vote to force others to live by his moral code? From what I’ve seen, he led by example and personally called people to follow Him. He gave commandments to “sin no more” and to “pick up [your] cross and follow me” to individuals, as God on Earth. He had a more nuanced and complex relationship with the religiously based Jewish law of his day than simply legally forbidding behavior at odds with his teachings. He hung out with and preached to Samaritans and prostitutes, contact with them forbidden or at the very least looked down upon by the believers of his day. He called them to a personal choice to change their lives and to enter into a relationship with Him.

Would he have looked at a ballot in a country that is explicitly non-religious and thought, “Since these people sin, I will enact laws to make their life more difficult?” I have a hard time visualizing that.

If the gay rights struggle begins to conflict with religious rights, I’ll be up in arms. If the thought police come after Christians for saying apolitically from the pulpit that the New Testament teaches that homosexuality is wrong, a lot of people will get angry. But that’s not what this vote is about. It isn’t about anything near that. It does not directly affect communities of faith, for gays & lesbians to get married, somewhere in the state, so I don’t really feel compelled to stop it. The apostle Paul wrote a lot about sexual immorality in the church. You know what he said about sinners outside the church?

“For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges.” (1st Corinthians 5:12-13a, NASB) Paul is always adamant about urging Christians to expel unrepentant sinners from their churches, but here he talks about how it’s not our place to judge an unrepentant world.It’s the church’s job to live as an example to that unrepentant world.

It’s the church’s job to protect marriage by having good marriages, not by forbidding the formalization (and equal recognition under the secular law) of thousands of longstanding gay and lesbian relationships. If you want to protect marriage, don’t get married until you’re really ready. If you want to protect marriage, work on having good spousal communication, on spending time and energy on your kids, on your relationship with, and understanding of God, together. Go do some sit-ups or buy those flowers or cook that romantic surprise dinner.

That's what a REAL "Protect Marriage" law would require.