Conservative Christians and Same-Sex Marriage: A Match Made in...America?
I’m a Christian, a Christian with very conservative roots, no less. Despite this background, I’ve been surprisingly fortunate enough to become dear friends with many beautiful people in the GLBT community. I absolutely support my GLBT neighbors in their struggle for equal rights and privileges under the law. At the same time, my theology tends to be a little more conservative (don’t think of Jerry Falwell-Pat Robertson-conservative, but more Tony Campolo-conservative) on the issue. So, I
submit this post in the spirit of friendship and seeking common-ground.
Is it possible for one to be both a Conservative-Christian and support same-sex marriage?
For many, this sounds like an oxymoron. But after some careful reflection, I believe conservatives can accept the secular legalization of same-sex marriage without compromising their convictions on homosexuality or marriage, in general.
We should ask ourselves the following questions:
To what extent do we impose our religious morals onto others through the law?
To what extent should we depend on the government to uphold our religious views on sexual ethics and marriage?
Are opponents of legalizing same-sex marriage consistent with other sexual “violations” within society, such as adultery, fornication, divorce, and remarriage?
While Christians have a responsibility to teach the tenets of their faith to the world, we should not seek to impose the tenets unique to our faith onto the broader public in a free and pluralistic society. Commitment to the Christian faith, or any faith for that matter, and compliance to the moral expectations thereof, should be completely voluntary and not enforced through governmental law. At the heart of the Conservative Christian position is the belief that homosexuality is a sin and marriage has traditionally been between a man and woman. Therefore, as Christians, we must prevent same-sex marriage from being validated under the law. But to what extent should Christians (or people of any faith) seek to impose their religious beliefs onto the broader public through the laws of the land? Certainly, we have quite an inconsistent application as to which “biblical sins” should be permissible under our laws: such as fornication, divorce, and remarriage. The Bible has a lot to say on these issues (much more than it does on homosexuality, btw). Yet, there are not many Christians seeking to enforce those standards on the broader public through the law. Where are the efforts to reform common-law marriages (two unmarried people obtaining the legal benefits of a married couple)? Or for the government to only allow divorce in cases of adultery? Or a law to forbid divorced people from getting remarried? Many Christians also believe the Bible forbids “unequally-yoked” marriages (Christians marrying outside of their faith). Should the government deny marriages
to interfaith couples, previously divorced couples, or force couples seeking a divorce to remain married? Is it the government’s place to only grant legal marriages to those who meet traditional biblical requirements?
Most of us instinctively know, that while these issues are very important to how we live out our faith and conduct our faith communities, we should not force society to conform to all the standards of our faith. Faith, and conformity to the moral standards thereof, must be voluntary.
Christians have every right to express their views on homosexuality (and if that is ever threatened, I would stand up for the freedom of speech and the right of religious communities to conduct themselves as they see fit). But consider for a moment, that one does not have to give up or even compromise their beliefs about homosexuality in order to accept same-sex marriage within our society.
Consider C.S. Lewis’ argument for the legalization of divorce in Great Britain. Could the same logic be applied to the same-sex marriage debate in America?
"Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question — how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian, you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the [Muslims] tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp.."--C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p112
Much like C.S. Lewis argued for divorce allowances in a secular society that went beyond the biblical allowances, so can the conservative Christian argue for same-sex marriage in a secular society, and yet retain for themselves and their churches the standards in accordance with their faith. Christians often support the rights of others that are in direct conflict with their faith. For instance, one of the very founding principles of our nation is the freedom of religion. This means we guarantee the right for all people to practice the faith of their choosing and worship freely. I would think, for traditional Christians, one of the worst sins would be to worship other gods. Yet many traditional Christians, sometimes religiously-devoted to the Constitution, affirm the freedom of religion for all people. Our government recognizes other religions and provides tax exempt statuses for all kinds of houses of worship: Christian, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist. So, under our current policies, the government "rewards" and "legitimizes" other religions. Yet, traditional Christians believe it is a sin to worship any other god beside God the Father through Jesus Christ. How do we reconcile this? We know worship cannot be forced upon people, nor should worship we disapprove of be forbidden under the law. Since we cherish the ability to worship freely and openly, we must extend this same right to all people, even if how that right is used conflicts with our own faith.
Some Christians worry that the legalization of same-sex marriage will somehow infringe upon their religious freedom. This argument simply doesn’t make sense. The legalization of same-sex marriage would not infringe on the rights of religious people to speak publicly about their beliefs.
Example:
Divorce is legal, but churches still maintain the right to preach against divorce and hold their members to their teachings. Churches reserve the right to refuse performing the marriages of, really, anyone who does not meet their standards. Though common-law marriages are legal and recognized by the government, churches still have the right to denounce fornication and teach abstinence. If same-sex marriage becomes legal, churches will still have the right to preach against homosexuality and handle the issue of homosexuality as they sit fit within their own churches. Just like the Catholic Church will not perform/recognize the remarriage of a Catholic who has gotten a divorce outside of their approval, churches against homosexual marriage will not be forced to perform/recognize the marriages of GLBT couples or stop publicizing their beliefs about it.
I contend, in our pluralistic society, that these types of issues (actions that do not violate the rights of others or seek to harm others), should be legalized, and faith communities should retain the right to publicly accept or reject the practice, in accordance to the beliefs of their particular faith tradition. Our laws aim (or should aim) to restrict the forcible imposition of another’s actions upon un-consenting victims. C.S. Lewis talked about a universal moral law that transcended any one religion or culture, and while people within all religions and cultures have violated and manipulated this moral law, there is, generally, a basic level of accepted morality. It is this universal moral law, upon which the majority of our laws are crafted. For instance, one does not need to be a Christian, or adherent to a particular religion, to recognize the need for laws against murder, rape, molestation, kid-napping, assault, stealing, extortion, and so forth. We can collectively agree that there needs to be laws to prevent and punish purveyors of such atrocities in order to justly protect our society. We can all agree on these because, at their very core, such actions violate the will of another person. We know that when the actions of one person override the consent of another, it is usually wrong. While many of our laws are based on Judeo-Christian principles, they are primarily focused on the morals that violate the rights of others. We should not, however, legislate laws that are unique to one particular faith over other faiths or no faith at all. While the government should be involved in ensuring all who enter marriage are afforded the same rights and privileges, it should be left to the individual couple’s faith community to define the nature and sacredness of a marital union.
We should also consider that by denying same-sex couples the right to marry, we deny them over 1,000 federal protections and privileges that are automatically afforded to heterosexual married couples. Here is a list of some of those protections and privileges.
The GLBT community is not all that interested in altering the theology of conservative Christians or censoring their sermons and broadcasts. Most just want to live their lives with access to the same opportunities for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as everyone else. It's about giving their partners and children the same stability afforded to heterosexual couples. My friends in the gay community want the same things I do: companionship, sexual intimacy, family, stability, and equality. I truly believe the views of all sides should be engaged with and respected, but ultimately, no one’s religious convictions should be forced on another through the law. Churches should not be forced to accept/recognize the marriages of gays and lesbians, the divorced, the remarried, or the cohabitation of non-married couples. Christians should remain free to challenge these issues and call those within and without of their faith community to examine their positions. Likewise gays and lesbians should not be restricted from marrying and receiving the benefits of legal marriages in a free, pluralistic society just because it offends the religious sensibilities of others. I suggest we have a more consistent position on the role of government (which traditional conservatism says is LESS government in our personal lives) when it comes to the issue of marriage.
So, maybe, just maybe, Conservative Christians can affirm the rights and dignity of the gay community, while simultaneously remaining faithful to their own deeply held convictions on the issue. I hope so.
This post is part of a Synchroblog, where a group of bloggers post on the same topic on the same day, so that people can surf from one to the other and get different views on the same basic topic. You will find links to the other participants below.
Kathy Baldock at Canyonwalker Connections – Marriage “I Do” For Who
Dan Brennan at Faith Dance – Sexual Difference, Marriage and Friendship
Steve Hayes at Khanya – Same Sex Marriage Synchroblog
Sonja Andrews at Calacirian – In Defense Of Marriage
John C O’Keefe – Exactly What Is Gay Marriage
Liz Dyer at Grace Rules – Nobody knows why or how same-sex marriage is harmful
Herman Groenewald at Along The Way – Same Sex Debate
Margaret Boelman at Minnowspeaks – What Have We Done
David Henson at unorthodoxology – ban marriage
Erin Word at Mapless – Synchroblog: Legalizing Same Sex Marriage
Joshua Jinno at Antechurch – The Church Is Impotent
Kathy Escobar at The Carnival In My Head – It’s Easy To Be Against Equal Rights When We Have Them
Peter Walker at Emerging Christian – Synchroblog – Same Sex Marriage
K. W. Leslie at The Evening of Kent – Mountains, Molehills and Same-Sex Marriage



12 comments:
Oaky, here's my take Tia Lynn, and it may surprise you. Because state-sanctioned marriage comes with tax advantages, this issue isn't as cut and dried as it often appears to the average conservative Christian.
But here is where I part company with you and every other person I've heard or read saying that the culture's rejection of same-sex marriage is to be lain at the feet of Christians who want to "impose tenets unique to our faith" onto the masses.
Are you kidding me, Tia Lynn? Muslims are against same-sex marriage. Orthodox Jews are against same sex marriage. And if California's Prop. 8 is any indication, a whole lot of people in the most liberal, secular state in the union are also against same-sex marriage. The vote of the left coast should have once and for all ended the notion that this is just about Christians trying to force the entire country to conform to our belief systems.
The mockery the church has made of the sacrament of marriage is the reason you can search high and low in my blog archives and not find a single word denigrating same-sex marriage. We need to sweep around our own front doors and because of that I don't have a dog in this hunt.
But I wish we would dispense with the fallacy that Christians alone are standing "at the schoolhouse doors" so to speak, refusing to let gays in. It simply isn't true. For obvious reasons I resent the frequent comparison to the civil rights movement of the 60's.
For the record, I do hold to traditional Christian teaching on the issue of homosexuality. So yeah, I'm fine with marriage remaining between a man and a woman.
But I don't think the world will end if secular marriage for same-sex couples becomes a reality, which it will. I think the response of believers should be to give up the tax breaks that come with marriage, and get their "license" through their place of worship.
Churches would have to keep records of marriages performed and licenses so that couples can claim benefits, insurance, and whatnot, but the state will recognize these licenses. You do not have to have a state license to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage. You just have to do your homework, and shell out few bucks for the legal paperwork. It's a small price to pay to retain what you believe to be sacrednesss of the marital contract.
Terry,
I am so glad you commented! I've missed you! Your comment gives me a great excuse to clarify. I aimed this post at conservative christians, not because they are the villian in all this, but because that is the camp I come from. You are absolutely right about your description of the beliefs of muslims, orthdox jews, and other religious groups. I think the only difference the degree of influence those other groups have. Muslims and Jews are quite a minority compared to conservative christians and (so the argument goes) that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. So I think the main power players in this issues are definitely conservative christian, but they are by no means the only group that is opposed to same-sex marriage. And notice, I am not questioning their belief. There are religious groups that do indeed sanction same-sex union, but even if ALL the religious groups were against same-sex marriage, the question still stands: should the views of the majority impede the lives of the minority?
But again, I was only directing this toward christians because I am christian. Not because I think they are some antigay loneranger holding up the rest of civilization. :)
Last night I wrote a giant response that was lost when I tried to post it. Today I condensed my response and tried again, to no avail. Obviously, I am not meant to comment, even though my response was sooo good.
Oh no! I love when you comment! I told you when you write big long responses to do it in Word first then copy and paste it in, incase these fickle comments boxes lose it. Well, now we'll have something to talk about over lunch? :)
Tia Lynn, great post. I think it's so important for religious progressives to remember how to speak the language of our faith-of-origin. I came from a very conservative Christian background as well, and at my worst I forget that heritage and act is if I can't understand their reasoning. I can, and I should, because once we put an end to understanding, there's no purpose in dialogue.
I hear what Terry is saying here, but I'd offer some different thoughts. First, every one of the religions he lists has movements, sects, denominations and communities that do affirm homosexuality. But just as the LGBT community is a global minority, so those affirming it remain minorities in each of their respective faith traditions. The trend is moving in their favor on nearly every front, however.
The other issue I want to address is that of social evolution. Typically (and historically) organized religions have either pushed ahead of or lagged behind the cultural norms of society at large in terms of social justice, equality, etc... On issues like slavery, Christian culture at large in the US lagged behind(although a Christian minority pushed forward for emancipation). Later, the Mainline Church was at the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s.
Today, it seems we've reversed once again: lagging, to leading, back to lagging.
Another example: On the whole, the church has generally lagged behind on issues of women's equality (the early, EARLY church gets SOME credit, but not as much as some folks want to give it). The only exceptions are just that: exceptions.
What's interesting is, I can't think of a single example where the church was "ahead" of culture in CONDEMNING a group of people that society later chose to condemn in kind.
The church has rightly condemned oppressive things - torture, child labor, and so on... but I can think of no retrospective example of where the church condemned a group of people, and where we can look back and say: "that's right. The church led that, and society rightly came along."
On this issue, the church is lagging behind, and a generation or two from now, I think even mainstream Evangeicals will look back and cringe at the arguments and rhetoric used today.
Tia,
A great, aritculate, passionate post toward the conservative camp. I guess my quibble here would be the difference between exterting influence and "imposing." Obviously, many conservatives believe that is exactly what is happening to them in this pluralistic society. There was a recent news about a Catholic who teaches religion at the University of Illinois who expressed a conservative view of marriage. Yet, many who differed with him called for him to be fired. So, are you just as passionate that those who support same-sex marriage not limit those who differ with them?
Absolutely Dan! I dont think anyone's career should be in danger because of their stance on this issue. I think all sides should remain free to voice their concerns and beliefs. And when I hear people being threatened like that catholic school teacher or when recently that politician came out saying gay people should not be allowed to be teachers, Im against all of it. I want the church (or conservatives in general) to be able to express their views to all who are willing to listen and to be part of the public debate. Of course, free speech doesn't ensure freedom FROM public criticism, but I dont want anyone losing their jobs are pressured into silence. We all want to influence others, but my concern is not so much the desire to influence, how we go about influencing. On issues like same-sex marriage, I don't to influence through laws that will force others to comply with my religious beliefs, but would rather hope to influence through reasonable persuasion and exchange of ideas.
Thanks everyone for the input thus far!
tia, you might find this interesting. my views are rather similar to yours on this issue and i was going to vote against prop 8 in the last election here in california. well, i did pray about it anyway and asked God how to vote on prop 8 and i heard a clear "yes". i was surprised and said okay Lord i'll go with your wishes and vote to restrict marriage to only men & women.
also, just a few weeks ago i was having a lively discussion on FB regarding abortion and thought maybe it was possible for it to stay legal with much heavier restrictions (like is the case in some western european countries where the abortion rates are much lower than here). this time i had a couple of dreams from God and he basically said i missed the bus on this one, was playing a dangerous game and needed to get back on the bus to the more conventional church position. soooo, i'm getting the sense personally from these two experiences that God isn't too big on the pragmatic approaches i was advocating. usually, i'm against pragmatic approaches but was making exceptions. i do know my desire to avoid conflict on controversial issues and to be thought accepting and non-judgmental can lead me astray at times.
now, i don't expect anyone reading what i've written here to go by my experiences at all, but i do think that as christians of any stripe we should be asking God to speak to us personally about these issues in addition to our studying them in scripture and culturally. convincing arguments can be made on both sides of these types of issues so i believe we also need to seek God in prayer and wait for clear answers from him.
Linda that is very interesting. I realize this is a very complicated issue, so I would ultimately say each person has to vote their convictions. I just find it difficult when my convictions would have such a drastic effect on my gay and lesbian neighbors. Im very prolife and support abortion reduction initiatives AS WELL as legal prolife measures. To me, since abortion is actually ending a life, this is not a choice any person should be afforded. Only in extreme circumstances. But I think it's different when it comes to civil unions or same-sex marriage. But I definitely agree, every person must seek the Lord when navigating our way through political issues. Thanks for posting girl!
tia, in the specific instance of prop 8 and the state of CA gay & lesbians would not have gained any additional benefits from the gov't because we already have domestic partnership laws. it would have been mostly a symbolic & moral victory. now, i have heard the argument that hospitals will not allow domestic partners to see their dying loved ones but that is an issue of the law needing to be enforced rather than changed. i think rather than allowing same-sex marriage we'd be better off giving full rights in the form of civil unions or domestic partnerships.
actually, i agree with terry that marriage is such a mockery in this country that it would be better if we leave marriage to churches/religious institutions and let the gov't issue civil unions et al for all those who are not wanting a sacred union. obviously, that would be a huge change in how things happened in this country but we do need to change something to retain the real meaning of marriage. actually, i dug up a couple quotes from an old ooze thread on pomosexuality where we talked about this:
windblown:
There is a debate in constitutional law [in the South in the US and other places like southern africa] around religious rights and ideas of marriage. One solution in a plural (post-modern?) society is to have different kinds of "marriage".
One form would be simple social agreement, registerable with minimium formalities which would regulate property, child access and support. It could be dissolved with a mimum of formalities by either partner, perhaps simply administrative formalities.
The other would be a lifetime covenant, offered only through religious organisations, and then not on demand but in compliance with the requirements of that church, for instance counselling, faith commitments, time periods. This would be much harder to dissolve, would require cause, court action etc.
The idea is that one has consumer style partnerships for those who want them and allow religious communities to create true covenants.
It may or may not appeal to you, but it is IMO a very pomo solution.
galadriel:
It would also go a long way in "resolving" (for lack of a better term) the Gay marriage controversy - any couple could be married in the eyes of the government for tax and child custody purposes, but there would also be an additional, religiously-based marriage option for those who desired it.
Excellent post Tia! I live in Southern California and have been following recent developments since the passage of Prop. 8 here in this State. As some of you may know, the measure has been ruled unconstitutional by a Federal Judge.
I applaud the ruling! It is not the business of the State or the Electorate (people) of a State to declare what a relatively small minority of citizens can and cannot do so long as it doesn't involve murder, mayhem, fraud, animal cruelty, or the coercion of others. And that is precisely why we have an independent Judiciary.
I voted no on Prop. 8 because its proponents could not convince me that by allowing Gay and Lesbian citizens to marry, it would somehow infringe upon my life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or entering into a heterosexual marriage of my own choosing should the inclination or circumstance allow. (and no I am not gay, I have been married to the same wonderful woman for 30 yrs.!)
But this is all on the one hand. Permit me if you will, a brief say on another hand. I am also convinced that the Federal judge who ordered the removal of the Ten Commandments inscribed in granite from the Alabama judicial house back in 2003, overstepped his bounds.
To date then or now, Congress has made no law respecting the establishment of a State religion, nor has it allocated funds to promote any one particular religion. It is specious to say that granite tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments in a courthouse promotes one religion over the other or breaches Jefferson‘s “Wall of Separation“.
I would also argue that a group of American Muslims also have the same right to display verses from their Quran in the same halls. The ruling is a dangerous precedent, because it implies that the domain of our rights to religious expression exists only at the pleasure and discretion of the Federal Government.
If citizens cannot express their cherished religious beliefs in halls that are supposed to theirs, we inch dangerously close to prohibiting the free exercise of religion itself.
I am struggling with this very issue at present. While I cannot support gay marriage for many reasons, I will not judge same sex unions. For me, Marriage is a god-ordained covenant between Man and Woman. Nothing in scripture or natural law leads me to believe that either God or Natural Selection supports homosexuality. I am yet to be convinced that "rights" should be given to a group based upon a sexual preference. The comparisons to the 1960s civil rights or any other group is fallible, as one is comparing a measurable/quantitative difference as incolor of skin, man v. woman, etc. and homosexuality is merely a lifestyle choice or sexual preference. Now there may be some credence to some people being born with certain predispositions (this is what I am struggling with as you see young people with certain masculine/feminine traits) but I'm not sure this rises to the level of civil rights. I have no issue with same sex unions in this country if people want to engage in them, or any benefits that may arise from said union. Thats a person/secular issue. But from a religions perspective (jew, muslem, christian) i do not have to condone it not agree with it. One has to look deeper at why the religious institution of marriage is being assaulted when the same-sex union arrangement would suffice without trampling on the beliefs of most major abrahamic faiths? Can we not extend rights without compromising our beliefs? Is there anything in scripture that tends to support gay marriage? If God did not exist, how does one rationalize homosexuality in the world even using natural law? I have read some of Walter Wink's writings on this and find it shallow at best. I am not saying I have the definite answer to this. I am only saying where I am now. ~npp
Post a Comment