On the one hand, I believe that gay people should have the same rights as others in our country. We don't demand that people who want to get married meet any kind of religious standard, thanks to the separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions. My state recognizes ceremonies done by a "licensed minister," whether that person is an Elvis impersonator, a Zen Buddhist, or an ordained member of a Christian church. However, Nevada is one state that has a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman enshrined in the state constitution, thanks to an amendment that passed by state referendum in 2000 and 2002. I don't remember if I voted for or against the amendment, but it's clear that times have changed in a few short years. People who are gay shouldn't be treated as second-class citizens.
On the other hand, marriage is a sacred covenant defined in the Bible and ordained by God. It isn't something to be trifled with. I would prefer a compromise position that gives gay people all the rights of a civil union, rather than insisting on what gay couples would call full equality. Calling it marriage is more than a semantic difference. A civil union is what it should be -- not the same thing as marriage. The legal definition of marriage should change, but the covenant relationship between a man and a woman ordained by God should not be challenged or made equal to something the Bible clearly does not condone. One gay Catholic writer I follow has made the argument that "homosexual acts" at the time Paul was writing most of the New Testament were quite different than today's gay couples -- most of whom, according to surveys, would prefer to marry if they could. Homosexual acts in Roman times, he says, were power displays where a superior would essentially rape another man, and sometimes involved masters overpowering slaves. Of course a Christian writer would be opposed to those acts, he says. However, putting Paul in that context ignores the fact that Paul's lists of sins were meant more as examples than as technical definitions -- it's the state of the heart that Paul is most concerned with. It's just not possible to put a same-sex couple on the same footing as an opposite-sex couple before God. It comes down to what God ordains in the Bible in Genesis, that a man and a woman should leave their father and mother and become one flesh. Christ's coming doesn't negate the Old Testament or the Torah, it is a fulfillment of it. Yes, much has changed as a result of Christ's coming, but that doesn't extend so far as to excuse all sin. As Christians, we shouldn't single out gay people for attack or deny them basic rights, such as visiting one's loved one in the hospital. We should understand that, just as our view of divorce has "evolved" over time, so has our view of homosexuality. Divorcees should feel welcome in the church, and so should gay people. We just can't ignore what the Bible has to say about sexual purity as a whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment