While I hesitate to write this because I don’t want to have folks think I’m spewing hatred, this all needs to be said.
A friend started a discussion on FaceBook on whether the ruling last week on Gay Marriage, allowing gays to get “Married” in all 50 states, was a good thing? She provided a position from a friend who thought that it was a very good thing. There were “Christians” who chimed in with “There needs to be more separation of Church and State!” This, obviously, gets down to the level of whether or not you can “Legislate” morality. I have repeatedly told people, our ENTIRE LAW is devoted to legislating morality! Well, at least it used to be. These days it has been perverted by agencies like the EPA and the IRS (and our own government) in order to try and make the beneficiaries of our hard work to not be us, at least not solely us. But that’s another discussion!
What I wrote my friends on FaceBook, are mainly the two articles I wrote just prior to this, that we are “Under Judgement” now, no doubt about it, and that our courts have become corrupt and hypocritical (in the article titled “One Justice No Justice For All”). Let me put in my friend’s original posting:
There are Christians who don’t oppose gay marriage based on this argument. Thoughts ….?
Here is what I genuinely don’t understand about the argument against civil rights for same-sex couples: The argument holds that because some citizens believe that their religion forbids same-sex marriage, it should be illegal for everyone. Okay. Some citizens believe that their religion forbids remarriage for divorcees (Matthew 19). Should we make that illegal? Some citizens (and MANY citizens up until the 1970s – correction: 1990s – ) believe their religion forbids interracial marriage. Did the Supreme Court overreach when it declared in 1967 that state laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional? Still others believe their religion teaches the sole purpose of marriage is procreation. Should it be illegal for infertile people to get married or couples over 60? Nothing about yesterday’s decision forces people with religious convictions against same-sex marriage to perform those marriages. That freedom is preserved, just as it remains totally legal for a church today to refuse to marry an interracial couple. Yesterday’s ruling simply allows for those who do not share that same religious conviction to enjoy the same civil liberties that the rest of us enjoy. Furthermore, is it not a more serious violation of religious liberty to tell a same-sex couple whose religion allows for, and in fact celebrates, marriage that they cannot practice that religious conviction because some of their fellow citizens do not agree with their particular expression of it? Civil rights aren’t up to a vote. They aren’t up to public opinion. Civil rights are part of what it means to be an American citizen. Theological arguments around marriage set aside for another day, I simply cannot find a single compelling argument in support of denying civil rights to LGBT people that does not rely on an unhealthy marriage (sorry!) between church and state. [Note: There’s a great, civil, and informed conversation following Anand’s comment below about how the decision could affect religious schools and organizations. Definitely worth reading for a variety of perspectives.]
2. In the book of Acts, the early church held a council, on whether gentile believers would be held to the “Judaic” standards, of circumcision, etc… What they came up with: “You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.” (Acts 15:29) I believe homosexuality clearly falls under “Sexual immorality”.
3. Jesus started His ministry with these words: “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near.” In our day and age, we don’t “Get” this statement, because first, we have little idea of the meaning of repentance, and secondly, we don’t understand Kingdoms and Kings. Repent means variously “Turn from sin” or “Change your mind”. A Kingdom, in the Ancient Near East, had a King who had absolute authority over your life, you owed him TOTAL allegiance. I put the two therefore together and say that what Jesus was saying: “Join me in my Kingdom, and follow me with everything you have.”
4. The key thing Jesus tells us: “Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.” (Luke 9:23) We, obviously, are to lead lives not for our own sake – but for His.
5. Becoming a Christian is therefore, not an “Event” but a lifetime process of learning, obeying, following and growing. “but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 24:13)
If you seriously don’t believe there is an attack on our fundamental institutions of our civilization underlying all of this, then you either have not studied the Bible, or history or both. They are merely paving the road so to speak, in order to declare the Bible as “Hate speech” in order to further their (Satan’s) agenda. It’s coming. Parts of the Bible have already been declared as such in Canada, and most of Europe.
Hitler expertly focused the people’s negative energy on a single group and convinced the majority that it was about “Rights”.
It wasn’t but a few years from there to the cattle cars & the death camps.
“Wait! This is AMERICA! it could never happen here!”
Go and read the “About page” on this book by Irwin Lutzer and tell me we are not on that path.
I have written many articles on the question of being gay, so-called gay rights and so on. Here’s a good starter: