Comments on: IT’S A MATTER OF HOW YOU LOOK AT IT, I GUESS

by: bryan

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I was speaking to a fellow faculty member today about this very issue. “This battle is already lost,” I said. No matter what argument the traditionalists want to use, the pro-homosexual marriage movement has emotion and “civil rights” on its side.

Not to say that the battle won’t be engaged. but it’s a preordained conclusion.

by: Mark Hasty

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Yeah, that’s the way I see it, too. Eventually enough states will allow gay marriage that acceptance in the rest will be driven by economics–many individuals and organizations will probably decline to do business with companies in states which don’t allow it, and that will push the remaining states to change their minds.

by: dw

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Thing is, I think the battle is winnable, but in order to do so will take a radical realignment and shift of focus in the church, and I just don’t see that happening. The church is going to have to stop playing the outrage game and start listening to the needs of sinners.

I do find it odd that you never once see Jesus laying into non-believers in the Bible, yet look at how much he shreds the Pharasicial mindset in the seven woes. Even the woman at the well — “You have five husbands” — he’s making a statement of truth, and he doesn’t end it with “you harlot.”

After a lot of thinking and praying, I think what I now believe is as follows:
– Homosexuality is a sin. So are a bunch of other things, yes, but it is a sin.
– Homosexuals are sinners. So am I. As sinners, we all fall short of the glory of God.
– I believe that only a man and a woman should be married before God.
– I also believe that there should be a separation between marriage before God and the legal contract of civil union.
– How the people of a state wish to define what a civil union is should hopefully be guided by people of faith. However, it is up to the people of the state to decide this. Churches should prayerfully decide what God intends in Christian marriage.
– I hope that if we break into a two-tier European model it will lead to the end of Las Vegas weddings. Zero waiting period marriages are a greater parody of the sanctity of marriage than two committed lesbians tying the knot. (And, honestly, that’s the one thing that angers me most about what’s happening in San Fran. Gay couples are walking up and getting married on the spot, but I think there’s still a three-day waiting period for hetero couples.)

A lot more I could say. I’ll need to think it through before I blog.

by: Dave Fried

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I think you all might be overlooking another aspect of this. I think people are (rightly) concerned about the state of marriage. However, they’re projecting their concern onto gays, who have nothing to do with and no effect on straight couples. What is really destroying American marriage is divorce - something that Jesus himself preaches against repeatedly.

by: Paul

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Re: dw’s “I also believe that there should be a separation between marriage before God and the legal contract of civil union.” –

I agree. Let them enjoy legal rights as a committed couple, but I say ‘nay’ to whether their union should be recognized as a ‘marriage’.

by: MD

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I’m not surprised at the arrogance of Christians who assume that only they should be voting on what defines “marriage”, as some of the commenting above has shown. I’m a bit more disappointed in The Rev for providing a platform for such.

We already have “civil marriages” and “church marriages” in this country. Theoretically, since I got married on the beach in Hawaii, my marriage isn’t recognized by the Catholic Church. But if somebody said that because I’m nominally Catholic, that I should vote to define marriage as “only in a Catholic Church”, I’d put my boot up their ass so far they’d be flossing with my shoelaces.

by: Mark Hasty

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

You’re right, MD; I failed to make sufficiently clear my belief that we in the church really don’t have the right to define marriage for everyone. This piece was originally intended to go in a different direction than it wound up going; perhaps I should get around to writing the article I originally intended to.

by: PoliBlog

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Gay Marriage Round-Up II
As I continue to peruse the Blogosphere on the topic of the day, I would note these posts to go along with the list I posted earlier. McGehee of blogoSFERICS isn’t impressed by pro-gay marriage advocates who argue for gay…