godwho's Diaryland Diary


I feel pretty and witty, but not gay

May I be perhaps the first fundamentalist Evangelical to tell all of those speaking out allegedly on behalf of �Christians� on this California same sex marriage ruling to sit down and shut up?

�Our� reaction to this is yet another glaring example of how we�re screwing up our ability to communicate the message of Jesus by shouting about hot political topics while completely ignoring what�s actually important.

On the call-in radio shows and in print, I see three arguments popping up. Only one is truly valid, in my opinion. The other two probably sound reasonable to the people making the arguments, but they�re both based on faulty reasoning.

To me, the only valid opposition to the California Supreme Court ruling is that it completely flies in the face of how the majority of citizens have voted. That is disconcerting and should be examined.

The other two arguments are pro and con. Pro is �Two consenting adults who love each other and want to spend their lives together should have the right,� and con is �Historically, anthropologically, marriage, the bedrock of civilization, has always been one man and one woman.� The con one has to be put like this because people can�t overtly say, �God says marriage is one man and one woman� and be taken seriously.

However, the absolutely ONLY reason for marriage to be between one man and one woman is that the Architect of marriage designed it that way. Touting tradition, even thousands of years of it, or things like economic or domestic benefits is a weak way to make a point. Arguments are easy to dismiss or, well, argue away.

I can tell I�m about to go down a rabbit hole, so let me get back on track. A lot of people are saying that each state and the federal government should add some definition of marriage to the constitutions in order to prevent this type of judicial lawmaking. I looked up the text of the Federal �Defense of Marriage Act� (DOMA) online, and here�s one thing that it says: �In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.�

Really? Says who? Yeah, Christians. Okay. So what?

My Jewish girlfriend, A, said she�ll take the writers of the DOMA seriously when they stop cheating on their wives. She has a fair point. If we�re going to define marriage, and we�re going to do it based on the Judeo-Christian model of marriage, then the DOMA text does not go far enough. It needs to add �for life� several places in there, and it needs to make divorce illegal.

But that will never happen! And do you know why?

(Of course I�m going to tell you�)

Because we�re freaking hypocrites! This is simply a numbers game. Divorce is more acceptable to �Christians� than homosexuality because more than half of the population is divorced, and this includes Evangelical Christians. Since only 10% (maximum, and this is seen in some circles as an inflated statistic) of the population is gay, not as many Christians have a motivation to �accept� homosexuality as divorce. We�re selfish. Ideally, yeah, marriages last forever. But sometimes, there�s just no way to fix it, so we move on. Hey, at least we�re not gay.

There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in pre- or extra-marital heterosexual activity and homosexual activity. Let me put a finer point on that. To a Christian who takes God at His Word, there should be no moral difference between shacking up, cheating on a spouse, �experimenting� in college, or acting out homosexually. But there is, because lots of us are doing the hetero sex thing, and it�s embarrassing to point the finger at ourselves. It�s so much easier to vilify the �perverts.�

Okay, here�s the deal: God made man and He made woman. He established marriage. He said it�s for life. These are His laws and it�s His world, so we obey Him. Jesus said He �allowed� Moses� people to divorce because they were stubborn (and certainly divorce was a more humane option than just setting a woman loose on her own in the world), but this was never His plan. His plan was that a man and a woman would be married, be �one flesh,� and that�s it. �Till death do us part.

However, you can�t expect people who don�t take the Bible literally (or at all, for that matter) to buy into this plan, and all of the legislation in the world won�t change that. I have a celibate gay friend who is unattached because she sees that her previous lifestyle isn�t what God designed. This is a huge personal sacrifice for her, and I�m sure she sometimes feels short-changed or lonely. She is committed never to having a life partner, and this is her testimony. (Oh, and you should hear some of the crackpot things people tell her. �You just haven�t found the right guy!� Believe me, most men on this earth would better serve to turn heterosexual women gay than the other way around.)

This is not a standard anyone can expect people who just want to be �happy� and �normal� and given their �rights� to meet. It�s not fair. WE (the holy heterosexuals) don�t even choose to do it HALF the time at least! We dump our marriages due to �unhappiness� and move on, blithe in the knowledge that God will forgive us.

So, let the gay people get married. Big deal. They�re already living together and married in their hearts and minds and social circles, anyway. And if you know any gay people, love them. The fixing of the family is going to have to come from within, and it has to start with those of us who maybe aren�t as flamboyant with our �alternative lifestyles� (I don�t know, maybe there ARE �blended family pride� parades), especially those of us who claim to follow the Author and Perfecter of our faith. He�s the only One who can fix things, and He�s into hearts, not Constitutional amendments.

10:11 p.m. - 2008-05-16


previous - next

latest entry

about me





random entry

other diaries: