I was walking through my not terribly friendly but still neighborhood BART station this morning when I noticed an assortment of “No on 8″ signs set up throughout the walkway that leads to the fare gates. For the uninitiated, they referred to Proposition 8 on the California state ballot which if passed will reverse the state Supreme Court decision from earlier this year which legalized gay marriage. Having already dodged the couple of Jehovah’s Witnesses posted at the front of the walkway, I resolved to quietly bypass the young man and woman who were standing close in front of the fare gates handing out No on 8 pamphlets. Besides, I had my McCain/Palin hat on. Surely they’d take one look at that and write me off as a potential convert to their cause, right?
Wrong. The man tried to hand me a pamphlet as I passed by, saying to me as I did so, “Please vote no on 8. I want to stay married.” At which point I freely admit the words of Kinky Friedman came to mind: “I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us.” Then again, Friedman is a lifelong bachelor, so how would he know.
One would think with me being, well, me I’d be worked up on the subject of gay marriage. Truth is I’m not. I am fully aware of what the Bible says about homosexual activity. I cannot and will not attempt to sidestep Scripture. Not an option. Never an option. I am also fully aware that I have dear friends who are gay, including one who is a Christian, and that I’ve seen two people in love who are the same gender. I don’t understand it and I don’t get it and it’s as alien to me as it gets. But it’s there and it’s real. So I honestly don’t know what to think.
That said, I can’t generate any enthusiasm to support gay marriage. It’s a legal Pandora’s box that has nothing to do with alarmist “they’ll teach it to our kids in school” hysteria. Rather, it’s a basic question: how do you define who can and can’t get married? If you say two consenting adults regardless of gender, how then can you prohibit blood relatives? Or enforce the age limit? If you take away the fundamental definer — man and woman — what is there to legally keep any less restrictive definer in place?
This is the conundrum I face and will face next Tuesday when I step into the voting booth. Gay marriage is a bitterly divisive issue. One look at the increasingly strident rhetoric and disturbing, increasingly aggressive behavior by fringe members of one camp against any and all on the other makes this all too clear. Also true is that the issue can divide someone within. Which is where I am.
I don’t know. I honestly don’t know.
Mr. Wilson,
I wanted to thank you for mentioning your dedication to the scriptures and what they have to say regarding homosexual activity. It is refreshing to see Christian’s represent themselves in such a manner where their dedication to the scriptures do not make them seem uneducated or unsympathetic.
I am sympathetic to the position two people who love each other and are of the same sex must be in, however my dedication to scripture and beliefe that God is the same “yesterday, today and forever” decides this for me.
Again thank you.
A sister in Christ,
Kimberleigh
My comment is only to remind you of what you already know.
You will agree with me that we are in this world(passers by) but not of this world(destination:HEAVEN).If this is so, then, we must be guided by the laws of the kingdom which are written in the bible for us.That truth that you already know is what will set your conscience free in voting against gay marriage.To moralists, its barbaric and must be condemned. To christians, it is not right. so if we support it, we’d be going against the laws of the kingdom which is why we must fight with every breath in us to uphold the truth.(“BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY”).gay marriage is a lie from the pit of hell.Please my friend, let the truth guide your conscience.Regards.
Here is my question for you. Are you suppose to be salt and light in this world? If your answer is “No”, then your unsettled thinking is fine. If your answer is “Yes”, then you must decide how to be salt and light in CA.
Salt preserves. Light reveals and helps show the way. Your action in the voting booth will reflect your response to Jesus’ statement in Matt.5.
I, too, have friends that are homosexual. They have been in my home and we have laughed together. Yet, in all our friendship times, we knew that there was a world of difference in our view on the topic. Some of my homosexual friends were attempting to leave the life style because they saw it as wrong. Others were very content in their life style and resented being told that they were wrong.
Friendships are wonderful things. They bring joy. That, though, does not change my role to be salt and light. Declaring a life style normal that God says is not is not a way to be salt and light. Being a follower of Christ means that my thinking, decisions, and my life patterns will be effected by my Master.
That is my comment to your conundrum.
If I were to spend my time telling everyone who sins they are a sinner, that would be all I ever did. Although come to think of it, I’d be so busy telling myself I’m a sinner for every time I sin I wouldn’t have time to tell anyone else.
The command of Christ is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul and strength plus loving each other more than we love ourselves. I know fellow believers who fulfill these commands and are gay. Not by choice, but because it is what they are. I am more than content with saying “I don’t know how this all works but one day I will know; now through a glass darkly but one day face to face.” And leave it at that.
Standup for God, the Bible, and what right! This is a battle between God’s word, and man. It will lead this country closer to judgement day.This is a battle feild and God’s watching.Fight your fight, prop 8 also pushes us christians into a corner because we might have friends that are gay but, Right Is Right and each one of us MUST DEFEND the teaching of the Bible.
And our brothers and sisters in the Lord who are gay.
I encourage you to apply the principle of “live and let live” and allow the legal system to accommodate those that choose to live differently than you.
I don’t see it as a Pandora’s box; I don’t see how the removal of the gender restriction would have any implications for the remaining restrictions.
First recognize that at issue is the legal institution of marriage, not the religious institution. Thanks to the principle of the separation of church and state, the two are fundamentally different.
Second, recognize that the legal system permits many actions which are considered at least undesirable if not reprehensible by one or more established religions: birth control, fornication, alcohol, dancing, swearing, eating pork. When the legal system is more permissive than the religious systems it creates a society where religious variations can co-exist.
There are, however, some issues which are such fundamental values that they arguably transcend the principle of separation of church and state. Capital punishment and abortion come to mind.
The legal institution of marriage has many very practical and desirable implications that have nothing to do with the sexual relationship(s), if any, between the two people in the marriage. Once you get past any gag reflex you may have, intimate relationships are not more than the rubbing together of body parts. In what way is their intimate relationship a concern to those of us outside the marriage?
I live in a community with Baptists, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists. I also choose to eat meat, including pork, drink alcohol, practice birth control, and swear. Actually the swearing isn’t really my choice, but a bad habit I haven’t been able to break. Nobody has a problem with me so long as I keep my grass cut and my house painted. Our differences don’t even come up much, because in fact they are very routine. What would be so different if my partner and I were of the same gender and my children were adopted?
If the fundamental definer of marriage is its demographics, then marriage is reduced to its physical aspects, and the values that make marriage a meaningful, worthwhile, and lasting commitment become secondary.
Are demographics more important than fidelity and family values? Is the sexual component of marriage more important than the mutual respect and cooperation that help to make marriage last long after temporal passion wanes?
Regardless of how one may feel about those issues, there really is no need for concern that the recognition of same-sex marriage will lead to consanguinity, or change the fact that children are not sufficiently mature to consent to marriage.
And I wouldn’t put too much stock, either way, in the behaviors of the fringe element of the gay rights movement, for they are not representative of the gay and lesbian people who wish to see their committed relationships recognized, not just as a matter of fairness, but also so that they can gain access to the social supports that help folks to hold a marriage and family together in these times when commitments are so often viewed as optional and disposable.
Which brings me back ’round to my original point: that character and commitment are far more important in marriage than demographics.
Since the church sanctifies marriage, not the state, your position doesn’t really require you to make a choice.
You and your church can still decide not to perform or recognize same-sex marriages. You may react to them however you see fit. However, your church seems to disagree with my church, and this being America, your religious views should not take precedent over mine in the eyes of the law.
Because there are basic civil rights involved, the state must allow the legal union. The church can do with it what it wants. Whether the couple next door is John & Larry or Mary & Bill – it has absolutely no impact on what goes on in my house.
The state “must” allow the legal union? Not sure where you’re getting that from.
Politics aside- American needs only the truth- un-abridged, unadultered-
Let the rest of the world watch this video
Buzz it up
http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:32c609e497ff10c8fd2691b61bbae8dc:60c103662d1c2895e47dbd1b31d187f9?usc=1
You planning on paying me for this ad?
See, this is why I like reading your blogs! Great thoughts, balanced, and intelligent, and real. We’ve adopted gay marriage in Canada. I don’t see it making any difference in the day to day for me, or the people around me. However, given the choice, I’d likely vote against it.
As a gay Christian let me state it this way. I don’t really think gay people need to be married. How’s that? However the problem I have with the vote for 8 is that it changes the law. And frankly it makes me feel like a second class person. It’s not that I want to get married to another man, and I don’t really know many guys that do, but I like to know that a vote for 8 is not a vote against me. What made me carry signs and walk the intersections of our community was just that. . .is your vote for the Biblical view of marriage or a vote against the faggots? I am all too aware what that vote came down to be for many. And if you want to know what keeps many gay people from your churches, and from going back to church is the thought many of us have that the church is full of hate. In fact our rallying cry since losing the vote on 8 is just that. . . DON’T H8TE. Cause I have to be honest. . . when I walked the streets with my sign I had a lot of people with Christian bumper stickers flipping me off. So was it a vote for the protection of marriage or a vote against “the gays”? Now you know how we feel. Thanks Jerry for your well thought out blog. I think I am the gay Christian you know!!