I was told that this was a hot issue and commenting on it may be divisive. I find that funny.
"It may not make one popular in certain circles to take such stances." Popular? What Christian ever cared about being popular? Certainly not Christ! We are persecuted! Christ didn't get crucified because He was "cool." He gave us the Truth (He was the Truth) and it got Him killed. If that happens to me, so be it.
I want to point out first, that when someone threatens to string you up for being closed minded, they aren't being very open minded. That goes for Christians and non-Christians alike, so don't go around judging others too freely (or at all).
On the other hand, "Lets not be so open minded that our brains fall out."(1)
The article, if you didn't read it, is about same-sex marriage. The Herald says,
"The 4-to-3 decision, drawing on a ruling 60 years ago that struck down a state ban on interracial marriage, would make California the second state, after Massachusetts, to allow same-sex marriages."What in the world does same-sex marriage have to do with interracial marriage? Thats like saying first you have to make steak and kidney pies with only sheep kidney, then someone later saying you can add beef, pig, or whatever else and mix them all up (which would make for one fine pie, mind you). Now someone saying because of that logic, one should be able to make a steak and kidney pie without the steak. That just isn't a steak and kidney pie anymore.
Or, a backwards analogy, but a more fun one perhaps; making apples pies with only Washington apples for so long, afterwards allowing Fuji, Rome or Granny Smith pies to be made, then finally someone making apple pie with apples, mandarin oranges and tangerines. Pie it is, but apple it ain't.
The Herald also went on to say, and this gets more to the heart of the matter,
"Given the historic, cultural, symbolic and constitutional significance of marriage, Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority, the state cannot limit its availability to opposite-sex couples. 'In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship," George wrote, "the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.' "
They failed to mention the Church. Granted, they are trying to avoid mixing Church and State (which was put in place not so that the Church wouldn't have power over the State, but that the State wouldn't have power over the Church - remember, these guys just came from Europe, namely England, where the king was the head of the church as well).
Marriage though is an institution of the Church. If you want to get married, you go to a Church. When you want the tax benefits and state recognition, you go to the court and put your John Hancock (who never would have approved of this) on some documents for legal purposes. But that is not so much "marriage," as it is "State recognition of union."
Now, if the state of California wants to offer legal recognition of, what is other-wise a common-law union, I could care less. Give people tax breaks or insurance options or what-have-you. Family is defined rather broadly, most particularly in the Church - we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. In fact, I think if people live in a community based on the teaching of the early Church (like the Simple Way) - something I am all for - then we need to get the issues of tax and insurance and sharing under a new command: that of Christ.
But lets not make any mistake, the "tradition" of marriage, as it were, is from God and by God. His reasons are quite clear (if you have questions and/or comments on that, we will start another post). It is essentially for the procreation of Mankind. And man alone cannot do that
(nor women).
(1) For the record, I'm not a fan of Richard Dawkins, though I admit he is very intelligent. However, people who don't think there is a God, I don't think think enough.
3 comments:
I believe the point they were making in bringing in the inter-racial marriage case was to cite a precedent where the courts had made a ruling on what is or is not ok in marriage, and they were, in effect, saying "We've done this type of thing before, so we have the right to do it again." The thing that gets me is that they said the "views of the majority" weren't sufficient to continue the status quo. I thought democracy was about the views of the people, and you get voted in by the majority, so if the majority thinks one way, should that be taken into account? What they are doing is forcing the majority to accept the views of the minority. Is that how democracy works? I don't think so! In the civil rights movement of the 60s you saw THE PEOPLE in the streets rallying and marching in their thousands and tens of thousands. THE PEOPLE mobilised and decided it was time for a change. Does the gay marriage movement have that kind of support? No. Are their views those of the majority? No. Should the courts have passed down this judgement? NO! 'Nuff said.
This article is not about being homosexual, it is about marriage. Whether homosexuality is right or wrong is not at question (see Levi.18:22) but the nature of marriage.
“Love” as has been described, and as is popularly believed, is not held in the fullness that is told in the Scriptures. C.S. Lewis’ “Four Loves” is very good reading on the subject. Friendship, Affection, Eros and Charity are the four “types” of love.
In marriage, that prescribed by the Church (the transtemporal, transfinite Church, not one denomination in particular) all four of these loves come together with a purpose, both physical, emotional, and spiritual. To procreate, to fulfill, to raise up and glorify God and each other. Man was made in God’s image, as was Woman. (Even if you don’t believe that,) Each is “different and the same.” Each being a living image of something that the other cannot be, but must compliment each other in order to reach the fullness of which they are capable.
Traditions may vary, but for the most part, ‘one man and one woman together until death do part them” is the definition of marriage.
Though a wonderful union many gays may have, there is always something missing that cannot be substituted nor replaced, no matter how powerful the “love.”
Amen to that David!
Post a Comment