Marriage

Have you ever found it strange that pastors are allowed to perform marriages? After all they cannot issue birth certificates, death certificates, state IDs, passports, or any other legal document. So why be able to legally sanction a marriage? The answer seems obvious. After all, marriage is a sacred institution given to man by God Himself. It only makes sense that pastors and ministers be given the authority to perform marriages.

But why then can a justice of the peace also officiate a marriage? After all, this is a sacred institution. Why is a purely secular magistrate able to oversee such a spiritual matter? The answer again should be fairly obvious. From a societal perspective, marriage has a number of very practical benefits. Breaks in car insurance and taxes are the obvious ones. But there are also the added benefits of being considered family when visiting a spouse in the emergency room. Not to mention that a spouse can be the default power of attorney in case of medical incapacitation. Inheritance and property rights are also included in the package.

So it would seem that we have a dual purpose to marriage: One being the spiritual God-ordained union of a man and a woman and the other a pure societal demarcation with which comes numerous social advantages.

So with all of that said, what are we to make of the ever controversial topic of gay marriage? Should the church be against it? My opinion? Yes and no.

The church has a responsibility to hold unswervingly to the teachings of Scripture. As a result it should not officiate a homosexual marriage. However, holding to the teachings of Scripture will also lead one to recognize the need for love, long-suffering, kindness, mercy, and grace. (attributes often forgotten in this ideological battle over homosexual marriage) With these characteristics in the forefront of my mind, I believe the societal demarcation of marriage should not be reserved only for a heterosexual union. A homosexual couple should not be deprived of the same rights and privileges granted to a heterosexual couple simply because it is a sinful union.

Now I recognize that many Christians will instinctively disagree with me, and I can definitely respect that. I admire the courage it takes for anyone to make a strong moral stance. My question though would be this – how far does it go? Are we willing to argue that these basic “rights”, granted by way of marriage, be revoked in certain heterosexual relationships as well? If a man cheats on his wife consistently throughout their marriage, should he have to pay “back taxes” once his indiscretion is made known? What about a man who has fallen prey to pornography throughout his marriage? Should he be stripped of the right to make long term care decisions for his wife after a near fatal car accident? In the interest of being consistent, how far are we willing to extend the argument?

I believe we as a church can make a strong moral stance and still vote in favor of gay marriage. There must be a balance between graciousness and moral purity. It seems that Jesus found this balance when He forgave the woman caught in adultery. Maybe we can too...