As some of you may recall, I wrote a blog article on marriage this past July. My uncle and I had a very good discussion about that posting recently and it has forced me to rethink the issue. I invite continued feedback as I work to solidify my thoughts on the issue.
One of the major debates of our generation has been the issue of so-called gay marriage. There have been many attempts to legalize gay marriage and there have been many counter attempts to preserve the definition of marriage as that of one man and one woman. As these legal decisions get put to public vote, how should we as Christians cast our ballot?
This question was at the forefront of my previous article. However, I think we’ve allowed ourselves to ask the wrong question and fight the wrong battle.
Marriage is a God-ordained, sacred event. Why is the government involved in a spiritual matter to begin with? Our government has interwoven civil liberties, tax codes, legal rights, and a host of other “earthly” matters into this sacred act. What if we fought to restore the term “marriage” back to its intended meaning AND purpose. One man + one woman joined by a covenant made in the presence of God. What God has joined together let no man separate.
My previous article addressed a few of the civil and legal matters tied to marriage such as tax codes, ability to make end of life decisions for an individual, etc. Only by untangling these issues from the bonds of marriage can we protect both the institution of marriage and the civil rights of all United States citizens.
Maybe we’re just fighting the wrong fight.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Continuing Thoughts on Marriage
Posted by Josh at 6:55 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hi Josh,
Yet another uncle here. I think you may have hit upon something. Isn't there supposed to be a "wall of separation" between church and state? You don't find it anywhere in the constitution, but some people would have you think it's there when they want to take "under God" out of the flag salute.
Maybe, though, some civil advantages should be kept for marriage so that people can see that there is a benefit to getting married as opposed to living together. This would help the basic family unit stay intact, in theory.
Only my humble opinion, of course.
Ted
Ted,
I'm so glad you found the blog. Thanks for posting your thoughts as well. You raise some great points.
Would marriages decrease across the country if civil/legal rights were no longer associated with it? I imagine that may be the case. Hard to say how large the impact would be. And though it may decrease the number of marriages that take place, maybe it would also decrease the number of divorces because those who do get married take it more seriously. Questions worth considering.
Also you raise the ever controvercial question of seperation of church and state. Seems that everyone agrees that a line between church and state exists, but where should it be drawn. Seems that the common position taken by the church is that we should influence and impact the government, but never the other way around. Some may find that inconsistent or even to be a double standard.
Thanks for adding your thoughts. If you have additional insights, I'd love to add them to my thinking on these issues.
Maybe the Mormon's can teach us something,.. maybe. They are very legalistic, but getting married in the Temple with the golden horn player on top is a must for Mormon's. You must be a Mormon to get married in the temple.
What if we stepped it up and made our own marriage licences. It wasn't that long ago that a cert. of Baptisim was regaurded as good as birth cert. or a ss# for I.D. We could call it a marriage covenant and it would be drawn up as a legal contract, one man, one woman and by signing this the husband and wife would be blessed by the Church with paid for professioal Christian marriage counciling for life. And written in the contract legally binding requirements for divorce, if it ever came up. requirements like, 6 months marriage counciling before you can file for divorce with the state.(This would not mean that, if needed, a couple couldn't seperate the 6 mo., they could)
This covenant would not be free, there would be a price, but I think it would be worth it.
Hey, Josh!
Two thoughts:
First, the underlying and possibly neglected concept is whether the Christian view of sexuality (one man, one woman, in a life-long marital relationship) is a universal standard applicable to all people, regardless of religion, culture, age, time frame, local law, personal preference, or any other category that can be raised. I believe it is, and that all people will be judged based on that standard at the final judgement.
Second, while I don't mind allowing same sex arrangements to be accorded various benefits and priveleges, I oppose both applying the term "marriage", and relating them in any way to childbirth, child-rearing, or any other after-effect of true, legitimate, human sex. I would see fit to allow to them arrangements like to relatives or any other pair of people, regardless of what they do with their genitalia.
Promoting marriage as the venue for the raising of children is clearly in the public interest and benefit, and it is not unreasonable for laws to give favor to it for that reason.
Dan
Post a Comment