How can a minister like me say "YES" to gay marriage???

I knew when I posted my support of gay marriage on Facebook earlier, I was committing to a lengthy explanation.  I am a minister of the Gospel, and acceptance of that mantel means I am no longer free to simply post without caring what people think (which, I promise, is my genetic propensity.  Ask any of the other Cools, and at least 80% of them will just reflexively agree with that statement).   Fortunately, I usually have a well-thought-out rationale for my opinions.  Unfortunately for YOU, the reader, I can be somewhat detailed and verbose in explaining such things...

So just how, exactly, can a God-fearing music minister support the legalization of gay marriage without turning in his credentials and considering himself a complete heretic?  I will try to explain...


First of all, I don't think the government should have anything at all to do with marriage, since marriage is a religious institution. If I had I my druthers, I would not have needed a government-issued marriage license to marry my WOMAN either. So, if marriage is going to exist at all as a CIVIL institution, then it should apply equally to everyone without them having to subscribe to a particular religious view in order to "qualify". I am not even addressing in this paragraph whether I think gay marriage relationships are right or wrong or valid or Godly or whatever.  I am just saying that the definition of marriage is a religious matter first and foremost, and requiring your own religion's definition to be the one applied civilly allows the government to intrude where it should not.

And never mind the inconsistencies brought into the equation when staunch opponents of gay marriage divorce their spouses through their State's "no-fault" divorce proceedings ("we just had irreconcilable differences,") or when people shack up and have kids without getting married at all, but then rail against the so-called "redefinition of marriage"....  puh-LEEZE.   (If you fall into either of those two categories, then just stop reading now, because there is too much logic here for you.  My thoughts may be right or wrong, but they are at least internally consistent...)

I see it less as a "redefinition" of marriage, and more as acknowledgement of something that has come to light in recent years in the public sector because of greater public acceptance of homosexuality. There have been homosexual relationships for millennia. Many such relationships have functioned precisely as marriage does.  Nobody called it that or allowed it to be thought of in those terms, but that didn't keep it from happening.
So, now that the debate about whether it is "right or wrong" has come to light, that makes it a religious debate. And the government has NO PART in that, according to the way our government was designed and founded. Once this thing that used to be a shadowy, whispered thing, got out into the light and became a religious debate, it is the job of the government to buzz off by legalizing it.

It is only between two people and God as to whether it is right or wrong.  And (attention, fellow Christians: here is where I tick most of you off if you are intellectually dishonest with yourself), there is much ambiguity on the Biblical treatment of the subject.  Even if you are quoting the "clobber texts" on the matter, you have to acknowledge that if these are taken in context and given equal treatment with the surrounding texts and issues, the debate itself is valid and the opposing view is by no means illegitimate.  Which means, of course, that it up to God to decide.  Which means, of course, that in addition to religious heterosexuals' desperate need to butt out and worry about their own failing marriage statistics, the government CERTAINLY needn't be involved in the "right-or-wrong" of the matter.  (This is the same government with the budget problems, the human rights abuses under both parties' leadership, the filibusters of one's OWN proposals, the utter stalemate and lack of ability to put the good of the country before their own "nyah-nyah-nyah" at the opposing party...  yeah, THAT govenment...)  Therefore, now that the debate is public, legalization of gay marriage is the only option that makes any sense whatsoever, because nothing ABOUT marriage should be the business of the government.  Marriage is a religious matter.

Among well-meaning Christians, there remains disagreement. Which is sort of my point... what the heck does the government have to do with what is essentially a religious debate? Heck, I want the government out of my life as it is, so why wouldn't I want them OUT of a decision like this one? But I know that the government will never get out of the marriage license business; so they should at least get out of the "definition debate" about marriage that has arisen in recent years.

And honestly... if my gay friend at school wants to marry her girlfriend... I do NOT AT ALL understand the feeling that many heterosexuals have that this is somehow a threat to their own marriages. Their own marriages are doing poorly enough on their OWN, thanks...  my gay friends do not contribute to the statistical debacle that is straight marriage in America.

So far, I have only really been arguing the issue as a matter of the separation of the church and our perpetually-overreaching state.  I was initially going to leave it there, because I feel that this is MORE than enough reason for gay marriage to be legalized, and I really think that purposeful wrongheadedness for political gain, or complete fingers-in-the-ears/I'm-not-listening/head-in-the-sand ostrichism are the only things that could lead to a conclusion otherwise.  It really isn't about whether you think it is or isn't OK to be gay.  It's about whether the government has any right to legislate on or even address the subject of a religious matter such as this definition debate.

I wasn't going to address the technicalities of the debate WITHIN Christianity at all.  But then I thought, to quote Joel Goodson's father, "Sometimes you just gotta say, what the heck."

I will try to breeze through this as quickly as possible, and if I slip in my presentation then we can argue about it in the comments section (which I am sure we will already be doing, whether or not I slip in my presentation).

The section of  Leviticus that contains the most popular "clobber passage" has a lot of sensible admonition.  If you ever catch me offering my son Zack to be sacrificed to the god Molek, then please do cut me off from among the people.  And yes, I of course agree that one should not have sex with a close relative, or have sex with animals, etc.  (Yeah, yeah, I know its pretty intense stuff, but I didn't write it; talk to Moses if you end up where he is now.)

But there are also many, many parts of this section of the Old Testament that we write off completely, without a second thought.  When is the last time you felt guilty for going to Red Lobster?  Or for eating a steak cooked rare?  What about the horrible sinfulness of that cotton-polyester-blend shirt you might be wearing right now?  There are many laws in Leviticus that simply do not get any traction in the modern Gentile world.  And there is good reason for that...  Gentiles are not subject to the Jewish law, and Jews who have come to Christ have had their law fulfilled in Him.  In other words, the most common "clobber passage" of the Old Testament isn't even applicable.  And if you insist that it IS, then I insist that you change your clothes if you are wearing cotton-polyester blend, or you are a hypocrite.  If that doesn't make my point, then I insist that you forswear ever eating delicious shrimp or catfish again.  If that doesn't do it, then how about "do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."  (The Duck Dynasty guys are kosher, apparently, as are two-thirds of ZZ Top....)

And if you still want to argue about it, then I will just have to put you in stasis by making you figure out this conundrum:  in Leviticus 15, we are instructed that if a man has sex with a woman while she is having her monthly discharge, he will be "unclean" for seven days.  Three chapters later (in the same chapter as the "clobber"), the punishment for the same offense is to be completely cut off from among God's people.  So, which is it?  A seven day ceremonial uncleanness, or the complete exile from among one's family and society?  Or is it complete cut-off from the people, but only for seven days?  GOOD THING CHRISTIANS DON'T HAVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT, ISN'T IT?

My point is that there were a great many things in the Old Testament that made perfect sense in the context of Jewish law, the society of the day, the state of world technological development, and most of all: culture, culture, culture.  But the Old Testament things have overtly and explicitly been explained to us, by none other than Christ Himself, and by the Apostle Paul, as NOT applying to us as Christians.  See Matthew 22:36-40, Romans ch7 & ch8, Romans 13: 8-10, Galatians ch2 (especially 2:14), Galatians 3:23-25, Galatians 5:13-14, Colossians 2:20-23.

Another "clobber passage" is in the first part of Romans, but to be honest, I am extremely tired right now and am ditching this argument in favor of getting a little bit of reading done for school, and then going to bed.  I will finish my points about this tomorrow evening, if time permits.

In the meantime, my final point for tonight is this:  whatever you think about this issue, if you are honest with yourself instead of blindly dogmatic, I think you must agree that there there is at least enough evidence for whatever side of the argument you DISagree with, that you have to respect the views of people you think are dead wrong.  The world would be much better if we could all do this.

To all you ultra-conservative Christians who assume that just because someone is gay means you somehow have the authority to declare them "hell-bound," and you see it as your mission to stand in the way of full equality: yeah, if you could just STOP THAT, the world would be a better place.  The only people whom Jesus treated that harshly were the über-religious people who were running around condemning other people... just sayin'....      Some of my best friends are among your camp, so I admonish you only from a position of love.

To all you progressive and pro-homosexual people in the world who assume that just because someone thinks you are sinfully advocating a "choice," and that you are making the wrong one, means that you can and should write them off and look down your nose at them and their "backwards ignorance":  yeah, if you could just STOP THAT, the world would be a better place.  Some of my best friends are among your camp, so I admonish you only from a position of love.

I think Rodney King spoke very inspired words when he said, "can't we all just get along?"

Good night.  We can fight tomorrow, LOL!