Gay marriage is here to stay and God bless America

In this NY Times photo by Jim Wilson, Mayor Gavin Newsom presides at the first same-sex couple marriage in San Francisco, a marriage between Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon,  Just look at these dangerous radicals, intent on the destruction of society and All That We Hold Dear.

On this question, I take a strongly conservative position, which is that the government ought not to be involved in the personal lives of its citizens, and a strongly progressive position, which is that the government ought not to favor particular groups of people. 

Current marriage laws have dozens upon dozens of special advantages that are enjoyed by those who are married, and which are not available to couples who are not married--visitation, property rights, insurance questions, medical decisions, and on and on.  That being the case, it only seems fair--and American--that these rights and privileges be available to everyone.

The reason governments got involved in the marriage business in the first place is because, back in the middle ages, there were serious questions of property ownership and proper lineage.  That no longer being the case, what interest does the state really have in marriage anyway?  Why not have civil unions through the state, available to everyone, while religions would offer marriage for those who want it?  (Ironically, if states had done the right thing and opted for civil unions some years ago, the question of marriage might never have come up.)

In any case, gay marriage is now here to stay.  Public support has grown dramatically.  The ones who are most opposed are those in the older cohort demographically.  As you move from older to younger, support for gay marriage grows steadily and is overwhelmingly positive in the younger age groups.  The under-40's think it's just fine, and the under-30's can't believe that anyone is even asking the question.

This is quite a problem for the church, obviously, since the longer we try to maintain a "homosexuality as depravity and sin" point of view, the more we will be seen as out of touch with popular culture.  We're already seen as stodgy and behind the times, and maintaining an historical posture of denunciation of gays only confirms that view.

This is ironic too.  The Christian faith is really about the future, and the Christian life is about being formed as a "people of the future."  We look forward to the reign of God, after all, where all earthly divisions are overcome and "all are one in Christ Jesus."  Yet, the church often seems to think that maintainance of the past is more important than anticipation of that future.

On the other hand, some people in the church argue that popular culture doesn't matter.  The church should not cave in to popular culture--this from the same people who tend to lap up secular culture in many other ways.  Plus, the attitude that popular culture doesn't matter is what people always say when they want the church to stand stalwart in support of their own position.  I've done it dozens of times myself.

They are wrong that popular culture doesn't matter, but correct that the values of the church are not dictated by the culture and shouldn't be.  The question is:  What are the values of the church?  Shouldn't they be pretty much the same ones Jesus had?  Isn't it pretty clear that Jesus expects his followers to live out the ways of God's kingdom on earth.  Otherwise, why do we bother to pray:  "Thy will be done, on earth as in heaven"?

Can you imagine Jesus rejecting homosexuals?  He didn't reject anyone else who had been marginalized by society, and there's no reason to think he'd start with them.  The witness of the four gospels is truly remarkable on this point.  All through the gospels, Jesus always takes the side of those on the margins, those who were oppressed, those who were pushed to the side, including so-called "sexual offenders."  I've not been able to find a single exception. 

He did, however, blister the hides of those who wanted to draw exclusionary lines--"blind guides," he called them, "hypocrites," "brood of snakes."  These words were the first century equivalent of dressing someone down and doing it but good.  If you place the rules of religion over love and compassion--"sacrifice over mercy," as Jesus would put it, citing Hosea 6:6--you're on a collision course with God. 

Evangelicals are right to ask the question:  What would Jesus do?  The next step is to take that question seriously.  What would Jesus do?  Going by the Jesus we see in the four gospels, he would invite Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon to his table, kill the fatted calf, turn water into wine, and throw a party.  What's more, he would invite everyone to the party.  Who would attend?

 

Comments

[toujoursdan]

Thanks John. That means a lot.

[lillianjane]

I disagree about just one point--I don't think oldness or stodginess alone leads to the anti-gay positions. Some of the worst churches of the religious right are packed with young zealots, and have separate pastors with bad hair just for delivering youthfully right-wing messages to the kids. The old stodgy churches seem to mostly just be uncomfortable having to discuss the issue.

[John Petty]

Well, I was painting with a broad brush. Every demographic has exceptions to the general rule.

Actually, our stodgy old church has been discussing homosexuality for about 15 years now. I like to joke that for centuries we didn't talk about sex at all, and now that we've started we can't seem to shut up about it.