Should Christians in the United States vote for or against allowing same-sex marriage? Does this change depending on the possible implications of various votes (e.g. California’s Propisition 8 v. North Carolina’s Amendment 1)?
Today the citizens of the state of North Carolina vote on a measure called Amendment 1:
The measure would define marriage in the state constitution as between one man and one woman, and would ban any other type of “domestic legal union” such as civil unions and domestic partnerships.
Same-sex marriage is already illegal in the state of North Carolina. The proposed measure, however, would add the ban to the state constitution. (source: ballotpedia.org)
I have found three unique perspectives worth sharing. Two of the bloggers are current residents of North Carolina and the other came from there.
First, Katrina Fernandez is a Roman Catholic blogger who argues that, “If you support gay marriage you personally encourage the sin.” In her post “Because I Don’t Hate Gays I am Voting against Gay Marriage…” she writes:
My support of the amendment means I believe in the sacramental nature of marriage. What it does not mean is that I hate homosexuals or am a bigot. Bishop Jugis wrote in his letter to the diocese “The Church believes that marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman, joined as husband and wife in an intimate partnership of life and love.”
You can disagree with this, but that is what the Church teaches. The Church, that 2,000 year old institution founded by Jesus Christ himself. If I were going to take the word of an anyone over my own faulty understanding, I would have to say the Church would be the safest bet. In fact, when we come across any Church teaching we disagree with it would be prudent to ask what is wrong with my understanding instead of what is wrong with the Church. If we search the truth with humility it will be plain to see the error is our own.
For Fernandez the Christian response is to vote for Amendment 1 because (1) it supports the traditional, sacramental view of marriage; (2) it aligns with the traditional teaching of the church; and (3) it doesn’t send confusing signals to homosexuals that their behavior is somehow appropriate.
Second, Daniel Kirk is a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary who has a long history in North Carolina and considers it home. He doesn’t approve of homosexuality as an appropriate lifestyle for Christians, but he doesn’t think Christians should have to vote against allowing same-sex marriage either. In his post “Regarding Amendment 1 in North Carolina” he expresses concern that this legislation goes beyong California’s Proposition 8 and it could remove the civil rights of homosexuals:
If my understanding of the amendment is correct, I would suggest that Christians not only have the freedom to stand against it, but are conscience-bound to vote against it. This is about being truly treated as equal under the law, something we should be at the forefront of making sure is the case for everyone–not just people like us.
Kirk understands this legislation as something that challenges us to ask how we should live in the dual spheres of the church and society. Also, this is an action that can determine whether one shows love to their neighbor (contra Fernandez above who interprets loving her homosexual neighbor as not supporting their sin).
Similarly, J. Kameron Carter is a professor at Duke University who takes a stand that is a tad stronger that Kirk. He says the Christian thing to do is vote “no” on Amendment 1. He writes (in “I’m Against Amendment One in NC, and (Especially if You’re Christian) You Should be Too. Vote Against Amendment One”) that, “As a Christian theologian, I urge all North Carolinians, but most especially those who are Christian in North Carolina, to vote NO on the Amendment. You must vote NO because the Amendment will legally enshrine division and bar some from the full benefits of the law and its protections that others enjoy.”
The crux of his argument is similar to Kirk’s. After listing some of the civil rights impacted by Amendment 1 he says:
If Jesus, and therefore Christianity, stands for justice and righteousness and fairness (and most certainly it does! See Luke 4:18–21 among many other scriptural texts), if in Jesus we find God’s affirmation of the life of us all in the face of forces of denigration, indignity, and death, then on Christian grounds, on grounds of discipleship or following Jesus, who placed no qualifications on his love for and embrace of us all, vote against this Amendment.
I don’t know what Carter thinks about homosexuality in and of itself. I’m sure there are some Christian writers who are openly in support of homosexuality being compatible with Christianity, but I haven’t see any posts on the topic (and yes, I went to the blogs of Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Diana Butler Bass, and Bruce Reyes-Chow but all I found was this article about Jay Bakker’s participation). These people would constitute a third view wherein homosexuality is compatible with Christianity and it is seen as logical to support their right to marriage.
__________
What do you think is the appropriate response as a Christian? Do any of the above responses resonate? If you are not a Christian what would you expect of Christians and why?
May 8, 2012 at 8:42 am
I would not vote in favour of same sex marriage, but if it became allowed, I would not cause any ridiculous uproar.
May 8, 2012 at 8:53 am
I’m with Scott. And I’m with those IN North Carolina who make statements since they are probably far more familiar with the language of the bill than those outside the state. Same here in Minnesota. We have too many voices from OUTSIDE the state (on both sides of the issue) trying to tell a state what to do. There is plenty enough chatter from within.
May 8, 2012 at 9:18 am
I resonate most strongly with the first response. Marriage is not a right unless you can define what marriage is. Advocates of same-sex marriage have yet to do that in a way that would not also mean siblings, polyamorous groups, or practically anyone else to get “married.” As Christians, we should love God and neighbor by caring about human flourishing and honoring God’s design for family – mom, dad, and kids – within the civil realm as well as within the four walls of the church.
May 8, 2012 at 10:51 am
America as a nation is wasting far too much time bickering on issues such as abortion and homosexual marriage.
We have much, much bigger issues to contend with – the economy, environmental research, diplomatic relations, our neglect of space exploration, etc. In comparison to these issues, other religious ethical concerns are relatively petty.
Let the gays be. Imposing your lifestyle views on other gays will not improve anyone’s quality of life (you feeling better about it doesn’t count). I guarantee you we will look back in 50 years and shake our heads at our seemingly un-Christ-like disdain and discrimination against homosexuals in the same way that we look back on the racial discrimination against colored people in the 1960′s. I’ll put the house on it.
May 8, 2012 at 11:33 am
John Adams I completely agree. Whose to say everyone else or everyone with everything is not entitled? This whole matter is a ruse to validate homosexuality, which by the facts of social and medical science is a detrimental lifestyle. This is not about faith. The science only validates what the Bible has stated all along.
The danger is the desacrilization of the family unit. Sin has raised its head to declare itself righteous and the saints cower in fear. Death and judgment are at our doorstep. Not merely because of the issue of homosexuality. In fact, I’d dare say it’s the least when you compare it to rampant divorce and parental illigitamacy and absantee parents. Destroy the family, destroy a nation. The count down has begun.
May 8, 2012 at 11:55 am
Here is another NC resident’s view. I have not spoken much about this, because I am always reluctant to think I am right when surrounded by those I love and respect who disagree. So as I say this know that I am fully aware that I could be completely wrong. With that said, I am not voting either way.
I have always thought it strange and even disturbing that at a Christian wedding the couple is pronounced ‘married’ by the authority invested by the state. I do not consider myself married because I have a license. I consider myself married because I entered into a marriage covenant before God. I am not voting because I don’t think homosexuality is a sin, I do. I am not voting, because I think by doing so I would be communicating that the government has the authority or even ability to define and authorize marriage. I do not want to encourage that idea.
The rhetoric around here by believers who support the amendment continue to include the phrase, “we must protect the sanctity of marriage”. This is a strange statement to me. It seems to imply government can indeed define marriage. Beyond that, the sanctity of marriage already seems to have been lost. Not because of homosexual marriage, but because marriage is now nothing more than an extra commitment level up from dating. We have an embarrassing divorce rate in this country. We have Christians who are in their third, fourth, and fifth marriages. Adultery and abuse are common place. If the sanctity of marriage is measured by the marriages in this country, sanctity has been out the window for awhile now. Shall we make adultery illegal? How about making divorce illegal? We can’t hope protect the sanctity of marriage by laws. We can only hope to RENEW the sanctity of marriage through the transforming works of Christ in people’s hearts.
I have thought a great many incorrect things in my life, maybe this is one of them, but I fear Christians are giving away their authority to speak truth by placing it in the hands of NC government.
May 8, 2012 at 12:03 pm
http://vimeo.com/41597968
Here is a video by a pastor of one of the biggest churches in the state. I disagree but at least he says that’s ok.
May 8, 2012 at 4:32 pm
It’s time to get rid of state recognition of marriage already. It’s completely unnecessary; everything the state does, can be done in other ways. Often they’ll be more directly to the point, such as tax breaks for people who are the parent-guardian of children instead of tax breaks for married couples. But especially in a case where there are such strongly held views by different parts of society about what constitutes a marriage, it sounds like it’s exactly the time the state shouldn’t be forcing its views on people.
And, perhaps, Christians would start to get the point that what the state says about marriage—doesn’t go.
May 8, 2012 at 5:03 pm
It seems like there is an important, unmentioned divide in presuppositions between those who say Christians should vote for the amendment and those who say they shouldn’t or that they shouldn’t vote at all. It has a lot to do with what Daniel Kirk said in his post about two spheres. Some think that it is wrongheaded to live in “two Kingdoms” of the church and society. Others think it is the only way to live in this “already, but not yet” era.
What is the role of Christians in redeeming culture or claiming culture under the Lordship of Christ?
May 8, 2012 at 7:15 pm
Brian,
This is a very good question and one with many possible answers. One reason it is difficult to know the Christian’s proper relationship with government in redeeming culture is because no government equivalent to our own today is found in the Bible. Having said that, Paul and Jesus show little if any interest in changing the secular (secular of course is very important here) powers that be. In fact, Paul and Jesus seem to say ‘let them do what they will do but you must be different’. I think there are instances in which we ought to be involved in redeeming culture through government, and I would say those would be instances when rights of others are being violated. Paul is clear that government is given to keep order, but beyond that I don’t see much of a role for the government redeeming culture. So from there I would say, ‘let them do what they will do, but we must be different’.
It seems to me that God’s kingdom expands not by changing the laws of the world’s kingdom, but by bringing those who are under the world’s rule under the reign and redemption of Christ. So primarily our task is to expand God’s kingdom in this way, that is by bringing the world under Christ’s rule. Christ’s rule is, for the present age, always voluntary, though of course one day ever knee will bow.
Our kingdom that we live in and how we live in that kingdom is our witness to the world. Our witness is our light and our salt. The only hope of redemption for this world is by the working of the Spirit. We cannot expect those under the rule of the world to be able to live according to the Spirit. They will act according this world as long as that is their kingdom. So primarily our mission is to redeem the world by bringing it under Christ’s rule, but secondarily we redeem by giving witness in the way we live out our citizenship in heaven. As Paul says in Phil 1.27 “Only, live as citizens worthy of the Gospel of Christ”.
May 9, 2012 at 6:05 am
First of all, while I am relatively liberal on some things, I am a traditionalist on sexual ethics. I’ve tried to be convinced by liberal takes on the subject (and part of me would like to be, since I’m single and have no prospects for marriage!), but I’m not.
But while I’m not completely sure what my vote would be if I still lived in NC, it would probably be no. I’m somewhat puzzled by statements that legalizing gay marriage will destroy the family or erode sexual morality. Heterosexual hookups are completely normalized now, consuming pornography is normalized, even adultery is gradually becoming semi-normalized…all of those things seem to be doing more damage than legally recognized gay couples would, and they’re all legal.
I think the best argument against legalization is that that Christian wedding photographers, caterers, etc. who don’t want to perform gay weddings could lose their jobs. But the American tradition of religious freedom is pretty strong, and I think the courts would probably uphold it in most cases.
May 9, 2012 at 6:13 am
One more thing – I doubt Paul ever envisioned that Christians would be the dominant political majority. I’m pretty certain that the author of Revelation didn’t until the consummation of the kingdom! Whether Jesus did depends on what your view of the extent of his knowledge was when incarnated. How should this affect our view of Christianity and politics? I’m not sure.
Pingback: Christians, homosexuality, and the President of the United States. « Near Emmaus