I Have Questions About Gay Marriage

14 Nov 2008 Author: rikyrah

I would like to know about the legal ramifications of Gay Marriage.

How it would affect the church?

What do I mean?

Could a church be forced into performing gay marriages?

There are a number of churches that get federal monies for services to the community that they perform (after school programs, day care centers, etc.). Could their money be taken away from them if they don’t perform gay marriages?

If said churches have gay employees, would they be forced to cover the spouses if they provide such coverage for heterosexual spouses, even though the church doesn’t believe in gay marriage?

Thank you for any answers that are provided.

Tags: Church, gay marriage, Religion

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

evita
Part of the issue is that most people believe the Civil Rights Act was comprehensive, which is was not.
From the US Department of Justice:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/coord/titlevi.php
” Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., was enacted as part of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. “
Big picture, yes you are dead on. Local picture- discriminating against gay people is largely legal. Unless of course, the equal protection clause means anything…
TruthSeeker

…is that I'm finding myself interested in what might happen if we were to remove the word marriage — and thus explicitly cede marriage to the religious side — from the bones of contention.
That's it right there…sometimes the worst think you can do to your opponent is give them exactly what they want. I could be wrong, but the LG movement might not be thinking strategically enough….where “marriage” becomes conflated with “acceptance” and they end up fighting for something they don't even really want.
Religion is fixing for a fight, and they think they have righteousness on their side. How do you neutralize them? Let them have marriage.
Michelle
where “marriage” becomes conflated with “acceptance”…
This is hugely insightful and important IMO.
On one level, I feel like the conflation is about psychological needs, confusion of ego with movement goals, and acceptance of an idealized relationship per the culture's fictions.
On another level, it is like any situation in which one possible route to change becomes THE route to change in the movement's cultural assumptions.
In these situations, particular strategies, tactics or methods get confused with larger goals. This removes flexibility, creativity and grounded reality from the movement core IMO.
I think this conflation — and the dynamics that feed it — is a huge obstacle to doing what you (and I) are talking about: looking clear-eyed and strategically at the situation as it continues to emerge and change, and acting in the most truly effective way toward the actual goals.
That's it right there…sometimes the worst think you can do to your opponent is give them exactly what they want. …[snip]
Religion is fixing for a fight, and they think they have righteousness on their side. How do you neutralize them? Let them have marriage.
Exactly.
And I should also say: I have learned so much from watching President-elect Obama's approach and actions. Some of what I learned is totally informing how I am understanding this situation (to give credit where credit is due).
Nate_Wesley
But as you said Michelle, it's obvious to you. I'm not sure everyone agrees with your stance, which is why its confusing as to why you'd ask someone who might believe differently not to speak their mind.
Nate_Wesley
I agree with you, BAB. The fight for basic civil rights did not begin and will not solely be solved by the [capital letter] Civil Rights Movement that involved the end to discrimination amongst African-Americans. We are severely limiting the conceptual value of basic civil rights is by thinking of them as 'what black people got beat for in the '50-70s'. It is not even a struggle that is limited to the United States.
Nate_Wesley
I doubt this would be the case. The religious institutions perform the ceremonial aspect of marriages, but its the states who issue the licenses (and makes them legal). As long as the states issue the license and continue to allow marriages by judges or justices of the peace, the churches can do what they want, performing ceremonial weddings at their own discretion.
If I were gay and my church didn't allow or perform same sex marriages, I wouldn't bother pressing the issue–I'd just get the license done from the appropriate county office, and have my own ceremonial gathering wherever I could get it done. That's the way it should be, IMO. (Though if I really were gay, I should have probably found a more progressive church home in the first place.)
Val
“Most folks skip a ceremony at church because it doesn't mean much, even for those who are religious.”
Not true. There is a spiritual component associated with a ceremony at a church. It connects you to the religious aspect of the sanctity of marriage and all it stands for as it relates to the teachings in the bible.
TruthSeeker
Good point.
And, the expectation implicit in the appeal, seems to be that they would acquiesce….why on earth would they?
Val
“Now, the funny thing about religion, is that if anyone made Christians live according to the letter of their biblical law….their lives would quickly become unbearable. Yet, they want to make others who do not believe conform to that law.”
I have been deliberately silent on this matter because I believe everyone has the right to make choices on how to live their lives and that God gives everyone freedom to choose. You can either choose to abide by His laws or not to. But you can't expect to go against His teachings and expect everyone who are believers in those teachings to approve of anything that is against those biblical teachings. It just doesn't work that way.
We all have choices. The bible says – “judge not lest thee be judged.”
We can decide to live however we want with whomever we want but with those decisions we should acknowledge that ultimately we have to accept responsibility for those personal choices and that is between the individual and God. So, it is not a matter of conformity. You can't expect a religion to ignore its teachings and approve of what they believe is against the laws of Christ.
http://www.actsoffaithinloveandlife.blogspot.com heartsandflowers
in after slavery. Gay marriage is not written as being against the law. It is written as not being a legalized definition of marriage.
Civil Rights was about setting aside the backlash from Emancipation and Jim Crow for Black people, though it wasn't able to secure a lot of the original promises like the 40 aces and a mule.
Adam Clayton Powell tried to destroy MLK politically by exposing Baynard Rustin, architect of the March on Washington because he was gay. Most people don't even know of his contribution or his orientation and he removed himself for the good of the work.
Clearly MLK didn't have a problem with it but it would have undermined
the efforts at getting the Civil Rights Act passed on top of the resistance from LBJ and of course all the violence. Then MLK was murdered. If things hadn't been shrouded in this cloud of secrecy perhaps some inroads could have been made a long time ago, but sometimes you have fight one battle at a time.
A lot of Black people rightfully bristle at the co-opting of a movement for racial equality that was borne out of the Black church were people used (their idea of) biblical principles about fighting for their freedom from oppression.
Since the larger Gay movement deploys a majority of white, usually male spokespeople claiming to be oppressed in the same way, it rings hollow and insincere. Further they are the ones usually running the organizations as well. So there is a glaring lack of inclusion and outreach amongst LGBT PoC.
Also this can be argued as a class issue since less financially secure LGBT people have more immediate concerns like jobs, housing, medical expenses, etc and the official agenda is focused solely on marriage as a panacea for inequality.
I think I covered all the bases, but someone else feel free to chime in.
http://www.actsoffaithinloveandlife.blogspot.com heartsandflowers
I think she may be weary of discussing this an abstract way explaining historical contexts and trying to separate those that may oppose LGBT marriages with those that are supportive and separating the much needed conversation about intolerance from a lot of Black people with the racism within the Gay Right's movement and issues affecting LGBT PoC – which she actually has to live with – while we're “just” discussing it.
Perhaps similar to having to explain to a well meaning white person who identifies as liberal but has a lot of ignorance on white privilege vs. addressing a more hostile white supremacist. It gets tiring either way. ????????
Michelle
why you'd ask someone who might believe differently not to speak their mind
This is a way of seeing things that just doesn't make sense with how I most organically experience dialogue/communication.
But even though it doesn't make organic sense to me, I understand that it is totally coherent with how people communicate in this society.
It is fully my responsibility to understand this, IMO, and be wise in my actions given this disconnect. But that doesn't mean it's easy or that I do it all the time. Sometimes I don't fulfill this responsibility. And this may well be one of those times.
The other question that comes up for me reading this comment is to what extent my initial comment to belle has actually functioned as useful or not to the larger discussion.
It may be that it's so confusing that I don't have the energy to sufficiently explain what's obvious to me that it was not a particularly useful thing for me to do in the larger discussion.
If that's the situation, I apologize — certainly there's plenty of other aspects of this issue to focus energy on without me introducing something that mainly functions to add confusion to the larger discussion, or otherwise adds more problems than usefulness.
It is certainly the case that I am trying to figure some things out about the marriage equality movement and its approaches for myself — and that from this space I may be overly focused on my own learning and frustrations, and not focused enough on the larger group in a discussion like this, and not focused enough on how I might contribute to it in the most useful way possible.
Michelle
issues affecting LGBT PoC – which she actually has to live with – while we're “just” discussing it.
No — I'm white.
TruthSeeker
What I expect of believers is at minimum, to be consistent. I can't expect rationality, because fundamentally, the belief system is irrational.
For example, you say that your god “gives everyone freedom to choose”, and “..we have to accept responsibility for those personal choices and that is between the individual and God.” Here, you seem to suggest that your approval or not is irrelevant…it is only the approval of your god that matters. Logic would dictate, that if you truly believe what you say, you would not intervene in the making of those choices by proselytizing or by ballot. You would indeed allow your god god to deal with, or approve of those choices as it felt fit.
However, you go on to say that I can't expect that believers will approve of things that go against biblical teachings. Somewhere along the line, you switched your belief from only your god's approval counts to your approval counts and should be acted upon. So I ask, who is the god here? And, do you really believe what you say you do, and if so – how strongly do you believe on a scale from one to ten?
Then you say “judge not lest thee be judged.” – switching back to only your god's approval counts.
You go on to say that I can't expect religion to ignore it's teachings; however, it seems you have ignored your own teaching between paragraphs one and three. I am looking for consistency, at minimum.
I would like to see Christians live out their own teachings in their own lives. I would like to see Christian women be silent and perfectly submissive to their husbands. I would like to see Christians not judge, lest they be judged. I would like to see you model your life according to 6th century beliefs, be one of many wives and put your child to death if he disobeys. I would like Christian men never to spill their seed…ever. I would like Christian women to forsake contraception and bring to term every pregnancy, included those that result from incest and rape. You know, ….a little consistency.
The secular world can observe you…and if you succeed and not utterly destroy yourselves – then and only then will we be in awe, and allow you to make decisions for the rest of us, based on your beliefs.
http://www.seesaw.typepad.com Liza Diamond
True. A Rabbi friend of mine offered to marry my (same sex) partner and me because we were both Jews, but refused to marry my sister and her male fiance because they are interfaith. Ironic, when my sister actually wanted to get married (and did – but with a different Rabbi) but I had no interest in marriage.
http://www.seesaw.typepad.com Liza Diamond
Some states that allow civil unions now won't allow benefits for domestic parnerships. Evil. I don't want to marry or civil union, but I can't get health ins. benefits from the institution that employs my parenting partner. Hence, I have expensive and limited insurance that I can barely afford, while my parenting partner and our kids have great insurance from an institution that can but won't extend benefits to me, even though our family depends on all of our good health.
As I've said before, if we had a just system of taxation and healthcare, most people wouldn't even care about marriage.
I've been a Lesbian my entire adult life and never wanted to get married. Still don't. But I so resent living within a system which doles out benefits to people based on their marital status.
jamie d
I believe he was specifically talking about the way things are done in the Netherlands. People there who want that connection to biblical sanctity and community traditions are allowed to have it , but that's not what legally defines marriage.
jamie d
There's a twofold problem that I see with ceding marriage completely. There are gay people who are part of open-minded communities of faith who would like to have religious ceremonies, which are banned under the prop 8 model. On the one hand, there's the lack of equal protection. On the other, there's the favoring of one religious viewpoint over another. Either it's wrong by the 14th amandment, or it's wrong by the 1st.
http://www.actsoffaithinloveandlife.blogspot.com heartsandflowers
Ok I should have included all LGBT but I'm just throwing out my opinions rather quickly here.
Val
You are so wrong about me Truthseeker. :-)
Truth – this is why I LOVE JJP and I appreciate our conversations.
Here's a personal story. I was raised in a religious household and I was raised knowing that sex before marriage was a sin. Period. It was in the scriptures, I read it , understood it and accepted it as truth (there are other sins but let me focus on this one as an example).
At 19 years old I chose to have sex knowing if I died that same day I would probably burn in hell or worse (not be accepted into the kingdom) because it was against the laws of Christ. But I made my choice, relished the experiences and I was fully aware of the cost of my decision. I enjoyed the physical acts and nothing and no one was out of bounds. I selected who I wanted to be involved with and when.
Did I expect my parents or anyone in the Church to approve of my choices? No, absolutely not but it wasn't their business it was my own. The responsibility was mine.
Did I expect for someone to pass laws to enforce the acceptance of those decisions by any religious group? No absolutely not. It was against everything in the scripture and against the teachings of God and the Christian faith. Besides, I didn't need their approval. Ultimately I was accountable to only one person and I was willing to accept the cost. Long story short, finally I made a personal choice to go back to my religion and stop what I was doing because I wanted to be in line with my faith.
So the moral of this story is what? If this decision is left up to the religious community Prop 8 will NEVER pass because it is against the laws. They are not allowed to be complicit and allow these things to happen otherwise they are held equally responsible and accountable for those actions.
So what do we do about Prop 8 — Remove the word “marriage” from the equation as it is based on religious beliefs. Leave civil unions to the courts of each state and provide recipients of civil unions the same rights as those applied to ALL people under the laws of “marriage”.
********************************************************************
You had some other great conversation starters. “I would like to see Christian women be silent and perfectly submissive to their husbands. I would like to see Christians not judge, lest they be judged. I would like to see you model your life according to 6th century beliefs, be one of many wives and put your child to death if he disobeys. I would like Christian men never to spill their seed…ever. I would like Christian women to forsake contraception and bring to term every pregnancy, included those that result from incest and rape. You know, ….a little consistency.”
I think you are misinterpreting those scriptures :-) but we can save those for another time. Great points though and I appreciate the conversation.
http://craighickman.blogspot.com CraigHickman
Now, the funny thing about religion, is that if anyone made Christians live according to the letter of their biblical law….their lives would quickly become unbearable.
::
From extended family experiences, I can tell you that the strict constructionists among them when it comes Biblical law have had unbearable lives since birth.
http://craighickman.blogspot.com CraigHickman
Where and in what words does Christ forbid premarital sex?
http://craighickman.blogspot.com CraigHickman
Val, what I said about Christians in the Netherlands is true.
http://craighickman.blogspot.com CraigHickman
Which is why I would have moved there if McCain was elected.
My husband retained is Dutch citizenship. I love the country, but it should be indoors. It's always raining.
http://craighickman.blogspot.com CraigHickman
Craig, the only place we may disagree (though that seems too strong a word, really) is that I'm finding myself interested in what might happen if we were to remove the word marriage — and thus explicitly cede marriage to the religious side — from the bones of contention.
::
I think would do disagree on this. I repeat, I'm not a big marriage movement participant, but if equal rights are going to be applied, the language as it stands needs to be made available to every citizen.
Period.
I, for one, believe we will get there. But it will happen in the courts, not at the ballot box. Precisely because of so many reasons stated in this discussion.
I don't want to bash Christians, but I have no problem bashing dogmatists. When folks find it necessary in casual conversation to tell me what they don't believe in, I find it necessary to tell them to tell it to their mirror. Dogmatists do want to imprison others with their dogma, whether they admit it or not. Truthseeker spelled it out brilliantly earlier in this thread.
And that is why marriage equality won't happen by legislation or at the ballot box. It will only happen in the courts because the courts can uphold principles that override religious dogma.
In that, gay marriage will go the way of interracial marriage.
Mark my words.
PTCruiser
How is this not a civil rights issue? As citizens of this nation, we should all enjoy the same rights. For one segment of society to be disallowed rights possessed by another . . . I'm not understanding what kind of issue this is if not civil rights?
I'm with you here. One of the things that I find extremely annoying about the opponents of same-sex marriage, especially those in the African American community, is the way in which they take umbrage at the analogies that proponents of same-sex marriage use as an excuse or justification for denying the justness of their claims. It should not matter one whit whether or not the struggle for same-sex marriage bears any historical or logical relationship to the Civil Rights Movement. This struggle should not be used as the lens through which all subsequent claims for civil and constitutional rights in this country are viewed.
Michelle
It's ok, I just wanted to be upfront/clear on my end as a matter of my own responsibility, heartsandflowers.
Michelle
At some level, Craig, what you're saying reassures me. Because the “marriage equality” movement itself feels dissonant to me in a big way and I question the effectiveness in a grassroots effort, at least at this point in time.
I do stand opposed to the marriage equality movement because I find them painfully based in certain forms of deception (some, or at least one, of which you and I have discussed).
And the hard-core people on the other side scare me big-time as well (like I was looking into what happened in Arkansas with Act 1 or whatever it's called and I am currently spooked at levels I can't even express about THAT — and really I don't understand why the movement isn't more up in arms about that because it is so much worse than what happened in CA IMO).
So it means a lot to me to read your certainty on the courts as mechanism, Craig. Because after reading about those people in Arkansas, up at 4am last night reading some of their website actually, I am spooked big time. And I can't see how legislation or initiatives would have anything to do with this in the end. Which doesn't mean it's impossible, but … I am seriously spooked
So reading your comment, punctuated with that powerful last line Mark my words is pretty grounding for me — and for that I thank you.
Val
Hi Craig — it is all over the bible. Here are a few from the old and new testament.
Old Testament Scriptures Regarding Sex Before Marriage
Exodus 22:16-17
If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.
[If premarital sex occurs, then an Israelite male was to marry the woman he slept with - that is, assuming the father allowed the marriage.]
Deuteronomy 22:13-21
If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
Proverbs 5:15-21
Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well. Should your springs overflow in the streets, your streams of water in the public squares? Let them be yours alone, never to be shared with strangers. May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer– may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love. Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress? Why embrace the bosom of another man's wife? For a man's ways are in full view of the LORD, and he examines all his paths.
[A man's "fountain" should be saved for "the wife of [his] youth.” The man is to be a virgin when he takes his wife.]
[In addition to these three Scriptures, there are 32 other verses in the Old Testament speaking about a "virgin" or "virgins." Each of these passages shows that virginity was highly cherished as the standard for God's people.]
New Testament Scriptures Regarding Sex Before Marriage
[When we come to the New Testament we don't have verses explicitly describing the act of premarital sex and its consequences like we do in Exodus or Deuteronomy. It is clear, however, that virginity is still the standard for unmarried Christians and that sex outside the context of marriage is still considered sin.]
1 Corinthians 6:16-18
Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.
[Sexual intimacy "unites" you with the other person. When this uniting of flesh happens outside of marriage, it is called "sexual immorality." One fleshness is to be limited to the one you marry. This is similar to what we saw in Exodus 22:16-17.]
1 Corinthians 7:1-2
Now about the questions you asked in your letter. Yes, it is good to live a celibate life. But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.
1 Corinthians 7:8-9
Now I say to those who aren't married and to widows it's better to stay unmarried, just as I am. But if they can't control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It's better to marry than to burn with lust.
[If you are struggling with wanting to have sex, get married. Premarital sex isn't an option for dealing with lust. It's either marriage or you are in sexual sin.]
Ephesians 5:31
“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”
[Paul is quoting from Genesis 2:24 and affirming the Old Testament standard of uniting in flesh only with your spouse. One fleshness is to happen when a man leaves his father and mother and is "united to his wife." Compare with 1 Corinthians 6:16-18.]
1 Thessalonians 4:2-8
For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to acquire a wife in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this manner no one should cheat his brother or take advantage of him.
The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.
["Acquire a wife in a way that is holy and honorable" or you are in sexual immorality. Sexual sin harms others besides those who engage in it. In adultery, the spouse is always wronged. Premarital sex "cheats" the future partner by robbing him or her of the virginity that ought to be brought to marriage.]
Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
[Again, it's a pure marriage bed or you are an "adulterer" or "sexually immoral."]
1 Timothy 5:2
Treat older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.
[As a Christian man, if you are not married to her, then she is your sister (who you must treat "with absolute purity").]
1 Corinthians 7:7:28,34,36-38
[Note in these verses how virginity is assumed for unmarried women living in Christian homes. This is the same thing as we saw in the Old Testament. Virginity was the standard for God's people.]
2 Corinthians 11:2
I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.
[Although this passage is talking about Christ and His people, it uses the analogy of a Christian man receiving his bride "as a pure virgin." Virginity was the ideal. Premarital sex was viewed as sexual immorality - just as in the Old Testament.]
——————————————————————————–
The standard in both the Old and New Testament regarding premarital sex is the same. Premarital sex is considered sin and a violation of the uniting of bodies that should happen only in marriage.
It is important to say, however, that many Christians have violated this standard. THIS WAS TRUE OF THOSE IN THE EARLY CHURCH TOO.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders… will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Christians were sinners before they came to Christ and Christians are still sinners after they come to Christ. If you have violated God's standards of premarital sex, but are repentant, then accept the FACT that you are washed, made pure, and in a right relationship with your heavenly Father. Seek the miracle of His power filling you to overcome further temptation toward sexual sin.
Craig there are a lot more but that should give you some insight.
Blessings
- Val
http://www.hustleandfloe.com hustleandfloe
thanks for correcting the lens, but it needs even further correction. full disc: i am not a proponent of gay marriage, the act of it, not simply the proposed legal construct. regardless of my stance, though, the issue here is not whether or not gays have the right to marry. they have that.
the real issue is universal legal recognition of the marriage. if gay marriages have full recognition and treatment according to law, then I still won't support it in a moral sense, but most definitely in a law-of-the-land sense. lobbying, and, in extreme cases, civil disobedience would be my only way of opposing with intent to change. but neither of those approaches is Christian – that's where I come from on this. A christian is not called on to protest gay marriage, or any other behavior in that way, but rather to preach and teach Jesus – His death and resurrection as our salvation. All behaviour modification imperatives are delivered from one Christian to another, fully subject to the bible's teaching.
so the lens through which to view this is actually (1) who makes the determination, in this case the individual states and not the federal gov and (2) given the differences among states, whether or not the marriage is recognized.
But we can't frame this as a civil rights issue as marriage is not a right. for example, if all gay unions were granted some status equal to marriage but under different nomenclature, e.g. civil union, then what would the argument become?
marriage is accorded different rights versus civil union. that is the issue. and President-elect Obama seems disposed to grant legal status equal to marriage while he has stated that he is not for marriage being defined as anything but a union between a man and a woman. this is a genius move and a true separation of church and state that still allows for a moral statement: marriage is man and woman, but all people must be treated equally.
You could argue that he's real close to splitting a hair, but that's the nature of his brand of compromise.
so I see the logic of using marriage as the proxy for all of those rights, but , the split hair is that marriage itself is not a right. gays can marry. all that is better said here.
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/11/07/no-state-r…
so, given all that, it seems more like proponents of gay marriage are, in this case, not seeking legal remedy as much as moral approval, else marriage wouldn't mattter as much as what I'm actually allowed to do.
this democracy is built to handle the disagreement. we will never all agree on things as we come from different value positions. if we believe strongly enough in one thing, then we have been given the tools to either protect or protest the order of the day.
Val
Hi Craig — it is all over the bible. Here are a few from the old and new testament.
Old Testament Scriptures Regarding Sex Before Marriage
Exodus 22:16-17
If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.
[If premarital sex occurs, then an Israelite male was to marry the woman he slept with - that is, assuming the father allowed the marriage.]
Deuteronomy 22:13-21
If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
Proverbs 5:15-21
Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well. Should your springs overflow in the streets, your streams of water in the public squares? Let them be yours alone, never to be shared with strangers. May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer– may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love. Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress? Why embrace the bosom of another man's wife? For a man's ways are in full view of the LORD, and he examines all his paths.
[A man's "fountain" should be saved for "the wife of [his] youth.” The man is to be a virgin when he takes his wife.]
[In addition to these three Scriptures, there are 32 other verses in the Old Testament speaking about a "virgin" or "virgins." Each of these passages shows that virginity was highly cherished as the standard for God's people.]
New Testament Scriptures Regarding Sex Before Marriage
[When we come to the New Testament we don't have verses explicitly describing the act of premarital sex and its consequences like we do in Exodus or Deuteronomy. It is clear, however, that virginity is still the standard for unmarried Christians and that sex outside the context of marriage is still considered sin.]
1 Corinthians 6:16-18
Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.
[Sexual intimacy "unites" you with the other person. When this uniting of flesh happens outside of marriage, it is called "sexual immorality." One fleshness is to be limited to the one you marry. This is similar to what we saw in Exodus 22:16-17.]
1 Corinthians 7:1-2
Now about the questions you asked in your letter. Yes, it is good to live a celibate life. But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.
1 Corinthians 7:8-9
Now I say to those who aren't married and to widows it's better to stay unmarried, just as I am. But if they can't control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It's better to marry than to burn with lust.
[If you are struggling with wanting to have sex, get married. Premarital sex isn't an option for dealing with lust. It's either marriage or you are in sexual sin.]
Ephesians 5:31
“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”
[Paul is quoting from Genesis 2:24 and affirming the Old Testament standard of uniting in flesh only with your spouse. One fleshness is to happen when a man leaves his father and mother and is "united to his wife." Compare with 1 Corinthians 6:16-18.]
1 Thessalonians 4:2-8
For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to acquire a wife in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this manner no one should cheat his brother or take advantage of him.
The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.
["Acquire a wife in a way that is holy and honorable" or you are in sexual immorality. Sexual sin harms others besides those who engage in it. In adultery, the spouse is always wronged. Premarital sex "cheats" the future partner by robbing him or her of the virginity that ought to be brought to marriage.]
Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
[Again, it's a pure marriage bed or you are an "adulterer" or "sexually immoral."]
1 Timothy 5:2
Treat older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.
[As a Christian man, if you are not married to her, then she is your sister (who you must treat "with absolute purity").]
1 Corinthians 7:7:28,34,36-38
[Note in these verses how virginity is assumed for unmarried women living in Christian homes. This is the same thing as we saw in the Old Testament. Virginity was the standard for God's people.]
2 Corinthians 11:2
I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.
[Although this passage is talking about Christ and His people, it uses the analogy of a Christian man receiving his bride "as a pure virgin." Virginity was the ideal. Premarital sex was viewed as sexual immorality - just as in the Old Testament.]
——————————————————————————–
The standard in both the Old and New Testament regarding premarital sex is the same. Premarital sex is considered sin and a violation of the uniting of bodies that should happen only in marriage.
It is important to say, however, that many Christians have violated this standard. THIS WAS TRUE OF THOSE IN THE EARLY CHURCH TOO.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders… will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Christians were sinners before they came to Christ and Christians are still sinners after they come to Christ. If you have violated God's standards of premarital sex, but are repentant, then accept the FACT that you are washed, made pure, and in a right relationship with your heavenly Father. Seek the miracle of His power filling you to overcome further temptation toward sexual sin.
Craig there are a lot more but that should give you some insight.
Blessings
- Val
http://www.hustleandfloe.com hustleandfloe
thanks for correcting the lens, but it needs even further correction. full disc: i am not a proponent of gay marriage, the act of it, not simply the proposed legal construct. regardless of my stance, though, the issue here is not whether or not gays have the right to marry. they have that.
the real issue is universal legal recognition of the marriage. if gay marriages have full recognition and treatment according to law, then I still won't support it in a moral sense, but most definitely in a law-of-the-land sense. lobbying, and, in extreme cases, civil disobedience would be my only way of opposing with intent to change. but neither of those approaches is Christian – that's where I come from on this. A christian is not called on to protest gay marriage, or any other behavior in that way, but rather to preach and teach Jesus – His death and resurrection as our salvation. All behaviour modification imperatives are delivered from one Christian to another, fully subject to the bible's teaching.
so the lens through which to view this is actually (1) who makes the determination, in this case the individual states and not the federal gov and (2) given the differences among states, whether or not the marriage is recognized.
But we can't frame this as a civil rights issue as marriage is not a right. for example, if all gay unions were granted some status equal to marriage but under different nomenclature, e.g. civil union, then what would the argument become?
marriage is accorded different rights versus civil union. that is the issue. and President-elect Obama seems disposed to grant legal status equal to marriage while he has stated that he is not for marriage being defined as anything but a union between a man and a woman. this is a genius move and a true separation of church and state that still allows for a moral statement: marriage is man and woman, but all people must be treated equally.
You could argue that he's real close to splitting a hair, but that's the nature of his brand of compromise.
so I see the logic of using marriage as the proxy for all of those rights, but , the split hair is that marriage itself is not a right. gays can marry. all that is better said here.
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/11/07/no-state-r…
so, given all that, it seems more like proponents of gay marriage are, in this case, not seeking legal remedy as much as moral approval, else marriage wouldn't mattter as much as what I'm actually allowed to do.
this democracy is built to handle the disagreement. we will never all agree on things as we come from different value positions. if we believe strongly enough in one thing, then we have been given the tools to either protect or protest the order of the day.
joeAnne
Gay marriages are ok as long as they don't interfere with the idea of adopting and raising a children. Anyway, I also have a question: is it true that at a certain point it might stop divorce?
joeAnne
Gay marriages are ok as long as they don't interfere with the idea of adopting and raising a children. Anyway, I also have a question: is it true that at a certain point it might stop divorce?
Pingback: Article Network
Pingback: amsterdam hotels
Pingback: controversies about iron
Pingback: bodybuilding workout routines
Pingback: beauty shop film soundtrack
Pingback: hotels in ostend
Pingback: prague hotels
Pingback: hotels in rimini
Pingback: Milan Hotels
Pingback: ZermattMatterhorn
Pingback: ¢ÒÂ¹éÓËÍÁ
Pingback: How To Hack The Gmail Password
Pingback: Hotels in Toulouse
Pingback: crio cord
Pingback: Kreditvergleich gratis
Pingback: Prestashop Templates

Entries (RSS)
Comments (RSS)

Who We Are

Cheryl Contee aka "Jill Tubman", Baratunde Thurston aka "Jack Turner", rikyrah, Leutisha Stills aka "The Christian Progressive Liberal", B-Serious, Casey Gane-McCalla, Jonathan Pitts-Wiley aka "Marcus Toussaint," Fredric Mitchell, Keith Owens, Anson Asaka, Barbara Moore, Deborah Small, Lisa Coffman, Michael Patton

Special Contributors: Rashad Robinson, Marvin Randolph, Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, James Rucker, Rinku Sen, Adam Luna

Technical Contributor: Brandon Sheats

Jack & Jill Politics