No on Prop 8, #11

I think this will be my last post on prop 8...

The other day I was reading some blogs and came upon Glenn Layne's blog He is a conservative pastor in California. He has a post on voting "yes" on 8 where he talked about a the need to pass 8 to protect religious freedom. In the comments on that post it was clearly pointed out that each of his arguments were unfounded and there was no reason to frame the argument in that way. Indeed, one piece that was not raised is that when the court in California wrote it's opinion in support of gay marriage it specifically excluded any constraints on religious institutions.

For pastor Layne though, none of that matters. He says this to the person who posted

I just don't trust your side. Your used judges to to overrule the people. You side cheats and lies--it's that simple.

How do you respond to this kind of thinking? How do you build a sense of community when one side automatically dismisses facts because they don't matter in the face of irrational fear?

My friend Fernando has a post on his blog where he raises a similar question... how can we get past those unfounded resentments and what will they do the the role of the evangelical church in this culture?

It doesn't bode well for the future of our country and I don't blame it on the evil leftists. They aren't the ones who have majored in using wedge issues to divide this nation.

no on 8, #10

another video... this one from the Republican mayor of San Diego.



Nobody believes that a civil union and marriage are the same. If they did, we wouldn't be struggling with this issue. There is no way that it is fair or just to enshrine in our state constitution discrimination against a class of people.

Vote no on Prop 8.

a theology of marriage

Since I've been posting on prop 8, I thought I should give a short post regarding my theology of marriage. I will not go through all of the scriptures and exegete them. Others who are much more skilled have done that. I will give you my understanding of the broad strokes. And I won't talk about the shape of marriage across the centuries or across cultures. It is enough to say that it isn't the same and never was.

About gay and lesbian people... I don't know what makes one person gay and another straight. My guess is the answers are as different as people, but at the bottom line, I don't care whether it is chosen, inborn, a combination of the two, or completely fluid. I don't think God cares either.

I believe people are not created to be alone, but that basic idea plays itself out in very different ways from individual to individual. Some of us are single and find the companionship we need in the broader community. Some of us require a different kind of intimacy that requires a life partner. Still others fall somewhere in the middle. I believe God's concern for us and God's design for us in creation is that we be in relationship and those relationships reflect the love of God. Period.

But what about sex? First, let me say that I do not believe that any of the passages traditionally used to condemn GLBT relationships are relevant to the issue as we experience it in our culture. I do not see any passages in scripture that directly address two same sex adults involved in a committed relationship. There might be hints - check out 2 Samuel 1:26 - but tey are only hints and nothing for sure. So how do we make decisions regarding the appropriateness of sexual expression between two people? The criteria for GLBT folk are the same as for straight folk.

I really like a book I read some years ago by James Nelson called Embodiment: An Approach to Sexuality and Christian Theology. If I remember it correctly, after talking about the meaning of sexual expression in human relationships, Nelson sets out a schema for judging the morality of sexual expressions. He says that sex is always infused with meaning and that it is never just a bodily function. As such, there must be a theological/moral framework to evaluate the appropriateness of sexual acts. His criteria, as I remember them, are
1. Is the sexual expression appropriate for the depth of the commitment of the two people?
2. Is the expression humanizing for the partners or is it exploitative of one or both of them?
3. Are both partners willing and able to live with any possible consequences of the act?

Obviously two people who just met in a bar cannot meet #1. A pair of teenagers cannot meet #3. A pedophile and a child cannot meet any of the three. Nelson would argue, and I think rightly, that there are sexual expressions between married couples that do not meet his criteria and are immoral. He would also argue, again I think rightly, that sexual intercourse between a gay couple can meet all of the criteria and if so, is proper and absolutely blessed by God in the context of their relationship.

So what is marriage in my theology? It is a covenant between two people before God in the context of their community to work together to fulfill God's yearnings for them as individuals and as a couple. Gender is not an issue. For me, the legal aspect is entirely separate. Because marriage is a covenant before God, the role of the state is secondary. I have done weddings of gay and of lesbian couples in New York where it was not sanctioned by the state. I still performed a marriage and believe they are married before God. Regardless of what happens with the law in the state of California, if a gay or lesbian couple comes to me seeking marriage, I will perform the service under the same criteria I would use for a straight couple. Unfortunately, if prop 8 passes, that same couple will not have legal standing, secondary though it is.

no on 8, #9

another video...



There are those who would argue that this video is unfair, but I remember when interracial marriages were illegal in some states. These arguments, along with the same religious arguments used in support of prop 8, are the very ones that were used to try to retain laws against interracial marriages. It is a fair reminder.

Others will bristle at the characterization of prop 8 as "prop hate." While, I understand that and know some folk who are voting for prop 8 who are anything but hateful, the result is the same... discrimination and hurt. I wouldn't call it prop hate, but I understand why others would.

No on 8, #8

We've all heard the arguments that marriage in the Bible is one man and one woman and that God planned it that way. The implication is that the way we did marriage in the 1950's is exactly the way it has always been done.

The other day I received an e-mail with a list of amendments to prop 8 to make it more consistent with the Bible...

* Marriage in the United States of America shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)

* Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

* A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

* Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

* Since marriage is for life, neither the US Constitution nor any state law shall permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9-12)

* If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow, or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law.
(Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

* In lieu of marriage (if there are no acceptable men to be found), a woman shall get her father drunk and have sex with him.(Gen 19:31-36)

We could add more verses to illustrate polygamy, bride prices, women treated as chattel, etc. all of which are not condemned...

Yes... it is a bit silly, but it does underscore the fact that marriage in the Bible is a very different institution that we have today and that to try to use Biblical understandings of marriage as an argument for prop 8 is, well, really silly.

No on 8, #7

I hadn't really thought about the yes on 8 campaign as being anti-family but the way it is exploiting children for its end is just that, especially when they are using images of children without the consent of the parents. Cynical is a kind word to describe those who use children to further their own political goals while claiming to be supporting family values.

no on prop 8, #6

there have been some wonderful ads from the no on 8 people...

here are three more that are both clever and right on target.

No on 8, #4

I have received a lot of liturature from the Yes on 8 folk as well as having seen a lot of television ads... One thing stands out to me, well, maybe two.

First the arguments are based on fear - fear that from what I can see is completely unfounded

and

there are lots of untruths being told... let me be straightforward, at times they're just lying and other times they're twisting the truth to the point that it isn't recognizable.

No church, synagogue, mosque or other religious institution will be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. I know churches that refuse to marry divorced people. Divorced people have been legally free to marry forever. Nobody forces those churches to go against their stated beliefs. I know churches that will not do marriages for all kinds of other reasons, nobody forces them. No congregation will be forced to do marriages of a gay couple if it goes against their faith. Period. Anybody who tells you anything different than that is lying.

And nobody can tell a church that they have to change their doctrines about anything. If your congregation believes that gays should not be allowed to marry, you can continue to preach that every Sunday from now until the turn of the century. Nobody can tell you what to preach. And they can't sue you or charge you with a crime because of it.

They say that "marriage has always and everywhere been between a man and a woman." First off, I don't know how in the world anyone could say that... there is no way to know what has always and everywhere been, but beyond that, it implies that marriage as an institution has always been exactly as it was in the 1950's - 1 working man, 1 stay at home woman, 3 school aged children, and a dog. Sorry. I wasn't even then. Any anthropoligist would tell you that the institution of marriage has always been fluid and always will. Marriage in the Bible was very different than it is now and it changed through the times when scriptures were written.

And don't raise anything about childbirth. In marriage in our culture, childbirth may be a purpose of marriage but it is not the defining purpose. If it was, then we would disallow ayone who is sterile or who chooses not to have childen from marrying and require those beyond childbearing years to call their relationship something else.

"They are forcing their view on me..." Who is? Nobody can force you to change your belief system. What you think of believe about a neighbors relationship is irrelevant. You don't have to accept a gay couples relationship any more than they have to accept yours.

"Gay marriage diminishes "'real' marriage" How? How does a same sex couple who are committed to one another and love one another and wants to formalize that relationship in the context of their faith community impact your relationship in any way at all? We've been having gay marriages in CA for a bit now. As far as I can see, nothing has changed. Massachusetts hasn't fallen into the sea... and it has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country, lower than most of the states in the Bible belt.

Bottom line is that allowing a gay couple to marry won't change a thing for any straight person... but it makes a world of difference for that couple. Be fair to them. Let them formalize their commitment of love. And don't tell me as a pastor who I can or cannot marry.

no on 8 #3

another video ad...



although I have to say that I'm sure this ad would also energize the yes on 8 crowd... I still like it and I like the song from Rent

no on 8 #1

Over the next few days, I'll write some regarding Proposition 8 and why I think it is bad policy, bad law, basically unjust, and why I am voting "no" on 8. As a beginning, take a look at this old video about equality in marriage.