Various Comments About Gay “Marriage”
I’ve received a fair number of questions in response to my podcast about gay “marriage,” which I’m attempting to answer here. This is specifically about marriage. See these links if you’d like to hear my take on sex in general or homosexuality.
1. We shouldn’t legislate morality.
This isn’t a valid objection. Most laws deal with some moral issue. Society’s most basic laws, such as those against murder, rape, theft, etc., deal with moral issues, and no one questions those. Granted, the bare fact that something is immoral is not always reason to ban it; talking disrespectfully to your parents is a sin, but not a crime. However, we legislate on moral issues all the time, so this objection is unconvincing. I also tend to find a lot of inconsistency here. For instance, those who throw this at the Religious Right then turn around and rail against Bush and torture precisely because they believe torturing people is wrong.
Regardless of whether secularists can be consistent with this objection, I don’t believe any Christian should buy it. Romans 13:1-7 says that the government is to punish those who do wrong and commend those who do good. So Paul knows nothing of a government that strives for some so-called “neutrality.” And when it comes to gay “marriage,” the government would be exactly backwards from what Paul says: commending homosexuals who do evil in God’s sight while disapproving of Christians who speak the truth about marriage.
However, even if the objection were valid, I don’t think it would apply to gay “marriage.” The fight over gay “marriage” is a fight over the definition of marriage, not over whether it would be wrong for gays to marry. Christians are saying that marriage is by definition the union of a man and a woman, so gay “marriage” is impossible. Indeed, it’s not even necessary to believe that homosexuality is wrong to believe that homosexual relationships aren’t marriage. There have been societies that had no problem with homosexuality but never thought gays could marry.
Also, I’ve not heard anyone who’s using this objection calling for the abolition of laws against incest, which can hardly be justified without the belief that incest is wrong. Until I see that, I’ll remain unimpressed.
2. Christians are upset about this because most of them don’t struggle with homosexuality. And how can they oppose SSM when heterosexual marriage is so screwed up?
As I’ve said, the definition of marriage is not dependent upon the morality of homosexuality. However, I do think there is some truth to the notion that Christians are more upset by homosexuality than other sins because they don’t struggle with them. Would that I hated my own sins as much as I hate others’. But not all the blame can be laid on this, because gays are openly campaigning to have their sin praised as something good. Other sexual sins don’t usually get praised like this. There’s no adulterers’ lobby.
I also think a lot of the passion comes from seeing the foundational institution of marriage attacked. Christians have high regard for the family in a way that secularists don’t. Most Christians who argue against SSM, myself included, sincerely believe that the definition of marriage will come to be seen as something infinitely malleable once the perverted parody of it that is gay “marriage” is accepted.
And this is why the deplorable state of marriage in America is not a good reason to accept gay “marriage.” Gay “marriage” would further damage marriage by writing in permanent marker, so to speak, the idea that marriage is just about “two people who love each other” (and I believe the two part would soon be crossed out). Gay “marriage” would affirm the self-centered ideas that have carried us away from a biblical idea of marriage and into the disaster zone we’re currently in. Marriage in the country requires drastic surgery, but, like a doctor, we must “first do no harm.”
As for marriage in the church, it certainly is in bad shape, although I don’t believe that it’s as bad as the world. When you don’t just look at self-designation (“I’m a Christian”) but also look at whether people actually attend church, Christians have lower divorce rates. Nevertheless, you don’t have to be perfect to oppose further degradation of marriage. And divorce, for all its shameful prevalence, is still not looked on positively by churches. I’d like to see more proposals for reforming divorce laws, but if you look at prominent organizations like Focus On Family, they’ve certainly tried to save marriages from divorce and have supported reforms like covenant marriage. But a society that’s debating SSM may not be a society that’s ready to reform divorce laws. You’ve got to win the battles you can.
3. To be consistent, Christians would also have to oppose second marriages for those who divorce without just cause, which are state-sanctioned adultery.
Divorce is a difficult issue. I support the reform of divorce laws so that they only allow divorce for just cause or at least make it more difficult to obtain a divorce, not the current “no-fault” option that devastated marriage in America. That’s not likely to happen in the short term. However, I don’t believe in the indissolubility of marriage (as does the Catholic Church), so I believe that those who divorce without just cause and remarry, while sinning, are truly married to the second spouse. So the government is not sinning in recognizing that. It’s a different situation than lying about what marriage is with SSM.
4. Since the government can’t actually change God’s definition of marriage, marriage laws don’t matter very much.
Although God’s definition of marriage won’t change, rebellion against his standards can lead to widespread damage in a society–witness the damage done by the Sexual Revolution and no-fault divorce laws. Gay “marriage” will lead to a further damaging of society’s conception of marriage, because what the government says does matter to people, even if God is unmoved. Children who grow up being taught by the government that gay “marriage” is a good thing will have a different concept of family, and that concept will lead to very real harm both for them and their children. And given the problem with sex and divorce within the church, I believe many Christians will be damaged as they are influenced by the surrounding culture. So SSM will be harmful both for society at large and the church. If you want to see how much laws can affect a society, look at the rise of no-fault divorce, which led us directly to divorce being commonplace. We’re not trying to save souls with marriage laws, we’re trying to save families.
5. Persecution will be a good thing because it will weed out the nominal Christians, leaving a purer church that loves in deed, not just in word.
I would largely agree with this. To take just one example, when there are 16 million Baptists on membership roles but only 6 million can be bothered to come to church, the purity of the church has been seriously compromised. Persecution would certainly trim the membership rolls.
However, there are multiple routes to a purer church. Persecution is one, but I would hope that it would come about instead through biblical reformation: proclamation of the gospel, faithful preaching of the word, a revival of church discipline, all empowered by the Holy Spirit. I believe much of the impurity in the church is a result of the gospel not being preached, so that many unregenerate people sit in the pews week after week, unconverted by sermons composed of moralism, self-help advice, and pop psychology. If we preach the gospel and hold believers accountable for its implications, persecution won’t be needed.
I also don’t want to fatalistically accept American decline. We’re called to serve God in every situation, and I don’t fear the future, but we have been blessed with a wonderful gift of religious liberty in this nation, and I don’t want to see it taken away. I don’t believe utter cultural degradation is inevitable; God may yet grant this nation repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. If the church can reform itself, I don’t believe persecution will be necessary.
6. Should Christians also oppose marriages between heterosexual couples who aren’t Christians since they don’t represent Christ’s union with the Church?
No. One of God’s purposes in creating marriage was to represent Christ and the Church. Therefore, marriage always symbolizes this, although imperfectly. It’s not changed by whether or not the spouses are believers.
As for being opposed to marriages between unbelievers, I see no reason to. Marriage is a blessing for all humanity, not just Christians. Even if we opposed it, the government should still recognize it, for they truly are married.
The Bible doesn’t condemn the marriage of unbelievers, only the marriage of a believer and an unbeliever (1 Cor. 7:39). A believer and unbeliever can still be married, so we should still legally recognize their marriages, but God is displeased with their decision to marry.
