Gay Marriage vs Traditional Marriage: From a Christian worldview

  

VS.

The Defense of Marriage Act was ruled unconstitutional today by the United States Supreme Court. I don't know yet if this ruling is good or bad, but it's only a matter of time before we begin to feel the counter-effects of how exactly it will impact our constitutional rights, particularly freedom of conscience and religion.

Before I go there, however, I think you should understand where I stand personally as a Christian who upholds traditional Biblical values and moral codes.

Do I believe same-sex couples should have the same rights as a heterosexual couple?

When it comes to tax codes under the law, absolutely. But due to my faith in Christ and what He teaches regarding homosexuality, I cannot condone same sex marriage and this includes civil unions.

However, if the majority of citizens in my home state of Missouri won the civil union argument at the ballot box, I would take comfort in knowing that the decision was at least made by the people 

I would also advocate for exceptions for religious institutions as well as for Christians working in the court system who could eventually be confronted with choosing between their faith and their job.

That said, I believe the government should have never gotten involved in marriage by offering tax breaks to married couples, which is at the heart of these Supreme Court arguments. These tax breaks are also unfair to unmarried citizens.

I appreciate what the government was trying to accomplish in regards to encouraging marriage but, like everything else the government get its hands into, it has backfired.

The tax and legal codes should be equal for everyone – period. If they were, I don't think we would be having this argument today.

A little Old Testament Biblical history, if you're interested

Throughout the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, God says to love your neighbor as yourself. This means equal treatment of all humankind -- regardless of faith, social class, race or sexual orientation.

In the Old Testament, the Jews were commanded by God to uphold their religious duties and traditions, which were not expected from unbelievers. Prior to the New Testament, this meant Jews and non-Jews because Jesus had not come yet to extend salvation to the Gentiles. 

At the same time, the book of Deuteronomy details how the laws were to serve both the believers and unbelievers, while not enforcing a theological-type government on non-Jews. 

Sound American? It should, because if you read Deuteronomy and how God instructed the Jews to set up their court system so that all would be equally represented under the law, there is an obvious connection between Old Testament Jewish courts and the American judicial system.

God forbade the Jews from treating foreigners in their land any differently than a fellow Jew. Everyone was equal under the law, and God made that VERY clear.

New Testament

In the New Testament, Jesus refers to foreigners as those living outside the faith including idolaters, adulterers, murderers, fornicators (those having pre-marital sex and living with someone outside of marriage), mystics and, yes, homosexuals.

Please do not be upset with me for pointing these things out.  They are inconvenient truths, I know, but both the Old and New Testaments are very clear where God stands on these issues.

Jesus commands us to resist these types of desires and, instead, pray for these temptations to cease. Through prayer and repentance, Jesus sheds his grace -- forgiving and, literally, forgetting one's sins -- regardless of how bad the world or other Christians view these particular sins.

I believe many Christians have become more focused on grace than what it means to be a Christian, because there are characteristics to Christian-living and Jesus speaks pretty clearly about those throughout the New Testament.

Now this doesn't mean we won't make mistakes, but we should always strive to live right under God -- and this means resisting certain earthy desires such as pre-marital sex and homosexuality.

Proverbs 14:34 says: "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin condemns any people."

In order for America to remain a free and prosperous country, our laws must reflect a Godly nation. In regards to the gay issue, I believe the laws should represent gay couples equally in that they are free to practice their lifestyle without fear of persecution. 

But marriage is a religious tenant, not a secular one, and was never meant for those living homosexual lifestyles. However, if some churches choose to marry gay couples in a civil union state, that is their business and they are protected under law from persecution.

I believe if gay marriage becomes law, that will be the final nail in the America's coffin. All you have to do is look at what happened to apostate nations in the Bible. The final straw was usually one of two things: Paganism (worship of the Earth and animals) and homosexuality.

America's economy is very fragile right now,  and I think God is giving us a wake up call. Honestly, the economy, along with what is transpiring in the Middle East, is what woke me up.

If we don't reverse course, I believe America will be taken into slavery just as they were in Biblical times for rejecting God. In modern terms, this means slaves to an all-powerful government -- probably an international one -- that controls every single aspect of our lives.

According to what I see on Facebook and in the American media, it seems Americans (even some good friends and family members of mine) are becoming more comfortable with living under oppressive regulations and tax laws, so this may very well be our future: Ssocialism, which according to history, eventually becomes full-on communism.

Additionally, Americans on both the right and left seem to be more willing to hand over their civil liberties in exchange for so-called "security." Because of this, the U.S. is now a surveillance state. The National Security Administration is recording every phone call, every Skype, every email and every text of every single American and storing the data at the new NSA facility in Utah.

 How things typically work in a Republic

When it comes to a relatively new issue, Americans typically take an educated approach by first having an open debate, during which the public is educated on the good, the bad and the ugly of both sides of the subject at hand. Education can be acquired in various ways including public forums, polls and media outlets.

Then, Americans go to the voting booths, which is what Californians did with Proposition 8.

Despite the outcome, gay marriage activists appealed it to the Supreme Court, fully willing to give a few justices power over the voice of the California people.

Think about the precedent this sets: We are leaving our destiny in the hands of a few lawyers and justices who, nowadays, don’t work to protect the constitution, but rather work to advance an ideology.

The very un-American American media 

Today’s local and national media outlets act more as a campaign arm of the Democratic party than serious journalists educating the people on all angles of a controversial subject. 

Both sides bring good and negative points to the table. The media's job is to compile this data and report on every aspect of the issue, then let the people decide. This is what I was taught in my journalism classes, anyway, but things have changed. And that's probably why I will always be a blogger and/or soft news writer, rather than a hard news reporter.

In the mainstream press, both national and local, I have seen significantly more editorials written in support of gay marriage than against it. There is a stark difference in how the two sides cover the issue.

For instance, the conservative authors, while opposing gay marriage and civil unions, almost always express their support for equal tax and legal codes for gay couples. They also respect the rule of law if civil unions are approved by the majority in a state election.

Other conservatives support civil unions altogether, as long as the definition of marriage is not redefined and exceptions for people of faith exist. There are even some conservatives who are campaigning for redefining marriage as long as people faith are protected.

On the other hand, almost all of the writers who support gay marriage completely disregard the other side's  arguments. Instead, they choose to slander and mock those who are simply guarding their consciences and seeking a balanced approach to this controversial issue.

It is quite troubling to me, as I respect those who support gay marriage and even understand why they are so passionate about the topic. I really do get it because I struggled with this issue for many years. I just can't support same sex marriage because it is in direct contrast to God's plan for humankind.

The American way, I believe, in resolving this argument is to neutralize the tax and legal codes. This would extend economic freedom to gay couples, while protecting Christians' freedom of conscience -- thus the argument for civil unions and equal tax laws vs. completely redefining marriage altogether.

In regards to civil unions, I say let the people decide -- not a few ideological elites in Washington, D.C.

The Constitutional Conundrum and the Redistribution of Freedoms

More and more, the world is coercing Christians to compromise on their principles in the name of "tolerance."
 

What happens to freedom of conscience if gay marriage becomes the law of the land?

If gay marriage becomes a constitutional right, is it not reasonable to assume that the churches who adhere to traditional Biblical teachings would be vulnerable to law suits if they refuse to conduct gay weddings?

Would they be required by law to marry gay couples? And if they don't comply, be sued out of existence?

Honestly, I don't know the answers to these questions but I assume they would be of real concern to American citizens on both sides of the debate.

In the end, the freedom for gays to marry could mean the end of traditional Biblical Christianity . . . taking freedoms from one to give to another.

Why not just let the free market do its job

With each passing year, polls reflect that Americans are becoming more accepting of gay marriage. If this is the case, why erode the Republic by going around the people via the Supreme Court before the people are ready for this cultural change? 

Legislative bullying tactics have been popular in American society for quite some time now and, in my opinion, it is a cop-out. It is not only divisive, but it poses a threat to the most amazing form of government the world has ever seen - the ONLY form of government that has endured more than 200 years.

A government for the people, by the people and of the people is steadily being replaced by a government that serves whatever special interests are popular and feel right at the time. A stroke of the executive pen or one court ruling can advance freedoms to one side by taking freedoms -- even if unintended -- from the other side. 

Think ObamaCare and how religious entities are being forced to either violate their consciences or face huge fines for refusing to provide  abortion-inducing drugs and/or birth control to their employees. Many companies around the country may even be forced to shut their doors including Oklahoma City-based arts and crafts conglomerate Hobby Lobby.

If this administration won't make exceptions on ObamaCare, what makes you think they would make exceptions for churches regarding gay marriage?

"Big Government is good if it has my worldview at heart" 

I’m learning that Americans will side with Big Government as long as it represents their particular worldview – the constitutional Republic be damned.

And, I’m sorry, it makes me sick to see so many of my conservative friends compromising their Christian values to “fit in” with the popular crowd or to "re-make" the Republican Party. In fact, I find it quite pathetic.

Why Christians can't compromise their principles

Just so you know, homosexuality is not a new thing, which is the message the media has been selling.

It is something society has been dealing with since the beginning of time. Remember, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah mainly because of rampant homosexuality; and He did it again during the "time of Noah," when God made it rain for 40 days and 40 nights to, again, address the seriousness of unchecked sexual immorality.

Jesus said the next time we will face such blatant immoral acts would be in the last days, and that it would serve as a precursor to His return. During this time, Jesus said, homosexuality would be widely accepted by society, even by those who "claim to know Him." I think we're there.

Additionally, Jesus pointed out that Christians who stand on Biblical truth during these "perilous" times would be persecuted by imprisonment and sometimes even death.

Christians in the Middle East are already being imprisoned and sentenced to death for their Christian faith. In Russia, the government has been bulldozing churches, something that hasn't been reported on by American media, unless you subscribe to conservative blogs, of course.

Will American pastors who stand against gay marriage soon face jail time?

Thanks to progressive laws and regulations, Christian persecution in America has officially begun. Honestly, I never thought we'd be having this conversation in my lifetime.

Despite current trials and future tribulations, I take comfort in what Jesus said in Matthew 5:11:  "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me."

Conclusion

I say "yes" to civil unions that are voted into law by the people (although I would not personally vote for the measure), and "no" to redefining the definition of marriage. 

I say "yes" to equality under America's tax and legal laws, and "no" to the violation of my conscience, as I reserve the right to disagree.

I say "fine" to those churches that are willing to marry gay couples, and "no" to forcing traditional churches to comply.

Think about it before you give the government power over marriage.