50 years ago religious freedom arguments that are being made today to discriminate against LGBT people were being used to justify the discrimination of black people and interracial relationships.
At that time scripture was misused to support the exclusion and oppression of black people and interracial couples. Today we have people doing the same thing to justify the exclusion and oppression of LGBT people and same sex couples.
Most people have never taken the time to study what scripture says about same sex relationships for themselves. Most people read scripture with preconceived ideas that have been formed by believing what they have been told by someone else.
If anyone is willing to set their preconceived ideas aside and take the time to study original language while also taking historical context into consideration they will be able to comprehend that there is nothing in scripture that clearly condemns a loving, healthy same sex relationship. NOTHING!
I know!, because as a parent of a gay son I was diligent in my effort to find out FOR SURE what scripture did and didn’t say about same sex relationships. I loved my son enough to go to the trouble. Do you love anyone enough to go to the trouble? If you do, I would be glad to help you.
In fact, there is more evidence in scripture to support slavery than there is to support the condemnation of all same sex relationships.
Scripture also doesn’t put forth the idea that marriage is to be only between one man and one woman or that it has anything to do with people falling in love.
Scripture proves one thing about marriage … that marriage has been changing since the beginning of time. As society progresses, learns and improves, our institutions change.
Traditionally marriage was not between one man and one woman. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. In the ancient world, marriage served primarily as a means of preserving power, with kings and other members of the ruling class marrying off their daughters to forge alliances, acquire land, and produce legitimate heirs. The purpose of marriage was primarily the production of heirs. Often times peasants wouldn’t even bother with marriage since they had no property or position to worry about.
The church didn’t even get involved in marriage until the 5th century. It wasn’t declared a sacred sacrament until the 12th century. And it wasn’t until the 16th century that weddings were performed publicly by a priest and with witnesses. A license to be married wasn’t commonplace until the 17th century which was around the time when romance began to have some involvement. As the middle class formed in the 19th century only then did young men begin to select their own spouses and start marrying without the consent of their parents. The idea of women having rights and not being a subordinate to their husband didn’t become common until the 20th century. It was 1965 before the Supreme Court ruled that a wife could be raped by her husband. Until then husbands who forced themselves on their wives were not guilty of rape, since they were legally entitled to sexual access.
The institution of marriage has always been in a constant state of evolution.
“Marriage, like transportation, has always been a part of human existence. But riding a donkey is very different from flying in a jet, and modern marriage has only superficial similarity to what went before. Just as we embrace each new mode of travel that enhances human welfare, no one should mind adapting marriage to the needs of modern people.” – Steve Chapman
Extending matrimony to same-sex couples advances the same interests cited in support of heterosexual marriage. Legalizing same sex marriages encourages stable commitments that offer a framework for procreation and upholds the interest of children in a legally protected family.
The evidence before us is that same sex marriage offers the same benefits to individuals and society that opposite sex marriage does.
And finally, there is nothing in scripture that would support the idea that Christians should not sell their services or products to someone who is, in their eyes, sinning. In fact, that would go against the very tenets of Christianity. Any use of Christianity to justify discrimination is evidence of a misunderstanding about who Jesus was and what his good news was meant to convey to and about humanity. Discrimination and exclusion were not values of Jesus and are in conflict with the precepts of the Christian faith.
Oh – and one last point – the First Amendment does not guarantee us the right to discriminate based on our religion, it instead guarantees us the right not to be discriminated against based on our religious beliefs.
In fact, I have so much to say, I don’t know where to start.
But, I guess a good place to start is with my own story about how I went from believing same sex relationships were sinful to believing that condemning same sex relationships is sinful.
When my son came out he told me he had come to the conclusion that the bible did not condemn loving, committed same sex relationships.
I fully expected to be able to prove him wrong.
I was accustomed to “studying” scripture as I taught women’s bible studies for years. I knew what it meant to dig into original language and consider the historical context of the verses I was studying.
I was shocked to find that my son was right … none of the “clobber” verses were speaking about a loving, monogamous, healthy same sex relationship.
In fact, after a lot of studying and searching I had to admit there was no sufficient evidence in scripture that “clearly” condemned or supported same sex relationships.
One would have to put their integrity at stake and make scripture say more than it does in order to claim that scripture clearly condemns or supports same sex relationships.
(I could go into greater detail here about what I found and didn’t find in scripture, but instead I would like to share a link to a message by Pastor Stan Mitchell of GracePoint Church in Franklin, TN. The message is “Dialogue On Full Sacramental LGBT Inclusion.” This message includes almost everything I discovered in my own journey. I personally think this should be required listening for all Christians living in 2015 but I will just say “if you are a Christian who loves anyone – ANYONE – who is LGBT, you should take the time to listen to this message right away.”)
In light of discovering there was insufficient evidence in scripture to condemn same sex relationships I then had to ask myself, “What should I do?” and “How should I respond to something if scripture doesn’t clearly condemn or support it?”
The only thing I could think is I needed to find out if there was any evidence to indicate same sex relationships hurt people.
I searched and I couldn’t find that kind of evidence either – in fact, the evidence I discovered showed healthy same sex relationships had the same healthy effect on individuals and society as opposite sex relationships have on individuals and society.
Two more things happened which ended up playing a significant role in my journey.
First, I ran across this quote:
“A traditional religious belief is that “grace builds on nature,” in other words religious life depends on a good foundation in human health. Therefore we can legitimately evaluate the validity of a religious belief system by its psychological consequences. Good theology will result in good psychology and vice versa. Accordingly, bad theology will have negative psychological consequences. This is nothing more than an application of the biblical norm: “You will be able to tell them by their fruits” (Matt. 7:16) If Saint Irenaeus proclaimed, the glory of God is humans FULLY ALIVE [emphasis mine], then clearly a belief system that results in the destruction of human health cannot serve the glory of God.” ~Dr. John J. McNeill
And second, I kept bumping into Micah 6:8:
“He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?”
The quote by Dr. McNeill made so much sense to me and supported what I had always believed in my heart … which was the tenets and beliefs of Christianity should mostly lead to a person’s health and wholeness. In other words, our mental, emotional, physical and spiritual health should all be “better” if we are embracing good theology. Like Dr. McNeill explained, good and right theology should mostly lead to good psychology (good fruit).
As I considered this idea I began to understand that when our theology about something is resulting in a lot of bad fruit or bad psychology – such as hopelessness, depression, self hate and self harm – we have an obligation to re-examine what we believe and ask ourselves why we believe it.
And Micah 6:8 became like a guiding light for my journey. The words reminded me that justice (doing what is right) is a very high priority to God and led me to ask, “What would it look like, in light of what I have discovered, to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God?”
Everything combined together led me to the conclusion that it would be unjust, and lack mercy and humility, to condemn a loving, monogamous same sex relationship.
There was nothing in scripture to clearly mandate the condemnation of same sex relationships, there was no evidence that same sex relationships caused harm to anyone (in fact, the opposite was true) and the theological position of condemning same sex relationships was not producing good psychology (good fruit).
Those things together have given me peace in my heart about being a Christian who affirms same sex relationships. Those things have led me to believe that condemning same sex relationships is a sin.
The transition didn’t happen overnight. Although I was able to see right away that what I had believed wasn’t right, it actually took somewhere between one and two years of study, prayer, learning, listening and thinking for me to officially change my position/belief.
I’ve been accused of letting my love for my son blind me to the truth, but nothing could be further from the truth. My love for my son made me study more than ever, it caused me to ask tougher questions and to carefully consider all the evidence before me. I love my son too much to mislead him in the wrong direction if I can help it.
I’ve been accused of disregarding scripture and the Christian faith, but nothing could be further from the truth. My high view of scripture, my determination to not make scripture say more than it says, my commitment to study in a thorough manner, my deep devotion to being a follower of Christ and to do my best to live into the kind of radical love that he demonstrated and calls me to imitate … those things have led and guided me to where I am today regarding same sex marriage. I do not affirm same sex relationships in spite of my faith. I affirm same sex relationships because of my faith.
And as I have talked to other Christian mothers of LGBT kids I have witnessed them going through the same sort of process … digging deep, not accepting easy answers, wanting to make sure as much as possible.
As mothers our love doesn’t let us off the hook … instead, it is the reason we must be even more resolute and thorough. Our love is that great.
Like I said … I have a LOT to say about same sex marriage “stuff” and this is just the beginning … but I’m a firm believer that blog posts shouldn’t be too long … so stay tuned for part two of “Same Sex Marriage Stuff” coming soon. (Go here for part two)
In the meantime, check out the other July Synchroblog posts about “Same Sex Marriage
This post is part of a Synchroblog, where a group of bloggers post on the same topic on the same day, so that people can surf from one to the other and get different views on the same basic topic. You will find links to the other participants at the end of this post.
You hear a lot of people say same-sex marriage would harm “traditional marriage”, is bad for children and damaging to society … but when you press them to give you more specifics, to explain what they base their opinion on, to help you understand how and why … well, the arguments start to fall apart, they tend to get stumped or emotional, or both.
Of course we might be unfair to expect the average person to be able to clearly articulate and argue these points – but surely there are experts that could “expertly argue” how and why same-sex marriage is so harmful … someone that the average person could turn to and learn from. OBVIOUSLY NOT – or at least it didn’t seem to be the case in the recent Prop 8 trial.
Here’s some excerpts from the recent Prop 8 Trial in which the best legal minds, with the best experts at their disposal, were arguing that same-sex marriage is sooooo harmful that it should be illegal ….
MR. COOPER: It’s the state’s purpose that’s important here. And if the state has any conceivable rational purpose, I have to win. Proposition 8 has to be upheld, we believe, under the authorities that control this issue. And so the focus has to be on: what is the state’s purpose?
THE COURT: Well –
MR. COOPER: — restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Yeah.
THE COURT: All right. Let me throw in a question here. Assume I agree with you that the state’s interest in marriage is essentially procreative, as you’ve put it.
MR. COOPER: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Assume that I agree with that.How does permitting same-sex marriages impair or adversely affect that interest?…
MR. COOPER: Obviously, my submission here to you is rational-basis standard applies. And so, yes, my here are premised upon –
THE COURT: I’ve given you one assumption. Give me one, for purposes of argument. And that is that this is not rational basis review; this is intermediate scrutiny.
MR. COOPER: Well, then, your Honor, I’m going to be coming back to you with arguments.
THE COURT: Now we’re having a dialogue here. Now assume that you have to have established that this is the minimally effective means of imposing this discrimination between same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages. So what is the harm to the procreative purpose or function of marriage that you outline of permitting same-sex marriages?
MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even under a compelling-state-interest standard, I would submit to the Court that the state’s interests in channeling procreative activity into enduring relationships would be vital, and would satisfy a compelling-interest standard. And I would also submit to the Court that there would be no reasonable available way for — for that purpose to be fulfilled and advanced, other than the way the state has chosen — every state has chosen, with five exceptions, and California has chosen through Proposition 8. And, your Honor, that gets to the — to the fundamental, I think, theoretical disagreement that I mentioned earlier between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant-Intervenors here. They say that it’s not enough, as you were suggesting here, for opposite-sex unions to further and advance these vital state interests; that we have to prove, in addition to that, that including same-sex unions into the definition of marriage would actually harm those purposes and interests. That is not the Equal Protection construct, your Honor.
THE COURT:I’m asking you to tell me how it would harm opposite-sex marriages.
MR COOPER: All right.
COURT: All right. Let’s play on the same playing field for once. Okay.
MR COOPER: Your Honor, my answer is: I don’t know.
THE COURT: Does that mean — does that mean if this is not determined to be subject to rational basis review, you lose?
MR. COOPER: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. COOPER: I don’t believe it — it does.
THE COURT: Just haven’t figured out how you’re going to win on that basis yet?
MR. COOPER: Well, your Honor, by — by saying that the state and its electorate are entitled, when dealing with radical proposals for change, to a bedrock institution such as this to move with incrementally, to move with caution, and to adopt a wait-and-see attitude. Keep in mind, your Honor, this same-sex marriage is a very recent innovation. Its implications of a social and cultural nature, not to mention its impact on marriage over time, can’t possibly be known now.
THE COURT: So this is a political question, and the Court should abstain? Is that it?
MR. COOPER: Well, your Honor, certainly at the root of all our arguments here are that this is a question of social/cultural dimension that the people themselves in this state — and every other — have the authority to answer. So, yes, the Court — the Court should do as the Supreme Court did in the assisted-suicide case, and say that this issue is being debated throughout the land on — in terms of its legality, its morality — its morality, and its practicality in the democratic process. And that’s where it should be, and that’s where it should remain.…
MR. COOPER: your Honor, I guess it’s important now to come back to this — to this point about why it’s not necessary for me to prove including same-sex unions in the traditional definition of marriage would actually harm that institution, or harm the vital purposes that that institution –
THE COURT: Well, I understand your answer to that question is you don’t know. You don’t know.
MR. COOPER: No. Well, your Honor, that’s –
THE COURT: It’s a fair answer. If you don’t know, you don’t know; or if you can’t — you can’t say, or it depends on the development of a factual records, well, but –
MR. COOPER: Well, your Honor, it depends on things we can’t know. This is a — this is a — that’s my point.
Mr. Cooper, the expert representing proponents of Prop 8, is stumped. He has no idea what the adverse effects would be. He’s come to argue a landmark case without being able to articulate how same sex marriage is harmful.
The judge brings up the point later in the proceedings….
THE COURT: What are those potential adverse consequences?
MR. COOPER: Well, your Honor –
THE COURT: Has anybody identified them?
MR. COOPER: There have been some, yes, your Honor. For example, there seems to us to be little doubt that if the plaintiffs prevail here, and the definition of marriage is to be expanded to include same-sex couples, then the existing parallel institution of domestic partnership will also have to be expanded to include opposite-sex couples. And that parallel institution, with all the same benefits, will be available to opposite-sex couples. That’s exactly how things are proceeding in The Netherlands. And in The Netherlands –
THE COURT: What’s the effect of that? Is that harmful?
MR. COOPER: Well, your Honor, there do appear to be a number of adverse social consequences in The Netherlands from this. Domestic partnership is now used, apparently, more by heterosexual couples — opposite-sex couples — than is marriage. So marriage — the effort to channel procreative activity into that institution has abated quite a bit. There’s — there are — there are other socially unfortunate –
THE COURT: But –
MR. COOPER: Whether there’s a causal relationship, your Honor –
THE COURT: Has that been harmful to the society in The Netherlands? Has it been harmful to children? What’s the adverse effect?
MR. COOPER: Well, your Honor, again,I don’t — I don’t have a presentation for you on that;but I do, your Honor, submit that it is not self-evident that there is no chance of any harm. And unless it is, the people of California are entitled not to run the risk. And unless he can prove — Mr. Olson and his colleagues can prove that there is no harm that can possibly come from this, then the people of California are entitled to make the decision that they did.
THE COURT: When do constitutional rights depend upon proof of no harm? Freedom of speech? Freedom of press? Lots of harm flows from those fundamental and basic freedoms of ours — misinformation, incitement to passion, and so forth — but we tolerate those risks in a free society. So when does the application of a constitutional principle require proof that its application will not impose any risk?
Mr. Cooper is actually trying to convince the judge that the opponents of Prop 8 have to prove that same-sex marriages are “not” harmful in order for their constitutional rights to be upheld. That’s crazy! (even though there is probably some proof that same-sex marriages aren’t harmful)
Olson, the prosecuting attorney sums up the problem very well:
MR. OLSON: …the reason why they keep coming back to procreation and the raising of children is that that might be a rational basis, but it doesn’t work in terms of excluding individuals who wish to marry someone of the same sex, because procreation doesn’t require marriage, as your question pointed out. Marriage doesn’t yield procreation. Same-sex marriage does not dilute, diminish, inhibit, or deter opposite-sex persons from getting marriage. And the prohibition of same-sex marriage doesn’t mean that individuals who would prefer to be married to someone of the same sex is going to go out and marry someone of the opposite sex, produce children, and raise them in a happy relationship. That blinks reality. All of those arguments that are made about — you asked the point: if you had to prove that there was a harm by allowing same-sex marriages to exist alongside heterosexual marriages,what would that harm be? And I think I heard Mr. Cooper say he didn’t know. Now, he’s spent a lot of time on this case. And I don’t know, either, what the harm could be to heterosexual marriages by allowing same-sex marriage.
It seems the one thing everyone agrees on is … Nobody knows why or how same-sex marriage is harmful.
————————————————————————————————————–
Check out all of the October Synchroblog participants:
synchroblog is a collection of similar articles or posts made by a group of bloggers whohave agreed to blogon the same topic on the same day
After taking a bit of a break. Okay, it was a long break. And after the most excellent leadership of Phil Wyman (The Why Man) for several years, we (Kathy, Liz & Sonja) are attempting to breathe new life into this form of blogging again. We would love to hear your voice and invite you to participate in the upcoming synchroblogs:
CHRISTIANS AND THE IMMIGRATION ISSUE – 9/8/2010 (second Wednesday of the month) As Congress debates how to handle illegal immigrants already within U.S. borders and how to more effectively handle hopeful immigrants in the future, Christians will need to consider what it means to love these new neighbors in our midst.
Please email your name, name of blog, title of post and link to: Sonja Andrews at synchroblog@gmail.com by close of business CST on 9/7/2010 if you would like to be included in this synchroblog.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————- OCTOBER
LEGALIZING SAME SEX MARRIAGE – 10/13/2010 (second Wednesday of the month) For more than a decade, the issue of same-sex marriage has been a hot button issue; resulting in legislation, lawsuits and ballot initiatives attempting to either legalize or ban the practice. Division among religious groups have also resulted over the decision to recognize same-sex marriage or condemn it. Let your voice be heard regarding this history making issue.
Please email your name, name of blog, title of post and link to: Liz Dyer at synchroblog@gmail.com by the close of business CST on 10/12/10 if you would like to be included in this synchroblog.
SEEING THROUGH THE EYES OF THE MARGINALIZED – 11/10/2010 (second Wednesday of the month) Marginalization results in an individual’s exclusion from meaningful participation in society and it’s source is many. Economic circumstances, illness, disability, geographical location, gender, sexuality, race, religion are all dominant sources of individuals being marginalized. Sometimes it’s easy to see holidays or certain systems from a position of power or privilege. As God’s people, what does it mean to see the world through the eyes of the marginalized? What is it like to be one of the marginalized? How can we be part of bridging some of these gaps? Use your voice to make a difference on this sensitive issue.
Please email your name, name of blog, title of post and link to: Kathy Escobar at synchroblog@gmail.com by the close of business CST on 11/09/10 if you would like to be included in this synchroblog.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————- DECEMBER
ADVENT – THE JOURNEY – 12/8/2010 (second Wednesday of the month) Advent is the dawn of a journey that leads us not only to Bethlehem but potentially to a new understanding of our relationship to God and his beloved creation. Share your thoughts about the journey of advent during this inspirational season.
Please email your name, name of blog, title of post and link to: Sonja Andrews at synchroblog@gmail.com by close of business CST on 12/7/2010 if you would like to be included in this synchroblog.
PLEASE SEND YOUR IDEAS FOR FUTURE SYNCHROBLOGS (THAT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO HOST) TO: synchroblog@gmail.com
AND …
PLEASE INVITE OTHER BLOGGERS YOU KNOW TO JOIN OUR SYNCHROBLOG. THE MORE THE MERRIER! THE MORE DIVERSE THE BETTER!
PS This week (Aug 9 – 13) has been the “Big Tent Synchroblog” There was a great turnout (more than 50 posts) . Feel free to join in. Go here for a list of contributors.
PSS Brian McLaren called for a synchroblog the week of August 23 as BACK TO SCHOOL WEEK. He suggested we blog on Christian education/spiritual formation for kids and youth that week? Go here to see his announcement.
I ran across an interesting series that Kester Brewin wrote about participants of the Emergent Movement in the UK returning to the institutional church and organizations. He addresses this topic to some degree in his book Other: Loving Self, God and Neighbour in a World of Fractures (which I have now ordered and am looking forward to reading). The series (and the comments) covered a lot of interesting topics including how spiritual maturation takes place (part 2), how institutions can become damaging and what can be done to counteract that (part 3), some info about Vaux (a community of artists and city-lovers who sought to explore the Christian faith through the media that came naturally to their hands) and Temporary Autonomous Zones (part 4). Jonny Baker and Andrew Jones both post responses to the series. Of course the authors are all from Europe which is some years ahead of the US regarding emerging/emergent Christianity, but there are still many similarities. What do you think? Is a retreat taking place? Is it maturation? Has the institutional church changed?
—————————————————————————————————————–
#2 – Happy Christian Women…Really??? and Drinking The Company Kool-Aid
Pam Hogeweide and Kathy Escobar have written posts in response to a recent Barna survey of Christian women requested by Jim Henderson of Off The Map for his latest writing project about how the modern American church treats women. I believe that this is a very important issue and am disappointed that no woman is authoring the book with Jim on this project (Pam addresses this in her post) but do appreciate that Jim is at least asking women (here) to let him know if their experience matches the survey results from Barna (mine don’t and I let him know). Check it out and let your voice be heard.
——————————————————————————————————————
#3 – Good News and Bad News
The good news is that the PCUSA General Assembly voted in favor of lifting the ban of non-celibate gay and lesbian clergy. The bad news is that they voted to not even hear or discuss the issue of same sex marriage and so it is tabled for two more years.
Soul Force held a demonstration at the proceedings and some were arrested because they refused to leave. There seemed to be some differing opinions (check out Shuck and Jive post and comments) about Soul Force being there but I appreciated them being there to represent the voice of the oppressed and excluded.
Here are three things that I wanted to share with you this week:
Homebrewed Christianity is running a new series by a fellow named Michael Camp. The series is called “I Survived The Christian Right” The first post of the series is about legalism and the second is about Bible abuse. I could relate to a lot of what he had to say and am looking forward to the rest of the series.
Cindy McCain, the wife of former Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, has posed to demonstrate her support of marriage equality. (If you aren’t familiar with the NOH8 campaign you can check them out here.)
Cindy joins her daughter, Meghan, in posing for the NOH8 campaign.
Cindy’s husband, John, is still against legalizing same sex marriage (and against doing away with DADT).
I don’t know if it makes a difference but I am glad that there are some Republicans finally “coming out” with their support of marriage equality.
Stay on the lookout for a new podcast that will be up and running in the near future:
HCX – HardCore Xianity. A podcast for the outcast & apostate. An outcast is someone who has been rejected by society or a social group. An apostate is a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle.
The HCX team is made up of Adele Sakler, Drew Tatusko, Meridith White-Zeager and Ryan Kemp-Pappan
Tony Jones’ at The New Christians blog and Rod Dreher at Crunchy Con blog are engaging in a Same Sex Marriage Blogalogue. I am hopeful that this will be a helpful conversation for all of us who seek faithful discernment concerning one of the most controversial issues of our day. However, I have to say that I have been disappointed to find so many comments containing declarations that Tony is not a christian and other hate filled messages. Still, I think this is an important conversation and hope that things will settle down to a more civil discourse.
Tony began the blogalogue by clarifying where he stands on the issue of same sex marriage…
I now believe that GLBTQ can live lives in accord with biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can!) and that their monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state.
I hope you will check it out…and remember to be civil and courteous if you comment.
Grace Rules Weblog 