Earlier this year the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the band of several states of same sex marriage,
setting a precedent which now makes gay marriage the law
of the land in all 50 states. The supreme court decision is the
culmination of decades of debate and ultimately a battle
several thousands of years in length. The truth is, the battle
is not over for the left and gay marriage activists, but really
has just begun. All kinds of legal ramifications are now up
in the air for the church and the adherents of the faith. I
invite the reader to join me in an examination of these legal
issues and their ramifications for the faith of Christianity.
I would like to state on the outset of this examination, my
stance as it pertains to the issue of homosexuality and by
relation the topic of gay marriage. All scripture quotations are
taken from the King James Version unless otherwise stated,
and the Hebrew definitions are from Strong’s “Exhaustive
Concordance of the Bible”. I firmly believe that
homosexuality is not only a sin, חטא- a missing of the mark,
but as Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 call it, it is an abomination,
תּועבה- that which is hated and disgusting. The text of Lev 18
reads as, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with
womankind: it [is] abomination” (Lev 18:22). It is interesting
that the commandment is not limited to non monogamous
same-sex relationships as many now suppose, but it is
specifically against the very act of gay sex, whether or not it
is within a committed relationship. Monogamy is not the
issue. “Love” is not the issue. The act is explicitly forbidden.
References to homosexuality are not limited to the Old
Testament, but are in fact more numerous in the New
Testament. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul writes, “Know ye not
that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be
not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.”
The Greek word for “abusers of themselves with mankind,” is
̓ρσενοκοίτης which means sodomite, which was universally
recognized as one who engaged in same sex relationships,
specifically in the case of men and by relation as it pertains to
women. The Contemporary English Version renders the
verse, “No one who is immoral or worships idols or is
unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a
homosexual."
There are countless examples of which there is not enough
time to enumerate for the purposes of this paper, all of which
provide a strong and clear biblical stance against the act, and
behavior of homosexuality. The Old Testament language of
“disgusting” and all its connotations is kin to the usage of
“unnatural” in the New Testament. We will examine this
point in a few moments.
Before going any further I think it would be beneficial and
fair to state the stance of those which are pro homosexual
marriage. In the article, Liberty and Equality: A Defense of
Same sex Marriage it says “Opposition to homosexuality is
grounded in religious doctrine and cultural norms. A Pew
Research Center poll released in February 2014 found that
49 percent of Americans favor same sex marriage. Similarly,
Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs poll conducted in May
2014 found that 55 percent of Americans support the
legalization of same sex marriage” (Wyatt Nichol, p. 117-118). The theme that opposition to gay marriage is rooted in
religion is prevalent and although my personal viewpoint as
stated above has roots in religion, religion is not the only
consideration. But I digress. The question is, how many of
these viewpoints are rooted in incomplete information? I
would propose that many of them are.
A recent poll found that most Americans “... think that 23
percent of Americans, or almost one in four, are gays or
lesbians, a Gallup survey released Thursday revealed. That's
way off: The polling organization most recently found that
less than 4 percent self identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or
transgender”(Brody). This is a very small but loud minority
which makes it seem larger than it really is. The facts do not
support the premise that a large segment of the population is
being denied equal rights. Should the law always cater to the
minority or is democracy not majority rule?
Wyatt Nichol and Naylor contend that refusing gay marriage
is a violation of basic human rights. They list several
grievances against gay couples. “Even through complex and
expensive legal arrangements under contract and property
law, same sex couples may not be fully able to share health
and retirement benefits, file joint tax returns, benefit under
property and inheritance laws, or visit loved ones in medical
facilities” (Wyatt Nichol, p. 118). Building on the false
premise that opposition is rooted a religious view of morality,
they write, “The prohibition of same sex marriage also fails
to satisfy the criterion of a moralistic policy” (Wyatt Nichol,
p. 119). But the very definition of “moralistic policies”
disproves their point. “Moralistic policies are justified when
the action is considered wrong and regulation of such action
is relevant to some public purpose, and when the regulation
does not cause harm greater than it seeks to prevent” (Wyatt-Nichol, p. 119).
I am sure that it hurts the sentiments of homosexuals to
be denied the “special rights” they seek for, but as will
be enumerated momentarily, the greater harm would
result in the allowance of them. I say these are special
rights because the gay agenda wants rights afforded to them,
which they have not met the criteria to receive. That criteria
is you must be one man and one woman. This has always
been the law of the land. No one has prevent homosexuals
from being gay or even cohabiting, but they do not have the
legal or moral standing to be married. In my opinion, the
desire of homosexuals to marry is not rooted in love or
commitment, but it has financial motivations. The
following comes from a pro same-sex marriage advocate:
The Defense of Marriage Act, “was significant because, in refusing to
recognize same sex marriage, it also
denied over 1,100 federal benefits,
rights, and privileges, such as Social
Security survivor benefits, family health insurance, veterans’ benefits,
and joint tax returns, to same sex
partners... For example, a gay or
lesbian married couple who filed a
state joint tax return could not file a
federal joint tax return, nor could a
homosexual federal employee
receive health benefits for his or her
spouse... Equally important, benefits
to spouses in states that legally
recognize same sex marriage benefits
are taxable by the federal government
and must be reported as income... In
contrast, heterosexual married couples
do not pay taxes on federal benefits,
creating unequal benefits between
married heterosexual and homosexual
couples. This results in discrimination
based on sexual orientation (Wyatt-Nichol, p. 124).
If we want to end the different standards as it applies to the
tax code, then change the tax code, not the institution of
marriage. I will reserve a discussion on the ramifications for
the church and religious leaders for the last section of the
paper. I would like to first examine my opposition from a few
different angles. The first thing I want to examine is how
homosexuality is unnatural and therefore a gay marriage is
unnatural and violates natural law which is the foundation and
authority of all law. Proponents say same sex marriage is a
basic right, but it actually violates all natural standards.
[S]ame sex civil marriage advocates can
use the government as a tool to force
those who would not otherwise do so to
believe or act as though same sex civil
marriage is the same thing as traditional
marriage... [however] If same sex civil
marriage is not a natural marriage, then
there can be no natural right to same
sex civil Marriage... Further, there can
be a natural right to same sex civil
marriage only if there is actually such a
thing as same sex civil marriage that
has an ontological status of existing
naturally (Holzer, p. 64).
In other words, does it exist without coercion and forceful
implementation upon a people or society? The answer is,
No! Holzer continues,
If it is the case that only those acts or
things that conform to the natural law
possess natural rights, then that which
is unnatural does not possess natural
rights... According to natural moral
law, homosexuality is unnatural. By
unnatural, I mean that the acts
performed by same sex partners do
not fulfill the purpose for which the
body parts are intended. Moreover,
not only are the body parts in question
not used for their designated purpose,
homosexual acts are often injurious
to the body (Holzer, p. 69).
This last point is an important one. When someone uses the
body for a task it was not designed for, it causes great harm.
Holzer quotes Jeffery Satinover on this matter:
[H]omosexual men are disproportionately
vulnerable to a host of serious and
sometimes fatal infections caused by the
entry of feces into the bloodstream. These
include hepatitis B and the cluster of
otherwise rare conditions, such as
shigellosis and Giardia lamblia infection,
which together have been known as the
“Gay Bowel Syndrome.” Homosexual
men are at risk for these pathologies
even if they are in a monogamous
relationship, and homosexual women
face their own health risks. Lesbians
face a greater risk of several different
types of infections, including bacterial
vaginosis, chlamydia, trichomoniasis,
and the human papillomavirus
(Holzer, p. 69).
HIV is among the deadliest of these diseases. Holzer uses
Timothy Hsiao’s statements to further contribute to this
argument:
Now our actions are executed by
engaging bodily faculties. When we
breathe, we use our lungs. When we
see, we use our eyes. When we
engage in sexual activities, we use
our sexual organs. These faculties
have natural purposes that direct
us to the achievement of their end.
Lungs are for breathing, eyes are
for seeing, and sex, as I will
argue, is for procreation
(Holzer, p. 70).
As you can see, the very act of homosexual sex, which
bluntly is anal sex, is dangerous and harmful to the body,
which from a Christian perspective is the temple of the Holy
Spirit.
Another approach to examine is the difference between
contractual relationships and covenant relationships. It is
possible that by trying to promote and reward marriage, the
Federal Government has actually weakened it, making it
nothing more than a contractual or financial union which can
easily be broken when it is no longer beneficial or until
something “better” comes along. “A contract is an agreement
between two parties who both incur detriments and derive
benefits from the contract” (Shaughnessy, 13).
“A contractual perspective describes the family as a voluntary
association, subject to the wills and preferences of the
couple, their children, their dependents, their household”
(McConnell, 2001, p. 411). This viewpoint lends credence
to the validity of homosexual marriage and the financial
rewards of such feeds their desire for the “right.” But when
a spiritual perspective is taken regarding marriage it viewed
as a sacramental association (McConnell, 2001, p. 411).
God intended marriage to be a covenant relationship between
a husband and a wife. The breaking of flesh and shedding of
blood which occurs when virginity is taken is the sacramental
union of two flesh into one. If it is nothing more than a
contract, then we might as well open the floodgates to
whatever.
Since the floodgates have somewhat been flung open, there
are many ramifications for the church and practitioner of the
faith. What has yet to be determined by the courts is whether
or not a church and/or a minister can be required to perform a
gay marriage or is our right to refuse ensured by the
constitution? Institutions in the private sector such as florists
and bakeries owned by Christians have come under attack
for not wishing to supply goods for a gay wedding because
it violates their religious conscience. It is obvious that the
gay agenda is not only interested in the right to marry, but
they want to force everyone to believe the way they believe.
In the 1923 case of Meyer v. Nebraska
(262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed.
1042), the plaintiff was convicted for
violating a state statute that prohibited
teaching in a foreign language.
Determining whether the statute
infringed upon liberty guaranteed in
the Fourteenth Amendment, the
Court stated: While this Court has
not attempted to define with
exactness the liberty thus guaranteed,
the term has received much
consideration and some of the
included things have been definitely
stated. Without doubt, it denotes not
merely freedom from bodily restraint,
but also the right of the individual to
contract, to engage in any of the
common occupations of life, to
acquire useful knowledge, to marry,
establish a home and bring up
children, to worship God according
to the dictates of his own conscience,
and generally to enjoy those
privileges long recognized at
common law as essential to the
orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men (Wyatt-Nichol, p. 120).
The same statute that gays will quote, “to marry, establish a
home and bring up children,” also protects my right as a
minister to refuse to participate in such relationships and “to
worship God according to the dictates of [my] own
conscience.” A business owner should have the right to not
accept the business of any patron, especially when it is
against their religious views. Of others do not want to do
business with that company because of the stance, then
they should go somewhere else.
Since the ruling of the supreme court, public institutions are
bound to the new and present law of the land and the
constitutional requirements which come with that
(Shaughnessy, 8), but churches are considered private
institutions which are “free to set whatever parameters [they]
deems appropriate for behavior, since persons choose to
participate in the private sector, and can end that participation
at any time” (Shaughnessy, 3).
An issue or conflict between the church and a homosexual
falls under the parameters of religion and doctrine, and
religion is specifically protected under the constitution.
“...traditionally courts have practiced the doctrine of ‘judicial
restraint’ and have declined to become involved in disputes
that are doctrinal in nature because of the principle of
separation of church and state” (Shaughnessy, 14).
The obvious goal of the left is to make the church change its
stance and force participation in homosexual marriage.
Hillary Clinton even said recently, “And deep seated cultural
codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be
changed” (Weingarten). Ministers such as myself will go to
prison rather than violate my conscience and convictions.
The First Amendment to the constitution states, “Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” Any law which
forces me to violate my sacred beliefs is prohibiting my free
exercise.
Other implications concern the use of facilities and the
participation of staff in such practices. A Church, its
leadership, and its members insomuch as the church is
collection of those members, is protected by the
constitution from governmental involvement in it contractual
affairs. A church is free to and must formulate and require
adherence from its members to doctrines involving same sex
marriage. My church has in its bylaws that any staff member
even participating in a gay marriage with be immediately
removed from their position.
We are in dangerous times and the legal questions will play
out rather quickly. But now is the time for the church to stand
firm and be unmovable in its convictions. Regardless the
legal fallout of our decisions, our allegiance must first and
foremost be to the Law of God.
References
Brody, Ben. "Americans Vastly Overestimate Size of Gay
and Lesbian Population." Bloomberg.com. May 22, 2015.
Accessed October 12, 2015
Holzer, Shannon. "Natural Law, Natural Rights, and Same
Sex Civil Marriage: Do Same Sex Couples Have a Natural
Right to Be Married?" Texas Review of Law & Politics 19,
no. 1 (Fall 2014): 63 thru 79. Accessed September 28, 2015.
Atlas Religion Database.
McConnell, Michael, Robert Cochran, and Angela Carmella,
eds. Christian Perspectives on Legal Thought. New Haven
& Londen: Yale University Press, 2001.
Shaughnessy, Mary Angela. Ministry and the Law: What
You Need to Know. New York/Mahwah, New Jersey:
Paulist Press, 1998.
Strong, James. The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible:
Showing Every Word of the Text of the Common English
Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurrence of
Each Word in Regular Order, Together with a Keyword
Comparison of Selected Words and Phrases in the King.
Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1980.
Weingarten, Benjamin. "Hillary Clinton Says Religious
Beliefs ‘have to Be Changed’ on Abortion. Here’s Why
That’s Ironic." The Blaze. April 27, 2015. Accessed October
15, 2015.
Wyatt Nichol, Heather, and Lorenda Naylor. "Liberty and
Equality: In Defense of Same Sex Marriage." Public
Integrity 17, no. 2 (Spring 2015): 117 thru 30. Accessed
October 3, 2015. Atlas Religion Database.
