Not long ago I blogged on the idea that arguing over the legalization of gay marriage was a dumb argument because it was an argument that shouldn't be happening because marriage is not the government's business, marriage is a sacrament of the church. There, I said it all in one sentence. Perhaps now my readers will understand what I was saying. Probably not.
As usual, most people missed the point and wanted to engage me in a debate over gay marriage. I have come to the conclusion that we like to debate over the legalization of gay marriage because folks on both sides of the issue feel morally superior to those who hold a differing opinion. When the California Supreme Court upheld the ban on gay marriage folks on the anti gay marriage side of the argument told the press that it was a victory for morality. At just about the same moment, those in favor of gay marriage told the press that the court's decision was a totally immoral decision. I think a great question for conversation would be, what are you basing your morality on? Just a question...
Like most political issues that people want to try to make into moral issues, I honestly don't give a crap about gay marriage. I don't care because gay marriage is already available and such marriages are being done in this country every day of the week. If done in a church it is called marriage. If it is done outside of a church it is called a civil union. Why are we having this argument? If a church wants to marry a gay couple, that is the choice of that church. If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple it is that church's choice. It is not the government's call. Period.
Some of the seemingly profound things I have had said to me on the subject:
"Laws must be passed because the government has to issue a license for a couple to be married." That is correct and that is WRONG. Let me repeat this several times in hopes that it might register. Marriage is a sacrament of the church. The government doesn't oversee other church sacraments. Who says the government must, or even should, manage marriages? Is the government able to ask those seeking to be married some questions that we of the church are unable to ask? No. Are we afraid that the church will let someone who is already married slip through unnoticed and marry them again. Perhaps. Just like the government does with great regularity now. Who is saying government should oversee marriage? Not me. Not the church. Years ago some dumb butt government bureaucrat decided it was the government's business and nobody had the good sense to say I DON'T THINK SO. Laws were passed and now we obediently go to the designated office, pay them the designated fees and they give us the designated official document that says we can get married. I wonder if all of that has anything to do with the government having another source of income – could it be about money? No, of course not. Silly me. The government isn't interested in taking money from me for no good reason. And, since it is already a law we can't repeal it, can we? Of course not. Silly me.
"Marriage is different than civil union." Sure it is, if you want it to be. If you aren't looking for a reason to buck up your lame argument, there is not a hairs difference between them. One of the things we love to do in an argument in our present culture is accuse someone of the unpardonable sin – narrow-mindedness – and take the moral high ground by saying the people on the other side of the argument are mean. Watch us; when the discussion gets tough we whip out the crying towel and start claiming that the other side isn't fair and doesn't understand and doesn't care about what the people on the other side of the issue think or want or believe and those people are mean and blah, blah, blah. I have looked it up. There is nothing different between a civil union and a marriage EXCEPT a civil union is a government sanctioned legal joining of two people and a marriage is (Have I mentioned this before?) A SACRAMENT OF THE CHURCH.
"If the government passes a law supporting gay marriage, it won't mean that the churches who don't want to marry gays will have to do that." There is something kind of appealing about someone who is that sweet and naive. As a person who has carefully observed our government for about 50 years, let me report that this bunch of goof balls (Democrats and Republicans both) can and usually does mess up everything it touches. They could screw up a two car funeral. Why do you think many of us older folks are so unhappy about the government attempting to fix America's economy? We have seen the government at work fixing things in the past. Here is a classic case in point – the famous War on Poverty. Over the past 35+ years the government has spent billions of dollars in a war on poverty that has been even less successful than the recent war in Iraq. Billions spent and poverty flourishes. Trust me, if congress passes a law saying that gay marriage is legal, it will not include a clause that says, "You must marry gay couples unless you really don't want to."
"The government has to get involved because churches (read that Fundamentalist Christians) are so narrow-minded that they won't marry gays without government intervention." This is a very high sounding argument designed to place the speaker on the moral high ground in this discussion. It is also an invalid argument. Some churches will perform same sex marriages and some won't. Not all churches will and not all won't. So there is no need for government intervention. Simply shop around and find a church that will. Again, and trust me on this, you don't want the government involved if it can in any way be avoided. As Mark Twain so aptly said just about a century ago, "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. "
"It is judgmental of you to be against gay marriage." I have yet to say I would or wouldn't do a same sex marriage. But since I haven't fallen lock-stop into the pro gay marriage talking points, people assume it won't. But, in response to this, so far, baseless "accusation" of being judgmental, I would have to respond, that is true. And it is judgmental of someone else to be for gay marriage. It is a judgment call. What you mean to say is, I don't agree with you so I will couch your position in negative terms (judgmental) so that you look bad for having that opinion. I do that because the only way I can win an argument about a difference of opinions is to make it about you being a bigoted bad person for even thinking those thoughts. They are not bad thoughts. They are just thoughts and opinions that differ from mine. We end up really saying, "Shame on you for disagreeing with me."
Again I repeat – my earlier blog was not against gay marriage. Being one of the few people who really is in favor of the separation of church and state, my blog was against having the government stick its long snotty nose into the business of the church. Marriage outside of the church is a civil union and is or soon will be available to all in most states. Marriage inside the church is a sacrament of the church and none of the government's business.
So, if you want to engage me in a conversation in an attempt to straighten me out, you need to take me on about my attitude about our governing system, not about gay marriage. I'm good on churches deciding about marriage, gay or straight. My attitude about our government sucks. Unfortunately it is also correct so don't bother auguring with me about it. (I'm smiling)
Copyright © William T. McConnell, 2009, All Rights Reserved
2 comments:
I have heard it argued that marriage began as a civil affair and the church got involved as politics and church became one when Rome adopted Christianity. Marriage may have been secular first, and then adopted by the church.
At the same time, I applaud you for applying the term sacrament to Christian marriage. The secular world doesn't even understand heterosexual marriages properly, so who care what/(or how) they do weddings in the civil realm.
I think first we need to reclaim this sacrament in the minds of the Christians in the pew. Marriage is not a contract, and it is far deeper than just two people who love each other. Lets start in the church.
Thanks for your post.
It really is pretty cut and dry. In my head it would be like the government in their infinit wisdom telling you what sermon to preach or what to believe in. There is a reason the government is kept at a distance when it comes to the church and religion. I would like to see them kept at more of a distance with more things.. but I digress.
Lets not forget that an opinion cannot be wrong... period.
And thanks Bill for a fantastic quote from Mark Twain.. I am still laughing. *clap clap*
Post a Comment