I am on Twitter. Twitter is one of the newest things on the internet. It is a cyber network for sharing in community. On Twitter you can keep up with what others are doing and also let others know what you are doing. If you have the slightest interest in knowing what I am doing, and I can't imagine why you would, you can follow me @ BillMc45053.
I kind of like Twitter. I like it because they make available a very limited space to communicate. I am, by nature, not very chatty. I don't like to run on forever and I don't enjoy being around people who tend to be long winded. Here is my problem with Twitter – what I don't like about Twitter. When I send out information on Twitter it is called a Tweet. I don't care who you are, that sounds stupid. And for a 60+ guy, tweeting is just wrong. If I have to explain it to you – well, I probably can't explain it to you.
The other day a friend "Tweeted" recommending that her followers read a news article about a fellow pastor in California who was leading the charge for the passage of laws that would allow Gay Marriage in California. I just tweeted back that I thought that was a bad idea and a waste of time. She, misunderstanding my point, wrote back that just because it wasn't important to me doesn't mean it can't be important to someone else. I didn't say it shouldn't be important. What I meant to say and, in the name of brevity failed to communicate clearly, was that the debate over the legalization of gay marriage is a dumb argument.
Stay with me here and listen closely. I did not say that to care about gay marriage is dumb. I did not say that certain arguments about legalizing gay marriage are dumb. I did not say that arguments about gay marriage that do not agree with my view on the subject are dumb. I am saying that the entire debate about legalizing gay marriage is dumb. We should not be having the argument – Period. To argue about whether or not the federal government or a state government should or should not pass laws about gay marriage is dumb. It is dumb because the government has no business passing any laws about anybody getting married.
In the United States of America we have a unique and wonderful system of government. And in that system of government marriage is not the government's business. The church is in the "business" of marriage, not the state. We seem to want to exercise "select-a-choice" when it comes to the issue of separation of church and state. Any serious student of our history and our government (Though no one ever accused me of being a serious student, I was a Political Science major and took a minor in History) knows that the obvious intent of our founding fathers, having come from a background of a state church, was to keep the government out of the business of doing church. Somehow, over the span of a couple of centuries, we have managed to twist and flop around to the point that separation of church and state has come to mean that the church has no place exercising influence on our government systems or leaders. In fact, we of the progressive side of the church have become pretty religious about that particular view of the separation of church and state. We pride ourselves in our staunch support of the separation of church and state and our belief that Christianity has no place in the public forum. We are inflexible about that, except when issues like gay marriage come up. And then we, in the name of justice, completely lose our minds. In the name of all that we believe is right and good, we jump right into the middle of the argument. And that is dumb.
The church should have, and must continue to have, the say so about who the church will and will not marry. Since this is a very emotional topic for many I urge my readers to not misunderstand me. I am not against the correct governing bodies passing laws about civil unions for gay couples. That is the government's bailiwick and the government can certainly follow the will of the people it is designed to serve and pass all of the laws they want about civil unions. I may or may not agree with the laws, but I will certainly respect them. But a government that I am protected from by the doctrine of the separation of church and state had better not be telling me who I can and can't marry – who I must or must not marry. I believe the government needs to butt out of the church's business. And because of this belief, I will not enter into the debate over the legalization of any kind of marriage.
Thus, I say the argument about the legalization of gay marriage is dumb. Your position on the subject may be a very intelligent, compassionate, and well thought-out. That's great. It is still a dumb argument to have.
Copyright © 2009, William T. McConnell, All Rights Reserved
3 comments:
Interesting blog Bill, I always enjoying reading what you have to say, even when I don't agree with you. You stretch my thinking which is good. Since the church is not the only entity that performs marriage, I see a need for civil law. If you, or anyone else as a pastor does not want to perform a marriage for same sex unions, that is great, it is your prerogative. However, if a same sex is denied marriage through a civil service, there is a problem. The reason gay marriage is denied in a civil service is due to religion. So yes - it is a dumb argument, ranks right up there with abortion. Of course God calls us to love everyone and to respect life, those ideas just can be legislated.
I always thought that when America takes marriage seriously then we can revisit the issue. Over 50% divorce rate? If it is such a sacred union why aren't the people that are allowed to marry taking it as such? I would like to know how many divorced people show up to the anti-gay marriage rallys and how many times the senators/congressmen that are working on this issue have been divorced.
I agree with your post on this topic to the T. My desire to have our government tell my pastor what he can or cannot believe and act on is a big fat zero. The problem is that since a good deal of our governing body does not believe that our religion holds any truth, they see it only as another identity that must be ruled over. It is hard for them to recognize the separation between church and state when they don’t believe that church serves a true purpose in the first place, to them we are just another body of people.
"I am not against the correct governing bodies passing laws about civil unions for gay couples. That is the government's bailiwick...” again agreed. The government DOES need rules concerning civil unions for all of the legal issues that arise when we take on a life partner. I am fine with civil unions even though they go against my belief system. Since it is MY belief, and I am not a part of said civil unions, why should I stick my nose into it in the first place? With that in mind I support our government doing the legal thing to ensure life partners are treated at work and in the world like they want to be in a life long relationship. I want the same insurance, same legal spousal benefits for my soon to be wife that these people are asking for. Let our government figure that out in the civil realm, and let my pastor and his bible and the Holy Spirit decide how our church will approach marriage.
Post a Comment