A Perspective on Gay Marriage

As an ordained Southern Baptist minister, a born-again Christian for 20 years, and an American citizen, I’d like to offer my perspective on “gay marriage” in light of recent rulings in California.

I’m sure I don’t speak for all Christians, for many calling themselves “Christian” would probably take issue with my position. You see, unlike much of Evangelical Christianity, I make a distinction between the Church and the State. American citizens are governed by the Constitution, not the Bible. Though God’s Laws apply to all mankind; and all mankind will ultimately be judged by them, the fact remains that most of mankind lives in rebellion to God. They can’t submit, don’t want to submit, and will not submit to Him in this lifetime. They are sinners by nature and, unless God graciously and supernaturally changes their nature (what the Bible calls being “born-again”) no one should expect them to live by the standards set forth in God’s Word.

This fact goes well beyond gay marriage. More than half of all Americans do not live within God’s definition of marriage: divorce; multiple marriages; children out of wedlock; cohabitation; adultery; pornography; masturbation, etc.. To single out gay marriage as the battlefield on which to take a stand for the “sanctity of marriage” without first policing our own sanctuaries for violators is rank hypocrisy. God is the sole creator and definer of marriage and anyone not submitting to His definition is in sin.

Here is where I may stray from the reservation: I believe all American citizens should have equal rights under American law. What does that mean? Homosexual couples should be able to enter into a STATE-SANCTIONED union that affords them the same rights and privileges as married men and women. I come to this position not as a Christian, but as an American citizen who loves liberty. My liberties cannot be separated from other’s liberties; they are intrinsically entwined. If one American loses rights, it is only a matter of time before I lose mine. Thus, in standing up for someone else’s liberty, I ultimately safeguard my own.

HOWEVER, though I support state-sanctioned unions with equal rights for all citizens under the Constitution, I oppose the REDEFINING of marriage. Marriage is what it is: a union of one man and one woman. Marriage is God’s gift to humanity and only He has the right to define it. It would be like trying to redefine the definition of “homosexual” to include heterosexuals! The term “homosexual” would instantly lose its meaning! Just as “homosexual” has a specific meaning with boundaries, so marriage has a specific meaning with boundaries. This is not a hostile position; it is simple LOGIC. One does not require being a Christian to see the logic in this viewpoint.

Some Christians don’t want any sort of homosexual unions, regardless of what they are called. Under the Constitution, these Christians are – in my opinion – wrong. On the same token, some homosexuals don’t merely want equal rights as married men and women; they want to hijack the term and institution of “marriage.”

Another reason Christians ought to support state-sanctioned unions – and the state ought to protect the definition of marriage – is to preserve religious freedom. You see, as a pastor, I should have the religious freedom to choose whom I will and will not marry. I reject couples now who do not fit into God’s requirements for marriage. If the state simply sanctioned unions without redefining marriage, it should (I use this term cautiously) protect pastors from being forced to perform same-sex unions against their conscience. However, if the state redefines marriage, and I reject a homosexual couple based on Biblical convictions, I fear the state would force me to put state law (and the state’s definition of “marriage”) above God’s Law.

If all parties would put emotion and hostility aside; and be compromising enough to maximize the protection of everyone’s liberties; we could probably come to a resolution both sides are happy with. So, I say to the homosexuals who may read this: I care about your liberties, will you care about mine?