Your article states “that gay marriage is one of those contentious issues where people on both sides can legitimately support their position by citing their religious beliefs”. I disagree with this statement. To date I have not heard any “legitimate support” for blessing a homosexual union, and I challenge those who support this side of the debate to show my any Holy Scripture that specifically states that marraige can exist between anything other than one man and one woman.
Of course it would not be fair for me to demand something of someone else, and demand anything less of myself. Therefore, to support the position that marraige is a union of one man and one woman I refer to Mattew 19:1-12. Although this passage tells us of an incedent in which Jesus Christ is asked a question about divorce, it is abuntantly clear that within His answer that marraige is an Act of God joining one man and one woman.
The onus is now upon those who support homosexual marriages to provide support for their position that is of a greater authority than the very Words of Jesus Christ.

Color me conflicted and uncertain too!. BTW: God hates the sin, not the sinner! I try to remember that when debating this issue.

Don’t feel bad about being uncertain on this issue Pam, because sometimes I feel the same way.

I will say this. This issue is very important to some people, and I understand why, but compared to the other issues that we face as a country, as a society, and as a democracy this is far down the list and should not receive all the press that it does. We have bigger fish to fry.

How odd that this posting is under a topic called “Civil Religion.” The Calif. high court ruling and the ruling a few years ago in Mass. involve only civil marriages, i.e. those recognized by the state government. They do not affect the religious marriage sacrament that churches provide. Churches have the right to accept or reject any couple for a wedding, even in Calif. and Mass. All these state courts are saying is that if straight people can get married down at city hall, then gay people can as well. There are some people who choose to do both the religious ceremony and get the marriage certificate at city hall, as well as some who choose to only get the marriage certificate, such as atheists and non-church-going Christian straight people.

I always try to remember that when I point my finger at another, there are 4 fingers pointing back at me.

In my morning study this morning, I was considering Micah 6:8. What does it mean to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with my God? I agree that “Gay Marriage” is really, really low on my anxiety list. The building of a just society has much bigger fish to fry. As I’ve said before, I think we need to make a significant break between the Religious Marriage and the Legal Marriage.

As a legal concept, Marriage is a contract between two people, that grants each other specific rights and responsibilities that can be codified. As far as I’m concerned, any two adults can enter into that contract as long as they recognize the terms of the contract. (Or, even if they don’t).

As a point of Church Polity, who a church chooses to allow to marry is up to that church. Period.

hs, maybe this is playing devil’s advocate then, but does that mean a brother and sister can get a civil union? Why, for that matter, limit it to two people. Shouldn’t old-school Mormons be able to marry bushels of people at once then?

Tim, OK, I think you understand the larger point, I hope. I’m not in favor of incest, ok? My perspective is that we need to get the religious definition of marriage out of the legal sphere.

As I’ve mentioned before: is it a violation of the principle of the state interfering the the church’s business whenever a Minister/Priest/Rabbi/Imam says that the state grants him/her the power to marry someone?

We are not talking incest specifically. Let’s just say they want to be joined in a civil union so because one is dying of cancer and it will be easier to give everything to the other one. Or maybe they are just weird, but the question remains. Where is the limit on this?

As to your question, the state is giving them the authority to record marriages as would a justice of the peace. In the state’s eyes it is simply a civil union with the appropriate sections of the tax and inheritence codes being affected. The religious aspect is purely the business of the religion.

The crucial point is: What does Scripture say? Why do people want so badly to twist the words in the Bible to allow them to do as they please? Adultery is just a bad a sin as stealing, lying, cheating, dishonoring God with your words, envy, lust, and homosexuality. These sinful behaviors ought not to be sanctioned by any Christian church or by the government.

There are three ways to look at God’s laws.
1. Societal order. God set up the natural, physical, and moral laws to keep society running.
2. God gave us the law to show us how messed up we really are and that we cannot live the perfect life he wants us to. The law condemns us for our behavior. We ALL deserve to be punished. That is why God gives grace to those who believe.
3. The law is a guide for Christian living. We live by the law if we are Christians, with God’s help.

This is the central issue I have with Christians sanctioning gay marriage and homosexuality in general. It breaks God’s law in all ways.

What I find highly frustrating is gospel reductioninsm: the concept that because of God’s grace, we can do any sinful thing we please because he forgives us. Romans 6 says just the opposite. “Should we sin so that Grace should abound? Never let it be so!” Baptismal grace does indeed work the salvation of a person, but at the same time, people must live in that grace, in that identity, daily dying to themselves and to their sin, repenting, and trusting in God’s grace that he is going to forgive the sinner who is not saying, “I can do whatever I please, I do not care about God’s law!”

It does boil down to baptismal identity and how we understand God’s law and grace, or gospel. For the Christian, God has made us righteous by our faith, through baptism. We cannot ever fulfil the precepts of the law, we are living as fallen creatures. Our very nature is fallen and sinful. Human beings are not naturally good. We need God’s grace. Yet, at the same time, we are to be obedient children. If our identity is being one of God’s own children, we ought to act that way. God gave us the law as a pattern for our behavior. We are sinners and saints at the same time, but we must strive to be actively righteous. We are to be righteous before other human beings, before the government, since God has made us righteous by his grace through faith. If we are Christians, I say, be who you are, act out your identity, do not conform to the world’s sinfulness, the same sin that is in all of us. Struggle with it! That is the Christian life - we all have crosses to bear.

(This, btw, is classic Luther.)

Ok, Kit, I get where you’re coming from. Now, let’s look at how it works in the real world. In many, many churches out there, the homosexual is publicly branded as a sinner by: (take your pick) divorcees, drunks, gamblers, adulterers, and thieves.

What this whole argument really brings to light, in my view, is our distorted perception of our own sinful nature, and our willingness to judge others according to a standard we ourselves cannot live up to.

Civil Union statutes (like Vermont) I think are the way to go. They grant specific legal rights to all (things like next-of-kin recognition), and no more. As a Christian, I tend to have a serious problem with people who want to condemn the homosexual for violating one or two specifics of the Mosaic law…a law that was fulfilled for us by the Savior. HE had very specific words for those of His day who wanted people to fulfill the jots and tittles of the Law….a burden no one could fulfill.

Going back to Pamela’s initial post: What would the woman holding the “God hates lying sinners” sign say if she was asked if she had ever lied?