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?

HS:
Yes, you are right. The church needs to function as “sinners anonymous” because we are all sinners, and no one sin is worse than the other.

Yet, the point I was trying to make is that we still have God’s law and God’s law says, “Don’t” for many things and “Do” for others. “Fulfilled” as you say does not mean “removed.” In Matt. 5:18, Jesus said that “not one jot or tittle,” of the law will by any means be removed. That means the law of God is still the law. (Further reading in Hebrews supports this.)

We could digress here into what the Torah means for gentile and Jewish believers here, but that’s a topic for another time. The early church sorted this out well (See Acts 15 and Galatians 3).

The paradox comes in embracing the one who is sinning, while exhorting them to return to God’s ways, in LOVING way (Read James 5.)

I understand your point on civil unions - at least they are not attempting to redefine marriage.

DOES GOD HATE GAYS?

GOD IS LOVE. This is true according to scripture. God is love, this means that God is the source of love and is loving – but, disobedience brings hate and wrath.

It is very disingenuous to point only to the sin of homosexuality as a separate sin from any other sin that is hated by God. I certainly understand how gays feel offended when it is pointed out that according to Christianity/God’s word, that same sex sexual relationships are sin. I can relate to being extremely uneasy and suffering from much discomfort because, even though being gay was not my sin, most of my past life at one time was sinful in God’s eyes when it was judged by God’s word (The Holy Bible). One has the choice to reject what’s written in the Holy Scriptures or reject it. I do realize that some feel that it is only a book, rejecting God’s word and disregarding it as just a book is the very free choice that God has given every man and woman, and no man has any right to force one to take away what God has given to each of us as a choice.

Those who chose to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior (Christians) are required to follow God’s inspired words as set forth in the Holy Scriptures, otherwise you have made up your own god according to your will, which is, idolatry (when anything or anybody gets what God alone deserves).
http://www.acts17-11.com/idolatry.html

Some synonyms for hate (to detest) are: venom, rancor, revenge, malignity, abomination, abhorrence, animosity, abhor, execrate, scorn, despise, look at with loathing, spit upon, anathematize, curse, swear eternal enmity, dislike intensely, shudder at, have enough of, be repelled by, feel repulsion for, have no use for, object to, bear malice, bear a grudge against, spurn, shrink or recoil from, disparage, shun, nauseate, tread or trample underfoot, denounce, resent, curse, be sick or tired of, reject, revolt against, hold cheap, deride, have no taste or stomach for, disfavor, look down upon, feel malice toward, be malevolent, hold in contempt, be disgusted with, view with horror, owe a grudge to.
Notice revenge to be one of the synonyms for hate.

We learn from scripture that “Vengeance (Hate) is the Lord’s, that we are not to avenge (hate). But, God does. As can be seen in the book of Romans, 12:19-21.

< Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it < is written: “It is mind to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the < contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him, if he is thirsty, give him < something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his
< head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Scripture state clearly the fact that God does hate some people.

We learn in scripture that God hated a person, Esau, [Mal. 1:3], and that was because Esau thought the things of God was of no value. We learn in [Heb. 12:16-17], that the reason God hated Esau was because He considered Esau immoral and unspiritual who for a single meal sold his birthright.

We find in scripture Psalm 11:5, “The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates.”

We find in scripture Lev. 20:23, “Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred (hated) them.”

We find in scripture Hosea 9:15, “The Lord says, “All their evildoing began in Gilgal. It was there that I began to hate them. And because of the evil they have done, I will drive them out of my land. I will not love them any more; all their leaders have rebelled against me.”

Other places in scripture shows us the things (sins) God hates.

There are seven things that the Lord hates and cannot tolerate: [Prov. 6:16-19]

1. A proud look
2. A lying tongue
3. Hands that kill innocent people
4. A mind that thinks up evil plans
5. Feet that hurry off to do evil
6. A witness who tells one lie after another.
7. Someone who stirs up trouble among friends.

Do not plan ways of harming one another. Do not give false testimony under oath.
I hate lying, injustice, and violence.” [Zec. 8:17].

“Hate what is evil, love what is right, and see that justice prevails in the courts. Perhaps the will be merciful to the people of this nation who are still left alive. [Amos 5:15]

God makes it clear that He hates divorce and the reason is given in the book of [Mal. 2:16].

God’s Word makes very clear that neither fornicators (sex outside wedlock) or homosexuals (same sex sexual relations) will possess His Kingdom. Scripture tells us that both are abominations to God. (hated by God).

Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s. Now concerning the things where of ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” [1 Corinthians 6:18-20 & 1 Corinthians 7:1-2]

Let marriage be had in honor among all, and let the bed be undefiled: for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

Surely you know that the wicked will not possess God’s Kingdom. Do you not fool yourselves, people who are immoral or who worship idols or are adulterers or homosexuals or who steal or are greedy or are drunkards or who slander others or are thieves, none of these will possess God’s Kingdom. Some of you were like that. But you have been purified from sin; you have been dedicated to God; you have been put right with God by the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. [1 Corinthians 6:9-11]

Throughout the Holy Scriptures these the fact is shown that God does hate and that the things mentioned here are hated by God. I have listed only a few of these scriptures.

To sin is to break God’s Law and offend His character. To sin means to challenge His character and authority. It means you go against His word.

There are too many passages of scripture in the Holy Bible to list on how God hate’s sin. I will stop here.

As you can see according to His Word (the Holy Scriptures) God does hate people and sin. Anyone is free too accept this or to reject this truth as recorded.

Your throne, O God, stands forever and ever; and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom. You {Jesus} loved justice and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions”; [Heb. 1:8-9]
“But you have this in your favor: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I {Jesus} also hate. ” ‘ “Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the victor I will give the right to eat from the tree of life that is in the garden of God.” ‘ [Rv. 2:6-7]

“But you have this in your favor: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I {Jesus} also hate. ” ‘ “Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the victor I will give the right to eat from the tree of life that is in the garden of God.” ‘ [Rv. 2:6-7]

Why did Jesus hate the works of the Nicolaitans (A church)? The following site will give one insight to that question:

http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx73.htm

So if the whole anti-gay marriage thing is bad because it is God’s law, then shouldn’t it be up to God and not the secular government of Man to determine those guilty of the sin? Personally, I feel that marriage should remain strictly in the realm of religion and civil union in the realm of government. I have no problem with religious institutions witnessing civil union for the sake of expediency, but the approval of a religious institution should not be necessary for the implementation of a set of legal rights.

Siblings are already in the line of next of kin, so there is no reason for a civil union between them. So this would not allow for incest.

If the government is to implement laws consistent with the Christian bible, thus outlawing homosexuality, then should it also ban ham to be consistent with the Kashrut laws of the Old Testament?

Hmmm…I can’t reply to each of these comments with the seriousness and specificity they deserve, but let me make a couple of observations, which are mostly echoing things already said.

One, I am tending more and more toward agreeing with the proposal that civil unions be offered by the government and weddings/marriages by the church. That would mean that heterosexual and homosexual couples would be treated equally by the state (which is not yet true in most of our country today), and churches would continue to be free to make their own decisions about what unions to bless (as they are today). This would be a clearer separation of church and state than currently exists, and might take some of the religious heat out of the “civil union” debate.

Two, I can’t quite agree with those who say we shouldn’t be making such a fuss over this topic. At moments I would like nothing more than for it to simply go away, but that is an entirely selfish desire on my part. Gay, lesbian, and transgendered persons have every right to see this as a matter of social justice, and those of us who are in the cultural majority must be very careful before we dismiss their concerns.

Three, the “love the sinner, hate the sin” model doesn’t quite work for me. And here’s why: I’m just not convinced that homosexuality is a sin. Which brings me to

Four, the role of Holy Scripture. I have a lot of sympathy for Kit’s comment about twisting Scripture to suit our needs or desires. This is *much* too big a topic to adequately address in a blog comment; I’ll try to come back to it soon. For now let me say that while I believe that scripture is God’s Word, I also believe that it comes to us in human language and a historically-mediated form that requires our serious, scholarly, and prayerful attention. The Catechism of the Catholic Church itself says that “in order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current” (110). So asking what the Bible tells us about a complicated topic is rarely a question that elicits a simple answer.

Hi Pam,
That was a thoughtful response. Thank you!
I would like to add one thing when it comes to scriptural interpretation (hermeneutics.) The way I see it, language is written for an intended audience,so we must be trained in how that audience would decode and understand the language. It is very important that Christians interpret the scripture in community, not just out on one’s own. This is how you get the Obama/Dobson debate!

I think from a holistic scriptural interpretation, it is important to see how that humankind is created in the image of God, male and female he created them. He created us as engendered people, with specific roles and functions as part of natural law and order of creation. Homosexuality is really a sin against the 1st commandment, because it tells God, “You don’t know what you’re talking about!” and sets us up in God’s place. It says, “Despite being created as an engendered, sexual being, I will not follow the way I have been created.” Now as to the whys or hows of this particular temptation, I cannot say the tendency or attraction is the sin part. It is safe to say that homosexual acts and lust are the sin part. Just like a person lusting after someone not their spouse, and then falling into adultery.

I can see that some would say that marriage between gay people would fix this, but marriage is indeed the union between man and woman, always has been. That someone struggles with it or finds themselves attracted to the same sex, even falls into the sin is not the issue. The issue is saying that we must accept the sin and sanction it as blessed of God. If someone is habitually struggling with this issue, if they admit it is sinful, it is no different from someone struggling with any other sin. That’s the big problem for me, that people are defiant in their hubris saying, “What is not a sin is a sin.” This is clear in the first few chapters of Romans. I’ll accept and love any person who comes into my faith community, regardless of their affliction or sin, but I will constantly exhort them to live a Christ-like life, repent, and ask God’s help in living God’s way.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201;&version=47;

Whoops, I should proofread better:

what I meant to say in the last paragraph is, “That’s the big problem for me, that people are defiant in their hubris saying, “What is [according to God] a sin is NOT a sin.” This is clear in the first few chapters of Romans. I’ll accept and love any person who comes into my faith community, regardless of their affliction or sin, but I will constantly exhort them to live a Christ-like life, repent, and ask God’s help in living God’s way.