Purpose:
The social media uproar over DOMA has brought forth many interesting points and views in regards to marriage equality. Many of them have left me perplexed. I have a few thoughts on which I would like some feedback. I want to be able to better understand the arguments and therefore better able to understand all people who are concerned about DOMA. I think the argument can be broken town into a few smaller issues.I will do my best to cite every statistic and Biblical reference I use. I will refer to argument sides as pro and anti for pro-same-sex-marriage and anti-same-sex-marriage respectively. These argument sides are not officially accepted by each side, but they are my interpretation. I would love some feedback on these.
My Background As it Relates to this Issue:
I am a heterosexual Christian and I am completely comfortable with both. Throughout my life I have dealt with people who questioned my sexuality. From school-yard bullies who flung hateful words because they were battling their own insecurities, to full blown rumors and prejudice, I have had a taste of what it is like to be gay in America, particularly the south. I am not gay, but have seen how hateful people can be when they believe you are different.Through these negative, and often demeaning, experiences, God has allowed me to have an understanding of both sides of the issue and a genuine disdain for prejudice and bigotry in every form. I believe that God loves us all. I also believe that God hates sin. All of it. Not just homosexuality. I am a sinner, therefore, I am willingly vacating my position as judge and jury for people who sin differently than I do. (Matthew 7:3-5)
Issue 1: Separation of Church and State.
To be more accurate, this should be called separation of the State from the Church. The 1st amendment does not say, “no law shall have a religious basis.” It separates the State from influencing the Church, but not the church from influencing the state. It states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."Pro: Marriage is a spiritual institution. Any law prohibiting marriage equality prohibits the free exercise of certain individual's beliefs.
Anti: Marriage is a religious institution. Any law that affects marriage affects religion and therefore infringes on religions beliefs.
Fact: Atheists and agnostic individuals are allowed to marry. This in and of itself proves that our marriage laws are not strictly adherent to religious beliefs. On the other hand, forcing religious entities to perform marriages that defy points of their religion is also unconstitutional.
Opinion: I can think of a lot of marriages that are currently allowed that more greatly hinder the Kingdom. Just saying. I also believe that marriage is a religious institution. With that being said, I don't believe that government standings and religious standings have to be the same.
Issue 2: Equal protection under law.
In the 14th amendment we are granted equal protection and privileges under law. The portion of the amendment that is significant here states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Pro: By denying the right of two consenting adults to marry, they are denied equal privileges.
Anti: All people have the equal privilege to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Fact: DOMA will ultimately decide the federal definition of marriage. Because same-sex couples are not currently recognized under the existing definition (even if they are considered married in their state) same-sex marriages are denied 1,138 federal rights that are given to opposite-sex marriages.
Opinion: The anti argument is weak and implies that homosexuality is a choice and those people have the ability to choose to not be gay thus affording them equal opportunity. Saying that someone can choose their sexual preference is like saying they can choose their hair color. Yeah, you can dye it and cover it up, but deep down you're born with what you're born with.
Issue 3: The “Sin Aspect.”
I have heard it argued that homosexuality is more offensive than other sins because Biblically it is considered to be an abomination against God. Thus making it more important to stand against homosexuality to protect Biblical marriage than other issues. Other sexual things that are considered abominations in the Bible: adultery (Jeremiah 13:27), lust (Jeremiah 13:27), prostitution (Jeremiah 13:27), sex outside of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:2).Pro: Other sins are acceptable because the majority of people fall victim. Sins that fewer people deal with are therefore focused on. Thus creating a principle that is in its self unbiblical. (Proverbs 20:11)
Anti: In traditional marriages, an individual can turn from their sexual sins. In same-sex marriages, the sin is ongoing.
Fact: There are more important and significant wrongs happening in our wold that should strike more outrage and anger into out hearts than another person's sexuality. Just saying.
Opinion: If we were to keep all those who commit sexual abominations from marrying, then anyone who has had sex or sexual thoughts outside of marriage can not get married. Many in traditional marriages never turn from their sins either. We are all abominable.
Potential Solution:
To boil down the sides into two themes, they are generally: pro = equal rights, anti = sanctity of marriage. My solution is to separate the state from the church and provide equal privileges to all citizens.Allow any two consenting adults who wish to be joined together to enter into “civil unions” that will be recognized by federal law in the same way that “marriages” are recognized today. All civil unions will have the same federal rights, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parties involved.
Marriage would no longer be defined by any government source and would be left up to the discretion of the institution performing the ceremony. This would allow marriage to be defined by religious bodies at their discretion.
An individual religious body could then chose to allow same-sex couples to be married, or they could choose to limit their marriages to opposite-sex couples. If you were homosexual and wished to be married, you could seek a religious body that allowed same-sex marriages. If you are morally opposed to same-sex marriage, you could seek a religious body that limits the definition of marriage.
There are many denominational differences in existence already so I don't believe that this would fundamentally change the foundation of the Church. This solution would allow the same rights and privileges to everyone without forcing a set of beliefs onto anyone.
Conclusion:
These are just some questions and thoughts I have on the matter. Once again, I am very interested in any and all feedback. Comment here, on Facebook, text me, whatever. I am very interested in better understanding this issue. A quote I will end on, that I hope you all keep in mind whether it's in your response to me or in general discussion of the issue, is:Our Culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. -Rick Warren
All Biblical references are taken from NIV and can be found at: http://www.biblegateway.com/
All Constitutional references can be found at: http://www.usconstitution.net/
