Everyone knows the scenario. Guy loves girl. Girl loves guy. Guy takes girl to an incredibly romantic spot. Say a mountaintop or the restaurant where they had their first date (guys with foresight made it somewhere special). There they have a wonderful evening with chocolate and wine (or sparkling grape juice), and then it happens. The guy gets down on one knee, pulls out the ring that is way too expensive for him to afford, and then says the words every girl wants to her: “Will you enter into a legally binding but stable relationship?”
“Yes!” the girl replies, “Yes, I want to take your last name and some tax breaks with it!”
Ok, that is not exactly how it goes, but it might as well. Nowadays, “marriage” is little more than that. Rarely in the United States are there marriages for property, and few people are really that desperately worried about their family name living on. The best reason to get married, outside of tax breaks, seems to be to provide a stable environment for raising children. But modern day couples are even challenging that reasoning, preferring to have kids before or without marriage.
This article is about gay marriage. The Church is in an uproar about gay marriage. A lot of people are not even that upset with gay people in general, but they just do not like gay people being married. They can live together and act like they are married, but the word, “marriage,” is reserved for heterosexual couples. That seems to be their only requirement.
I am tempted to give up the fight and support gay marriage. Part of me wants to say, “Let them get married. After all, if it acts like a duck, talks like a duck, gets tax breaks like a duck, we shouldn’t call it a goose.” That reasoning is due, in most part, to the definition of marriage nowadays.
If people who only go to church on Easter and Christmas get married, no one cares. If people who are clearly living in sexual sin get married, the Church still allows it. If adamant atheists get married, nobody bats an eyelash. Now, I am not saying we judge everyone to the point where we make decisions for them, but should not the Church have some responsibility in who gets married? When we baptize people, we ask them questions, get their testimony, and make sure they are ready to get dunked. Why do we not do this with marriage? The Church is ashamed of statistics that record how many baptized believers fall away, but it looks at the divorce rate as proof of the corruption of the world, not as something for which the Church is in any way responsible. Guess what? Most people get married in a church, and get married by an ordained preacher. The Church approved most of these marriages that ended in divorce.
The Church is all in an uproar about the sanctity of marriage, and how the Bible defines marriage, yet how true is that? I do not mean to say that the Bible does not say that a man and a woman should be the ones to get married, but the Church has not been the one defining marriage for quite some time. The Church gave that responsibility to the State, and the State has defined it as has been culturally acceptable. The majority of people in the United States are Christian, and it has been that way for some time, but that majority is shrinking. It is now becoming more and more culturally acceptable to be homosexual*, and thus the State is considering changing the definition of marriage to fit the culture’s definition of marriage. In this sense, the Bible only has influence as much as it can influence the culture.
The problem is that we gave the State the ability to define what we recognize in our religion. Consider it like this: the body of the Church is a group of baptized believers. Once you believe, you can become baptized. Without believing, you cannot become baptized. Believing is a personal choice, but the Church evaluates your heart and decides if they want to be responsible for you, or if they feel that you are not ready. Say getting baptized was a cultural phenomenon that everyone wanted to do because everyone did it. Say if you did not do it and continued to live your life you would be looked down upon. Then, say that in order to get baptized you needed a license from the State and had to meet requirements set by the State. Then, say you got tax breaks for doing so.
Do you see the problem here? The State is supposed to treat everyone equally regardless of race, religion, gender, and (in many cases) sexuality. What they offer one group of people they cannot deny the others. Is this how it always works? No, of course not, but this is the goal that the State tries to head toward. This is the ideal that they are working for. In the above example and in an ideal State, atheists would be able to get baptized with little resistance. The State cannot discriminate, and it can only prevent social sins and does not concern itself with sins of the mind or heart. The State, in its inherent nature, has to ignore sins of the mind or heart that may have no consequence on Earth but will in Heaven. This is a good thing, because the State is man-made and will only exist on Earth (The Kingdom of Heaven is unlike any government on Earth).
I digress. The point is, we have given a heavenly and religious matter to a being that exists completely in the world and is supposed to treat all religious ideas the same. As such, I do not see gay marriage as something we can fight against. I see it as an inevitable outcome based on a mistake the Church made a long time ago. The sanctity of marriage has already been breached. It has been breached by hypocritical Christians. It has been breached by apathetic Christians. It has been breached by adamant atheists. In a way, homosexuals are actually late to the party.
So this is a problem, then. What do we do? Practically, there are not many choices. The problem with the word, “marriage,” is that there are so many people who have such a strong connection to it without any of the religious implications. Rather, it is the cultural implications that drive them. So, in order to restrict the word, “marriage,” back to the religious point-of-view, one would have to anger a lot of people. Gay marriage is, after all, not about the tax benefits, but the titles. The word, “marriage,” is what this whole debate is about, and it is a debate that the Church is losing.
There is the “abandon ship” method that so many Christians like. We should just abandon the nomenclature and replace it with something else. The connotations for that word are too strong to change, so we just make a new word that has better connotations. Already, many Christians do this.
“I don’t believe in dating. I believe in courtship,” because using an older word for “dating” completely changes the definition.
“It’s against my relationship to have a religion.” That does not even make sense. Look up the word, “religion.” See if Jesus ever prohibited that.
The worst, in my opinion (and many will disagree with me), is when people refuse to call themselves Christian and instead say something like, “Jesus is my homeboy” (Muhammad also thought highly of Jesus).
So let’s go ahead and get on this bandwagon. I suggest abandoning the word, “marriage,” as anything but tax breaks, and instead using words like “Holy Union,” or “Matchmaking done by Jesus.” Or we could translate something from Greek. Us Christians love to have stuff in Greek. It sounds legit.
Some of these ideas came from the following article:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1885190,00.html
*I wish to take a note and say that it is not bad that homosexual people are open about their sexual preferences. I do think it is a sin, but homosexual people are sinners just like the rest of us. I would rather them be honest and open than put up a façade (that is usually caused by fear of the response rather than shame of the sin).