Thursday, May 28, 2009

Gay Marriage Survivor

Today's New York Times:

Last weekend I performed a wedding ceremony. I tried to communicate to those present that biblical marriage (one man-one woman) is beautiful because it displays, quite explicitly, the truth of the gospel. The world needs biblical marriage because it needs the gospel. If the picture that marriage is intended to display gets distorted, then the gospel is actually being distorted, and if the gospel gets distorted cultures eventually collapse. THIS is why the state must protect marriage. If it doesn't protect marriage the culture will be ruined. Not because it got creative with defining marriage, but because it (indirectly) messed with the gospel. If the state does not see the grace provided through God's intent for marriage, then woe to the state.

For a long time I thought it would just be easier for the state to remove itself from the marriage business, but for the state to function and exercise dominion it is deeply connected to the marriage business. Therefore, for the gospel to change cultures there is a link to how that culture defines marriage. That may sound like it doesn’t at all apply to the fact that two gay women in Sacramento want to share health insurance benefits...but error has to start somewhere, and pragmatism is often the culprit.

I’ve said for a long time that marriage in this country was a mess way before GLBT people wanted to give it a run, but let’s be careful about saying this is an issue of RIGHTS and EQUALITY. I don’t think it is. It’s about benefits and being socially validated. If, for the good of the country, we want to really address social inequity we'd be better off addressing the problems of the inner city...not the arts district.

Here’s a decent test to see if gay marriage is good for a culture: If you put 50 gay (married) couples on an island together and outfitted them with all the tools they needed to build and sustain a just and civilized society could they do it? Yes, they could do it...for about 50 to 70 years, at least. And it would be a great 50-70 years! However, since they are biologically unable to propogate their own humanity the culture would die. It wouldn’t just get shaky or become wayward. It would literally go away. The bible's cultural mandate (be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth) is a message to man and woman because marriage between man and woman does far more than celebrate love. It exhibits far more than individual rights. It actually builds cultures. It sustains life, and cities, and gardens and cathedrals. Now, it doesn’t ONLY do this, but this is an important function. Gay marriage does not do this. It is PHYSICALLY impossible.

Anyway, I thought we might call it Gay Marriage Survivor.


  1. Paragraph 3. Indeed.
    Also, while I will follow your blog don't be surprised if I rarely comment. I'm not a big blog commenter. A "blogmenter" if you will.

  2. After reading this post I am really not as red state-y as I sound. Even civil unions seem like a reasonable compromise. That is until I'm 75, Mandi is dead, and I need to marry my sister for insurance benefits.

    Certainly that would be my right, no?


  3. I think you inadvertently found the solution... put them on a secluded island and let them govern themselves.

    Kidding :)

    I'm glad you blogged about this. I have a hard time knowing how to feel about gay civil unions. The sad thing is that the state is the only one telling them no, while many "churches" sign off on it.