I have to say I'm not surprised by all of the reactions on Facebook to the Iowa Supreme Court ruling that will allow same-sex couples to marry. I have seen Facebook statuses ranging from "Way to go Iowa" to "So glad I moved out of Iowa" or "Disappointed in Iowa"... Hmm... I guess this post is more in response to those who are in the "So glad I moved out of Iowa" camp.
I feel like many Christians today are on a modern-day crusade when it comes to what is the law in America. Many Christians are raised believing that America is a Christian nation and our laws should mirror Christian morals. It's almost ironic that many Christians want to make it so that all of America has to live under laws that they decide are the moral authority, when the founders of America stood for freedom of religion and separation of church and state. I think the founders realized that when you try to regulate religion through the state, you create the Crusades all over again - trying to force everyone into your belief system because this is "God's will." When did it become the Christian's job to tell everyone else how they have to live?
Really, the reaction to the legalization of same-sex marriage by Christians scares me. How high and mighty are we, that we would have the audacity to cry when we don't get our way about a legal issue? Is this really a moral issue? Really? As a Christian, I do not feel threatened by the legalization of same-sex marriage by the state. Personally, I don't need the state to sanction my marriage - I know that the committment between me and my husband IS a marriage in God's eyes. That's all I need to know. Whether or not another couple's committment is a marriage in God's eyes really isn't a concern of mine.
I challenge Christians who are so out-spoken about their disapproval of legalized same-sex marriage to get out of their bubble and rethink this issue. What is it about legalizing same-sex marriage that bothers you - that someone will do something that you don't approve of? That this is one more step down a "slippery slope" toward the moral decay of America? Oh dear.
Maybe I should care more about this issue, but I am having a hard time finding a reason to be upset.
37 Weeks
9 years ago
4 comments:
Aha! There will always be a struggle between those who feel there is no absolute authority and those who feel there must be a freedom to "live however you wish" as long as "you don't bother me". I will only address two points at this time to consider in our thoughts about this recent legal precedent.
I think the "definition" of marriage as "one man with one woman" is very important to me and my heritage only because the picture of a marriage is tied to the dream of procreating a family. (In my opinion, with a VERY BIG GUY backing me up.) I think the legal situations that withstand the court challenges are based on the "definition" of a marriage. As I see your younger generation rejoicing over the birth of children in your marriages or the heartache when a pregnancy doesn't occur, I see the importance of what I call a "marriage". I can only say from my own opinion that the legal protections for same-sex couples or co-habitating couples of same-sex or heterosexual unmarried couples can be addressed without trying to call their relationship a "marriage". I have counseled young and 'old' unmarried couples repeatedly that in the case of medical emergencies or death they will lack the power to care for their living loved ones or surviving loved ones without establishing a legal protection of their rights outside of a "marriage". Without a legally binding instrument their family can come in, take over, and disregard any intended but unwritten relationship rights. But, I would never say they had a marriage relationship. In my opinion "old kid" my mama's God and my God set up marriage. Man can set up all the legal relationships necessary to protect individuals who wish to be connected legally and protected from outside family meddling. No sarcasm intended to the many gay individuals and couples that I know, but I see ads for "it tastes just like butter" and yet it will never be butter or cook like butter, etc, etc. I think you kids know that I am very blessed and spoiled to be in a real marriage that fits the definition of marriage under the vows I exchanged with one woman many years ago. The point #1- marriage is only between one man and one woman. AND, anyone has my constitutional support to disagree. They will find out some day SERIOUSLY that their difference of opinion is wrong. (If only Mutti was here to wax eloquently.)
Point #2- later........
Papa
Personally I just don't think that marriage should be sanctioned by anyone BUT God. Marriage doesn't need to have anything to do with the government. I think it would be great to have a 'union' that is state recognized (either hetero or homo)and leave marriage to the church to decide. If Joe schmoe want's to go to the United Church of Danny and have the 'pastor' say their married... fine. I don't recognize Danny as god and, therefore, don't recognize their marriage. The only problem I have with the govn. sanctioning gay marriage is that their calling it marriage. Let's just call it something else for EVERYONE...
Preach sister. You've got my vote!
I agree with you Megan. Very well written.
Post a Comment