A commentator remarked on one of my recent posts:
Accept gay marriage, do it specifically because my faith tradition disagrees with it, because this protects my faith tradition, this is good for the government, and my faith tradition.
That seems a typical modern, relativistic view. My ‘faith tradition’, Christianity, teaches that active homosexuality is an abomination in the eye of the Lord and is sinful; how ‘gay marriage’ is ‘good’ for Christianity begs the question as to what the word ‘good’ means in this context. For an orthodox Christian it must mean in accordance with God’s Law, for God alone is good, and all his ordinances are likewise, and are for our good; so something which cuts plain across God’s Law is not good; therefore, by no Christian definition of the word ‘good’ is ‘gay marriage’ good.
There is a secular meaning where such a designation might make sense: if a State tolerates one thing, it will tolerate Christianity too; surely that is ‘good’? Well, that depends on a variety of considerations. An overtly Christian State such as the United Kingdom (that, surely is the meaning of having an Established Church whose bishops sit as a right in the legislature?) should be bearing some kind of Christian witness; so for such a State to endorse sin is not a good thing. My own view is that I’d much rather not have an Establishment, because it leads to things like this – the absurdity of a nominally Christian State endorsing sin.
You might want to argue that a non-Christian State is at liberty to endorse what it likes, and I’d not dissent from that; but that lays no obligation on a Christian to endorse sin; our loyalty in such a situation is to God, not the State. That does not mean that I wish to prevent the State endorsing a majority view, if it is a secular State, but it does mean that I will campaign for what my faith teaches, and that whilst I will, of course, accept the law is the law, I am not free to call sin by another name. If the State wishes to punish me for that, so be it.
As one who, when teaching the dreaded PSI (personal and social instruction, if memory does not betray me), had to discuss sex education with a bunch of sniggering fourteen year olds, there’s not a lot you can tell me about ‘civics’ and sexual morality in education; I bear the scars to this day. I was always careful to draw a line between what the law allowed and what God allowed. I never made any secret of my Christianity to the boys, neither did I allow it to lead me to stray from the path of the good teacher; indeed, as Christianity mounted the best argument against sexual license, the two went rather well together.
I can recall back then saying that I could see the day coming when the State would allow homosexual people to have the same legal rights as others, and indeed that I saw no reason, as a Christian, to dissent from that when it came; the secular law was the secular law. That is a position I took when the Labour Government brought in the Civil Partnerships Act. Homosexual activity is a sin according to God’s Law, but, alas, we are not ruled by that, and failing the day we are, equal legal rights seems a not bad principle.
But ‘marriage’ is a word with a meaning, predominantly a Christian one, and it is between one man and one woman. To change that in the name of ‘equality’ is the right of the Government, but given it had no mandate, and given that folk are generally convinced that they can spot when politicians are lying by whether their lips are moving, it seems rather a bad idea to change the meaning of something so fundamental with no mandate so to do. The loser here is trust in the political process, although a cynic might argue that is at such a low level, it hard matters.
But to anyone who believes in democracy, it does. Unless words means what they are taken to mean, folk will ask why, in the immortal words of Jeremy Paxman, the British broadcaster: ‘why is this lying bastard lying to me?’ Why indeed? Faith in Christ remains strong, as it has for nearly two thousand years. Democracy in its current Western form is a much more recent phenomenon, and faith in it seems to be declining rapidly.
The more our elected politicians behave as though they are our lords and masters, and less like they are our servants, the more that will continue. If we look, for example, at two examples from the heyday of confidence in the democratic process and compare them with now, we may see part of the point.
Clement Attlee and Harry S Truman held the helm in the UK and USA from 1945 into the early Cold War; both men achieved great things, though they were not great men. When they retired they lived off their pensions and continued to give whatever service was required of them. Compare that with Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, men who left office conspicuously richer than they had entered it, and who have continued, after service, to line their pockets and live like billionaires. The first two remind me of Roman senators in the hey-day of the republic; the latter two of some of the emperors in the decadence of the Empire. With Attlee and Truman, their words meant something and so they used them, sparingly; with Blair and Clinton, they meant little, so they used them with profligacy. Thus it is that sin ruins a nation.
Outlaw Monk said:
I think the main problem is our society has lost the real definition of “marriage.” Toady a marriage is seen by the secular world as a legal and financial union; one that cab be dissolved just as easily as it was created. Christians take marriage much more seriously than a piece of paper or a new way to file you taxes. I refuse to use the term “same-sex marriage,” instead I call it a same-sex “legal union,” which is what it really is.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
You are perfectly correct.
LikeLike
Carl D'Agostino said:
Yes, civil union or domestic partnership with all legal rights and responsibilities of marriage if that is what is desired. All 3 are a form of contract anyway. But the insistence of the gay world to call the union marriage is a spit in the face to all people who would ordinarily have toleration for the lifestyle. Christians must try so very hard to live in this secular world with separation of church and state and separation of religious law and civil law but do not have to tolerate being insulted and asked to redesign all normally accepted plausibility structures of society to fit the desire of any one segment of a population.
There are also same sex marriage relationships that have nothing to do with sex. Older people widowed or unmarried friends may care to commingle funds and responsibilities for economic reasons and for mutual support and agree to contract the relationship but that also is provided for as civil union or domestic partnership not marriage. It just turns my stomach when I hear those Hollywood agenda people pose the questions “Aren’t you in favor of marriage equality?” and “Why are you such a bigot?” My reply: “Why don’t you have any good common sense?”
Geoffrey, we will have the last laugh. I can’t wait till they experience a matter that parallels marriage – DIVORCE. With the expense and legal complications of divorce, they will wish never never heard of the word marriage.
LikeLike
NEO said:
It’s difficult for me to speak of the Christian state, since I have little practical experience. Your view seems appropriate to me,
I think I’ll eschew the term non-Christian state as being perhaps inaccurate, instead using secular state. In this type of state, many things drop away. Marriage itself has almost entirely economic concerns, which can (and should) be handled as a form of partnership. In other words, the state has no investment is marriage of one kind or another. The same is true for most morality, it is not the states problem.
This is fine and might be thought quite wonderful for domestic tranquillity. And so it can be. If and only if, it is implemented amongst a moral people. Moral in this case primarily means telling the truth, and not brazen thieves. This government will fail in any other kind of population.
And so we see, in the last analysis, a secular government depends just as much on the populations education and morality as does the Christian one.
Apparently the government of a free people depends on the morality of the governed. This may speak to our current problems.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I agree. The problem was that folk thought you could have ‘morality’ without the agreed moral code of Christianity.
LikeLike
NEO said:
That is the problem. Morality makes no sense without the underpinning of Christianity. Your people knew it, and our founders said so quite loudly. It’s too bad our rulers have apparent reading comprehension disorders, or something.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Aye, very true, but there is none so blind as those who won’t see.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Indeed so. Often stated, rarely heeded, unfortunately.
LikeLike
Pingback: Catholics and Protestants and Vise Versa | Resting in His Grace
St Bosco said:
Whats worster is a religion that is top heavy with homosexual priests and clergy. And what is even worster is the people who stay in it and let these wicked men rule over them. They will all stumble and fall into the ditch.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
They will Bosco,
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
They will??? What are you saying here, Geoffrey?
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
The blind leading the blind – probably wearing clown costumes on the way 🙂
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Surely you must be speaking here of the Episcopalians with their gay Bishops etc. If you are continuing your rant against the RCC then I will once again remind you that we have no more of them in our clergy than you do in your own or any other denomination. It is the attention of the media that you so love and adore because it lets all other denominations off the hook. Our homosexual priests are about the same as the national average of homosexuals in the general public. At least we don’t condone it and are trying to eliminate them from our midst. You probably ignore yours.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Maybe they’ve been raptured?
LikeLike
Luisa said:
Particularly Californian “churches”, yea!
LikeLike
David B. Monier-Williams said:
“Clement Attlee achieved great things” Yes, he was the first Socialist PM and introduced Britain to the Welfare State. He put in place the NHS which is now falling apart. He Nationalized everything he could.
No he was not the greatest PM of the 20th Century as he was voted in 2004. You Brits have a short memory, if it wasn’t for W.S.C. there would be no Britain unless you spoke German.
He can be summed up as “Parturient montes nascetur ridiculus mus.”
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Well, if it is a choice between being bankrupted if you don’t have insurance, or putting up with what the insurance company can afford, and the NHS, with all its imperfections, give me the piece of mind that says if you are ill you don’t have to worry about money.
Nationalisation was an idea which had its day, but its successor, flogging our utilitiy companies off the the French and Germans so they can rachet up the prices, hasn’t been an enormous success.
Attlee was a Christian socialist and did much that was good – I’d prefer him to most of his successors any day.
LikeLike
David B. Monier-Williams said:
By his own admission he was agnostic.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
That was where he ended up, byt the tradition which inspired him was that of Christian socialism.
LikeLike
David B. Monier-Williams said:
Christian Socialism is like Military Intelligence
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Those naught Apostles, sharing everything in common.
LikeLike