Defending Marriage by Voting "No" (Part 2)

My opposition to the same-sex marriage amendment has very little to do with homosexuality. I really don’t think adding this amendment to the Texas constitution is going to amount to much with respect to whether or not homosexuals are given the right to marry in Texas. Because Texas judges are popularly elected, it really isn’t possible for Texas judges to overturn state legislation against the will of the majority. If they do, the voters will throw them out and elect judges who will rule as they would have them rule.

My previous post on this issue shows that my concern about the amendment lies primarily with the fact that it leaves the spiritual institution of marriage in the hands of the State by forbidding the creation of civil unions. The creation of civil unions is our only hope for returning the administration of marriage to the Church, leaving the State to administer a godless legal union between any pair of people. While there is plenty of popular support for keeping marriage between a man and a woman, there is significantly less popular support for limiting the role of the government in our lives by getting the State out of the marriage business, and this amendment extinguishes all hope of that development.

Does anyone else find it odd that this issue is even being addressed at the polls? Why should the definition of marriage depend upon a popular vote at the ballot box? The reason is that the State is, for some odd reason, the institution that gets to be in charge of keeping track of who pledges (or pretends to pledge) life-long faithfulness to whom. This is just silly. Why should a secular institution be charged with the administration of a spiritual rite? History should have taught us that secular institutions tend to be poor guardians of spiritual rites, and the State has already shown itself to be a poor guardian of marriage. It freely endorses marriages between people who refuse to make a vow of life-long commitment at the wedding, and it freely administers divorces on the grounds of simple incompatibility.

The only reason it doesn’t seem odd to us that the State would administer a spiritual rite is that it has always been that way, and there hasn’t seemed to be much of a problem with it until the past few decades. Recently, though, the popular conception of marriage has been diverging from its Biblical design, and that has been causing concern among Christian believers.

However, the Christian response to the State’s mishandling of marriage has been odd. Rather than reducing the power of the State over the institution of marriage, Christians have been quick to place even more faith in their government’s ability to administer the sacrament as God intended. In fact, this particular constitutional amendment is about reinforcing the State’s monopoly on marriage, strengthening the State’s grasp on marriage by expressly forbidding the creation of any benign legal unions that might take its place.

What would happen if the State were given the responsibility of administering baptism and gave legal benefits to people who had been baptized? Would we fret over the increasing number of people who pretend to commit their lives to Christ just to obtain the legal benefits? Would we worry about new statistics showing that more and more baptized “believers” were “falling away” from the faith? Would we pass constitutional amendments about who could and who could not be baptized, trusting in our government’s ability to faithfully administer the rite as God intended as long as the Christian community just made enough noise about the matter?

The answers are obvious. We should not trust the State to administer baptism, and we should not trust the State to administer marriage. If people want the legal privileges of being considered jointly in the eyes of the State, that has nothing to do with marriage and should be of no concern to followers of Christ. But as long as civil unions are illegal the State will continue to misuse the spiritual institution of marriage to obtain its secular ends.

The State must do its job of protecting the liberty of its citizens, and the Church must do its job of showing Christ to the world. Any confusion of the two roles is detrimental to both. Civil unions give the State the power to provide legal benefits to any pair of people who choose to be recognized jointly, appropriately making no assumptions about whether or not those people are sexually active. The Church, then, continues in its age-old function of performing the sacrament of marriage, uniting man and wife in a life-long commitment of love and faithfulness. The civil union safely removes the institution of marriage from the secular hands of the State, restoring it to its rightful place.

In order to keep this possibility alive, though, we need to vote “No” on the same-sex marriage ban amendment at the ballot box.

Defending Marriage by Voting "No"

I have received several emails from friends recently reminding me of the upcoming special election on November 8, 2005 in which Texans will be voting on whether or not to add a prohibition against same-sex marriage to the Texas constitution. Americans have recently been scared by the 2003 decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to legalize same-sex marriages against the will of the Massachusetts legislature and the people of Massachusetts.

The purpose of this amendment to the Texas constitution is to prevent the same thing from happening in Texas. Judges must look to their constitution as the highest law in the land, and if they feel that any law passed by the legislature is contrary to their constitution, they can (and should) overturn the law. So, even though Texas already has laws on the books that ban same-sex marriages, the fear is that some judges might someday decide that those laws violate the "equal protection" clause of the Texas constitution. By demonstrating that denying homosexuals the right to marriage denies them the equal protection of the law, some Texas judges in the future could legally overturn our existing laws against same-sex marriage in Texas. If the new Texas constitutional amendment passes on November 8th, no future judge will be able to overturn the laws against same-sex marriage because those laws will be expressly permitted by the Texas constitution.

For those who respect the sanctity of marriage it seems obvious that any attempt to strengthen the bulwark against same-sex marriages can only be good, and many Texans will turn out to vote "Yes" on this constitutional amendment thinking that they are helping to defend the institution of marriage against those who wish to violate it.

It is my opinion, though, that this knee-jerk response on the issue turns out to be the incorrect one. A "No" vote on this constitutional amendment will actually be more likely to preserve the Biblical institution of marriage in Texas' future. Please follow my reasoning carefully; if the citizens of a democratic society do not carefully consider their constitutional amendments, the highest law of the land, there is no higher institution that can correct any mistakes. We have to get this right.

Marriage is a spiritual union. A wedding is similar to a baptism in that it is a physical act with spiritual significance. In this spiritual act of marriage, one man and one woman pledge to love, honor, and remain faithful to one another as long as they both shall live. Regardless of what the State of Texas, the US Congress, the Supreme Court, or the US Constitution has to say about the matter, this will always be the definition of marriage as God ordained it in the Garden.

Because the concept of marriage is so firmly ingrained in our culture, though, it has also become institutionalized in our laws. The problem is that there are legal benefits that encourage people to participate in this act called marriage even if they have no intention of life-long faithfulness and if the marriage has no spiritual significance. People, regardless of their spiritual beliefs, still like to share insurance benefits and retirement benefits. They like to have hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights and the right to make burial decisions. There are close to 1500 special legal privileges given to people with a marriage license that people without a marriage license do not have, so it’s no wonder that people will drop a few bucks at the local courthouse for a marriage of convenience.

Christians have spent a lot of time worrying about the high divorce rate in America. It disturbs us to see so many marriages ending in divorce because we view the act of divorce as an act of rebellion against God, tearing apart by our own will what He has joined together. We also see it as tarnishing a sacrament we hold to be sacred and holy. And when we consider broken Christian marriages we certainly have reason for concern, but does it really tarnish the spiritual institution of marriage when a couple who promises to stay together only "as long as I love you" decides to divorce? I would argue that these marriages of convenience were never really marriages in the first place, at least not in the sacred sense of the word. Their divorce, similarly, is nothing more than the termination of a legal contract. Their divorce has no more spiritual significance than their marriage had to begin with.

Maybe the problem is not that we have a high divorce rate, but that we have a high marriage rate. If the only people who married were those who were seriously committed to remaining faithful to each other for life, the divorce rate would be significantly lower and marriage would have significantly more meaning and value in our culture. But this is not going to happen as long as there continue to be significant legal benefits to marriage that encourage marriages of convenience.

The way to preserve the sanctity of marriage, then, is to separate the concept of the legal union from the concept of the spiritual union. The goal should be to completely remove the institution of marriage from the authority of the State and to return to the Church the practice of uniting a man and woman as one flesh.

In order for this to happen, though, we must create a new type of legal union, separate and apart from marriage, for people who desire the secular, legal benefits currently available to married couples, but who have no desire to be married in the eyes of God. A good name for this is a “civil union”. The civil union is administered by the State and has absolutely no spiritual significance; it is simply a legal construct that allows any two people to be considered jointly in the eyes of the State.

In order to best preserve the holiness of the concept of marriage, it is important that the society make a clear dinstinction between the two concepts. These civil unions should be as far removed from the traditional concept of marriage as possible. Civil unions should be available for any pair of people who would like their shared life to be legally recognized by the State. So, groups of people who would benefit from these civil unions would be elderly siblings who live together, or young singles who share a house together, or a pair of widows supporting each other in their old age. Paul and Barnabas would have been good candidates for a civil union as well.

The civil union has nothing to do with sexuality or physical intimacy, it is simply a legal recognition of a shared life, and as such it poses no threat to the spiritual institution of marriage separately administered by the Church. The civil union only creates “partners”; marriage creates “spouses”. A civil union means “we do our taxes together and share our insurance and retirement benefits”; a marriage means “we have been united by God as one flesh”. Newly married Christian couples would probably want to file for a civil union at the courthouse like everyone else so that they would receive the legal benefits of doing so, but they would recognize that it is their publicly expressed vows of lifelong love and faithfulness and being united in the sight of God that actually makes them man and wife.

It seems to me that if marriage is left in the hands of the State, it will eventually lose all spiritual relevance as more and more people, seeking only its legal benefits, claim its sacred title. The only hope is for the Church to reclaim the spiritual sacrament of marriage, leaving the State to administer a Godless civil union. The complaint of homosexuals is that they are being denied the same legal privileges as heterosexual couples. The response of the Church should be that homosexuals (and anyone else who wants to) may take whatever legal privileges they like as long as they don’t try to redefine the millennia-old concept of marriage as a spiritual union between a man and a woman.

It has been my hope for years that civil unions would one day rescue the institution of marriage from its inevitable decline, but this Texas constitutional amendment will make that impossible. According to the wording of the amendment,

This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

So, the amendment expressly forbids the creation of civil unions which are so necessary for preserving the sanctity of marriage.

I think that if Texas voters think about it a little bit, they will realize that this amendment on the ballot is more of an ideological battle than it is a wise addition to the law. The emphasis is really more on "winning" than on meaningfully affecting marriage in Texas. We already have laws on the books that ensure that marriage is between a man and a woman, and, unlike Massachusetts, Texas judges are popularly elected and will pay dearly at the ballot box for any attempt to overturn those laws. So, there is not even a clear political gain if the amendment passes. Voting "No" to the amendment is not going to legalize homosexual marriage, but voting "Yes" pretty much guarantees that the spiritual institution of marriage will be forever left in the hands of the State, and the past half century should have taught us that God and the State don't share well.

The upcoming vote is seen as an ideological battle between the forces of family values and the forces of moral decay, and the main point of the vote is just to make a statement to the world that there are more of “us” than there are of “them”. But constitutional amendments make poor pulpits for ideological statements. If the amendment passes it may very well be a Pyrrhic victory in which we win the battle but ultimately lose the war. Texans interested in preserving the sanctity of marriage should consider voting “No” to the amendment.

The Body of Christ

The Church is the Body of Christ. It is a living, breathing manifestation of His presence on Earth. When the unbelieving people of the world look at the Church, it is essential that they clearly see our living Savior. Through the Church, they must experience His love, His peace, and His joy. They must be touched by His healing hands and convicted by His living truth.

During His time on earth, there was nothing in Jesus’ physical appearance that attracted people to Him. His followers were attracted by His absolute devotion to His Father, by His selfless compassion for God’s children, and by His courage to speak God’s truth boldly and without reservation. If the Church is to be a light to the world we must shine like Jesus shines. It must be obvious to the world that the Church represents absolute devotion to God, selfless compassion for others, and boldness to speak God’s truth.

It is tempting to think of the Church as a social club rather than as Christ’s presence on Earth, and it is tempting to judge the “success” of the Church in the same way we judge the success of worldly institutions. To the world, a club exists for the benefit of its members. Successful clubs are large and unsuccessful ones are small; successful clubs have aesthetically pleasing facilities and unsuccessful clubs have shabby facilities; successful clubs present a professional and polished appearance and unsuccessful clubs look like amateur productions. The trick to building a successful club is no secret: identify the desirable members and then market to them, providing services and programs that will induce them to join the organization.

The Church so often falls prey to this worldly pattern of thinking. We design our worship services to be pleasing to ourselves and to those members we are trying to attract because successful clubs are member-oriented. We build ornate Church buildings, plush auditoriums and well-decorated educational wings because aesthetically pleasing structures are appealing to members and visitors and are the marks of a successful institution. We hire trained people to plan and lead our worship services and we purchase expensive audio/visual equipment because polished and professional performances are expected of successful institutions.

Congregations, like individuals, can be guilty of materialism, an ungodly focus on physical appearances and on worldly standards of success. For the most part, large congregations have been guiltier of this than small churches, and it is usually possible for Christians who tire of the growing materialism in the Church to escape to a simpler, smaller, “less successful” congregation somewhere else in town. However, even small congregations often succumb to the same temptations as their larger sisters.

The temptation begins when the small congregation’s members and leaders accept the world’s lie and equate their small size and relatively shabby appearance with failure. They reason that their congregation is small or shrinking because they have not provided enough member services to meet the needs of the members who chose to leave and because they have not done enough to make the congregation appealing to visitors. They look at the “success” of the large congregations with a veiled envy and make attempts to emulate the services and programs of the larger congregations in an effort to swell their own ranks. They hire more local ministers, try to make the worship service more polished and more appealing to the members, and give the old church building a little more curb appeal.

The drive to correct the perceived failure is certainly carried out with the best of intentions. The leaders and members of the small congregation want with all their hearts to glorify God and to expand His kingdom here on Earth, and they put their best efforts into doing so. And often their efforts are rewarded. The membership begins to grow, the grounds become more visually appealing, and the activities of the congregation develop a more polished appearance. The congregation can then give themselves a pat on the back for doing the Lord’s work by expanding God’s kingdom. For certainly, they reason, if there are more people in the pews on Sunday then the Lord’s work is being done.

What is sometimes overlooked is the fact that physical and aesthetic changes to the grounds and to the worship service do little more than attract Christian believers who are just looking for a new Church home. They are the religious equivalent of increasing the congregation’s market share of the existing pool of Christian believers in the area, but offer nothing in the way of showing Christ to the world or reaching out to the lost.

Surely such superficial changes can play no role in an unbeliever’s decision to commit his life to Christ, and if so, he is being misled about what a life in Christ is really all about. If the Church expects unbelievers to be drawn to her pews by an attractive building or by a flashy, polished, multi-media worship experience, then the Church is selling the wrong product. The fact that congregations selling this product are overflowing their multi-million dollar facilities is irrelevant. Any local social club that appeals to the desires of its members is going to draw a crowd, and that crowd is going to continue demanding more and more member-oriented amenities because that is why they came in the first place. But just because a congregation is large and “successful” in the eyes of the world does not mean that it is doing the will of the Lord or even expanding his kingdom.

The Church does not need the world to tell her how to reach out to the lost; Christ has already made that perfectly clear. The Church is the body of Christ, and as such she must display His love, His peace, His joy, and His glory just as Christ did during his time on earth. If a congregation is really exemplifying the person of Christ in everything it does, then unbelievers will be drawn by the love of Christ. To attempt to draw people into the body of Christ by an appeal to aesthetics is to deny the attractiveness of the person of Christ himself. If unbelievers are not attracted to the Church, it is not because our auditoriums are drab or our song leaders are uninspiring; it is because the Church is failing in its primary purpose of showing Christ to the world. Just as Christ did, so we must also demonstrate to the world an absolute devotion to our Father, a selfless compassion for God’s children, and the courage to boldly answer the materialism of the world with a radical, living profession of the Lordship of Christ.

My Geek Code

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/P d+ s: a- C++$ U* P++ L+ !E W++ !N !o K? w+++$ !O !M !V PS+ PE++ !Y !PGP t++ !5 X+ !R !tv b++ DI++++ !D G e+++ h---- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------


Read about the Geek Code

Decode my Geek Code

Generate your own Geek Code