Gay Thoughts: My reaction to Proposition 8

Granted, this blog may get me in trouble with a lot of people but the debate about proposition 8 in California which would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry has created a plethora of issues for people to think about. I can't help but write my comments down. At the heart of this debate is not only what one thinks of homosexuality but also what one thinks of democracy or majority vote.

A little background about this issue: "Proposition 8 is a California State ballot proposition that would amend the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman. It would overturn a recent California Supreme Court decision that had recognized same-sex marriage in California as a fundamental right. The official ballot title language for Proposition 8 is 'Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.' The entirety of the text to be added to the constitution is: 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'

The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $35.8 million and $37.6 million, respectively, becoming the highest-funded campaign on any state ballot that day and surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest. The proponents argued for exclusively heterosexual marriage while claiming that failure to change the constitution would require changes to school curriculum and threaten church tax benefits. The opponents argued that eliminating the rights of any Californian and mandating that one group of people be treated differently from everyone else was unfair and wrong."

The California secretary of state will publish the official final election results on December 9, 2008. As of right now, the vote stands:

Yes on proposition 8 (banning same sex marriage): 5,682,924 votes (52.3%)
No on proposition 8 (recognizing same sex marriage): 5,193,672 votes (47.7%)

A close vote to be sure. Now I foresee, and I could be wrong, a judge or judges in California working their activist benches and overturning what the majority of voters in California have put into law. This brings me to the first point:

1) What do we think about democracy? If America is a democracy and a clear majority of voters have decided on an issue, should a judge be able to overturn what the majority has actually voted for? To me, this would be like a judge saying, "John McCain is president" even though the majority of America has voted for Barack Obama.

In a secular democracy (which I believe America is), the appropriate thing for gay rights activists to do would be to put another initiative together for the next election. America is a marketplace of ideas and people from all different perspectives are out there advocating their positions. Then we vote on those positions. That's how I believe America should be.

2) The issue of gay marriage promotes an interesting dilemma for those who call themselves "conservative" in regard to politics. The conservative agenda (indeed the one that usually separates conversatives from liberals- unless your name is George W Bush) is the issue of limited government. Ideally, conservatives want to see as little of government as possible in their lives. They tie the idea of limited government to freedom. This is a glorious idea that involves people deciding what they want for their lives (with as little government interference as possible) so long as they are not infringing on someone else's rights.

When it comes to gay marriage, people are arguing for the issue of two consenting adults. Here is the question for conservatives: does a secular government have the right to tell two consenting adults what they can do in their own bedroom? Does a secular government have the right to define a relationship, according to specific terms, for two consenting adults? This is an interesting issue for those who believe in "limited government".

Of course, the presuppositions are as follows: America is not a theocracy and is not a Christian nation. I believe both of these statements. Believe me, I do not want Jesus' name being associated with some of the things that America has done. And it seems to me incredibly silly to call a block of land "Christian". I realize a person can be a Christian or not a Christian...but a land mass?

3) What do we think about homosexuality theologically or what does the Bible say about homosexuality or how should we think about homosexuality as a moral issue? There are around 7 passages which address the issue of homosexuality in all the Bible or atleast directly allude to the act. I want to focus on one particular passage written by the Apostle Paul.

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done." (Romans 1:24-28, ESV)

The passage of Romans chapter 1, in context, is talking about people who invert God's original plan. People take up worshiping the creature or the creation RATHER than the Creator. They take up same-sex passions and relationships RATHER than abiding by the original order of male and female. Although some contemporary theologians try and make this passage about homosexual gang rape, pedophilia, or other nefarious activites, it seems like Paul is making a lengthy case in regards to any same sex relationship in the eyes of God. Notice the words about giving up "natural relations" and being "consumed with passion for one another". This seems like consensual homosexual relations, not forced rape.

I believe the Bible makes the case that homosexuality is a sin. It is important to note that homosexuality is not a special category of sin (as some people seem to make it out to be). Homosexuality is a sin just like pre-marital sex is a sin, adultery is a sin, or lusting after someone is a sin.

Those facts make us ALL guilty of sexual sin and thereby in need of the Savior, Jesus. Although I may be labeled as a fascist bigot or other colorful words, this is my position that I base on my study of Scripture.

Conclusion: There are complexities to this issue. I may believe that homosexuality is a sin but how do I approach this issue in a secular democracy, of which the ideals include people who are free to choose the kind of life that they want to live? Christianity should never be forced on anyone and no one should be coerced to follow Scriptural principles.

However, the question remains. How should Christians think about the relationship of their faith to government action or representing their particular perspective at the polls? The conundrum is we live in a very diverse society that is inclusive of people who are going to want to choose to behave the way that they want too. Diverse religions, lifestyles and political views. Most of us believe that government should not suppress these as long as no one else's rights are being violated.

Anyways, some controversial (as they say) food for thought.