Saturday, 12 May 2012

  • Some Thoughts on Amendment One

    By Sharon at SheWorships

    Last week I was home in North Carolina visiting family and friends, which made for interesting timing. It was the week leading up to NC’s Marriage Amendment vote, which means I was inundated with information, debates, and commercials for both sides. Because I now live in Illinois I was admittedly uneducated about many of the nuances of the debate, so last week was a bit of a crash course for me.

    After a week of reading about the issue and discussing it with people on both sides, I confess that I still find much of it to be very confusing. While a lot of North Carolinians have very strong convictions on either side of the debate, I found it to be exceedingly complex, and at times Ike and I both found ourselves scratching our heads over the details.

    Having said that, I will not comment directly on the amendment here. I still don’t have a firm enough grasp on the legislation to speak knowledgeably about it. What I do want to comment on is the way this particular conversation is taking place.

    Although the Marriage Amendment was a highly divisive issue in North Carolina, it did initiate conversation about gay marriage, and to an extent that has not really happened in North Carolina before. It is an important issue that warrants attention, so the increased dialogue was a good thing. However, the manner in which North Carolinians’ disagreements were aired was not always productive, and that’s what concerns me. I want to touch on that issue today, and I’ll begin by addressing Christians who are against the amendment before moving on to those who are for it.

    Gay rights is frequently articulated as the civil rights issue of our day. I know many Christians who believe this to be true, and have advocated loudly and whole-heartedly for equal rights in the homosexual community. In addition to the fact that these Christians often have a much more nuanced theological account of sexuality than conservatives give them credit for, I tend to believe that this branch of the church is doing the important work of interceding for the weak and the marginalized in our society. Though I may not always see eye to eye with these brothers and sisters on all aspects of the issue, I appreciate their Christlike desire to stand between the persecutor and the persecuted. That is what Jesus called us to do.

    That said, the language of “civil rights” is tricky and can be polarizing. The term is connected to our nation’s collective remorse about real and terrible sins that we have committed against members of our country. And because of this, I fear that the language of civil rights can, at times, oversimplify the arguments in play. By employing civil rights language, it can shut down conversation by pitting the freedom fighters against the homophobes, a dichotomy that hardly does justice to those who believe homosexuality is wrong.

    That is not to say that homophobia and opposition to homosexuality are not always related. Many times they are. But to dismiss those who disagree with gay marriage or homosexuality as mere bigots is to be unfair and even manipulative. Many Christians in the church are honestly, humbly, and genuinely wrestling with the teachings of Scripture and the vast witness of the Church on this matter. They are weighing what they know of Christian teaching with their love for gay friends and family members. For many Christians, their conclusions are not rooted in fear but in study, conviction, and love of God and neighbor.

    That said, Christians who disagree with homosexuality but are not doing so in hate, aggression, or violence should have the freedom to disagree without being called names by other Christians. They are not “unenlightened,” they are not “idiots,” and that kind of language has got to stop. It is divisive, it is untruthful, and it does not belong in the church, my friends.

    With that in mind, I will now move on to those who supported the amendment.

    I believe that Christians should have the freedom to disagree with the culture on the issue of homosexuality. I am someone who disagrees with much of the culture on this matter. However (and this is a BIG , underscored “however”), Christians who do so need to take responsibility for the fact that our disagreement can have real and terrible consequences for the gay community. In fact, our disagreement HAS had terrible consequences for the gay community.

    The reality is that the church has been behind much of the hardship facing gays and lesbians in our nation today. Countless gays and lesbians have heart-breaking stories of being black-balled from their church communities after having been informed that God “hates” them or that they are going to Hell. This is to our shame, and we need to take responsibility for this sin.

    As I mentioned before, Jesus set an example of protecting the persecuted, and the church has often been on the wrong side of this equation. Whether or not we agree with homosexuality, we are called to love the LGBT community and protect them from harm if they need it.

    I suspect that many Christians underestimate how critical the need is. We see gay and lesbian celebrities who enjoy fame, success, and positive attention, or we watch television shows that glamorize the gay lifestyle. These examples lead to the false impression that it is no longer hard to be gay in our country, so Christians respond defensively, as if we are the ones without power.

    But television is not real life. Much of what we see in Hollywood bears no resemblance to the actual, lived experience of gays and lesbians in our country. Their path is hard, it is lonely, and it is often full of pain. And unfortunately, Christians often contribute to that pain.

    Knowing this, we must consider our language about homosexuality carefully and soberly. Although I disagree with the direction that many mainline Christian denominations have taken in the last decade, I have been hesitant to write about it for this very reason. I know that my words have the potential to cause suffering, and I take that very, very seriously.

    For me, the question of sexuality and marriage in our country runs much deeper than the discussions currently taking place about homosexuality. Many heterosexuals in the church have an incredibly fractured understanding of sex and marriage, so that is where I choose to spend my time writing. I do that not as a cop out to avoid the issue, but because I am still learning how to balance my convictions with Jesus’ call to love everyone.

    As I continue to navigate these muddy waters I know I will do so imperfectly, but I hope to do so humbly. Self-righteousness is never a Christian virtue, but on this particular matter in which Christians have done so much harm, self-righteousness is especially inappropriate. As we continue to dialogue about this issue we must confess our sin and our fear, and reject the temptation to construe one another in overly simplistic stereotypes. We are brothers and sisters in Christ–may our language reflect this conviction.

Comments (23)

  • god_stories@xanga
    'I know that my words have the potential to cause suffering, and I take that very, very seriously.'
    Its a gift to recognize that words have power, but perhaps by seeing that your words are part of a conversation your burden may feel lighter.
    Here's another voice with powerful words.  As we continue in conversation together (thanks, God, for blogging), I'm confident God's grace and love will be revealed to the world!!
    http://www.revelife.com/762673163/gay-marriage-and-polygamy-legal-ethical-and-mora%E2%80%A6/
  • PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga

    The issue is simple: preserve the definition of marriage.

    What is so complicated about that?

    An a vote of 61 - 39 in favor of the amendment show overwhelming support for it, not divisiveness.

    And Christian teachings on this subject are clear, not muddy.

    It it bothersome when pro-gay rights people try to tell everyone that simple is complicated, unity is division and clarity is murky.

    It is a sign that a position is the wrong one when in order to believe in it, it requires believing in an alternate reality.

  • Shadowrunner81@xanga

    To the OP, thank you for writing about this issue. I am one of the Christians wrestling with this issue. Happy Mother's Day.

  • UnconventionalButterfly@xanga
    Yes, they ARE doing it in hate. How? This simple phrase: "God hates fags".
  • thepsychoticraccoon@xanga

    Personally, I see the arguments against gay marriage as being largely religious ones. I don't care if churches ban gay marriage, because the government has no right butting in to people's religions... as long as people's religions don't butt into the government.

    I think there are a lot of religious people who don't realize that there are two kinds of marriage in this country -- religious marriage by a church and secular marriage by the government. These two kinds are often linked, but there's a reason why atheists like myself aren't banned from seeking marriage: the governmental institution of marriage is separate from the religious institution of marriage. The union of two people under the law is not always the same as the union of two people under God.

    There was a Catholic woman in my lit class who was talking about this, who was against gay marriage -- what stopped her was that she was focused completely on religious marriage. When it came to legal marriage, she said that was fine, as long as it "wasn't called marriage". I don't get it. Honest question: are there many people who don't realize that religion doesn't have a monopoly on the word "marriage"? She was adamant that "marriage" only meant one thing: marriage in the eyes of God. She insisted that for gays it should be called something different, like civil unions, etc, and it would still allow them to have the legal benefits of a married couple.

    But honestly, why bother creating a new term? I don't care if churches don't want to marry gay couples. That's their prerogative. But there are many American citizens who are not religious, and thus other people's religious views should not be forced upon them.

  • TheSutraDude@xanga

    something to consider if you have not already. a few days ago i watched as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said the sole purpose of marriage is to procreate. i watched him then try to backtrack as someone pointed out there are heterosexual couples who cannot conceive yet are allowed to be in marriage and not so many decades ago it was illegal in this country for heterosexuals to marry someone of a different race even though they were capable of procreating and oftentimes wanted to. today we as a nation are past that though in the minds of some people interracial marriage is still wrong. 

  • PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga

    @thepsychoticraccoon@xanga - Most of the arguments I have presented here on Xanga are secular arguments and treat Christian culture like any other culture.

    Christianity is integral to American culture and gay marriage presents a frontal assault on Christian culture and Christian values.

    If an American went to France and declared that he was going to fight to destroy French culture it would be only natural for the French to respond negatively toward their own destruction.
  • SisterMae@xanga

    @UnconventionalButterfly@xanga - God doesn't hate anyone not even satan he wishes for everyone to find peace and salvation

  • ninetailedevee@xanga

    Any law or constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional per the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. The fact that a majority was allowed to vote on the rights of a minority goes against everything this country was founded on. The founders went through a hell of a lot of trouble and time to ensure that no entity had more power than another. You see it framed in how the government works and in checks and balances. The fact that these types of things are even allowed to go up to public vote is wrong. I wonder what the world would be like now if 250 or so years ago states got to vote on whether slaves should be freed. I wonder what the world would be like now if interracial marriage was put up to public vote. Keep in mind both those things people defended on the basis of religion. Those who wanted slaves felt entitled to slaves because of the bible. Some of the very same arguments used against same sex marriage now, which are mostly rooted in religion, are the same ones used against interracial marriage. Opponents said that it would cause society to decline and would open the door to other forms of marriage such as incestuous marriage or inter species marriage.

    I don't care what your religion says about gay marriage. You are not allowed to impose your religious beliefs on my life.

  • Melissa___Dawn@xanga

    @PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - Wrong again, Curtis.  Loving v. Virginia (1967) federally established marriage as a civil right.

  • PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga

    @Melissa___Dawn@xanga - Loving vs. Virginia concerned discrimination based on race. 

    Homosexuality is a sexual proclivity. There is no connection between one's sexual practices and race.

    So your analogy is a total failure. Gays are an extremely successful demographic and were never sold into chattel slavery like African blacks.

    The attempt by the gay community to equate their sexual practices with African slaves is reprehensible, self serving and a clear sign that gay sexuality has no merit without raping merit from people who actually suffered a deprivation of their human rights.

  • Melissa___Dawn@xanga

    @PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - You said that marriage is not a civil right, however, the ruling on Loving v. Virginia clearly stated that marriage is a civil right - therefore, the analogy is correct.  It is unconstitutional to deny equal civil rights to citizens, it is unconstitutional to deny to homosexual couples the right to marry.

  • PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga

    @Melissa___Dawn@xanga - The ruling made no such claim. And even if it did, sexual proclivity is not the same as race. Race was the issue in Loving v Virginia not sexual appetite.

    There is no comparison between a person's sexual appetite and the color of their skin. 

    Homosexuals are among the wealthiest most influential demographic. They were never rounded up and sold into chattel slavery simply because they were homosexuals.

    It is reprehensible for gays to power their sexual appetites into a civil right off the backs of black slaves.  

    There is absolutely nothing prohibiting homosexuals from loving whom they want or living with whom they want or engaging any contractual arrangements with regard to lifestyle.

    The intent to redefine marriage is the usual leftist tactic of using a minority group to destroy the established institutions and traditions of American culture.

  • tst08@xanga

    my religion says I have to believe in jesus, but to also believe he and all men are liars by nature, and probably very, very cruel hateful beings. that said, even though I think jesus was a suicidal masochist, it's only because this suicidal masochist was one first.


    now let me do drugs or i'm going to sink your fucking economy and corrupt your children
  • FullTruthSeeker@xanga

    @TheSutraDude@xanga - Interracial couples share the core value of fidelity with the idea of Marriage.  That's the important difference.  Some surveys show gays are not so interested in fidelity and nearly half are okay with 'open' marriages.  In Mexico the truth quickly followed when after SSM was given the green light by their Supreme Court then the homosexuals went to them and asked for a marriage license that would make it a simple matter to terminate the marriage after 2 years.  They didn't get that from the Bible.  SSM is not a private matter.  Gay states get gay foster parents. Children Deserve an upbringing according to social norms.  - Kind regards,

  • TheSutraDude@xanga

    @FullTruthSeeker@xanga - there are gay couples who have spent their lives together and many heterosexual marriages are not necessarily the models of fidelity. if a guarantee of fidelity is the criteria by which marriages are given validation we should probably ban marriage altogether for everyone. 

    my point about interracial marriage is there was a time they were illegal based largely on the religious belief that they were immoral and unGodly unions. interracial marriages are no more or less worthy of respect than any other marriage and one does not have to think hard to think of two very high profile interracial marriages that didn't work out so well in terms of fidelity. 

  • lydialynn2012@momaroo

    @SisterMae@xanga - how did you come to that conclusion? 

  • SisterMae@xanga

    @lydialynn2012@momaroo - By reading, praying and studying the God I have placed my faith in is a fair God and a loving God...He allowed his son to die on the cross that is how much he loves

  • lydialynn2012@momaroo

    @SisterMae@xanga - Ok just curious, because Jesus is pretty clear that Satan is going to be destroyed, and I never see him wishing him any peace, but maybe you didn't necessarily mean it that way?

  • SisterMae@xanga

    @lydialynn2012@momaroo - If Satan decided to be a good guy again I am pretty sure he would be forgiven...but some how I just don't think Satan is willing to do that but if he did God would take him back because God is a loving God. Just like we are forgiven when we repent and ask for forgiveness and salvation

  • lydialynn2012@momaroo

    @SisterMae@xanga - Ok I see what you're saying.Just took me off guard at first.

  • GodlessLiberal@xanga

    It's refreshing to hear this side of the story, and for a Christian to acknowledge just how much harm their anti-homosexual beliefs can have on somebody if not expressed properly. I've had multiple friends hurt terribly by their churches and the people within them espousing the exactly the hateful homophobia you talked about.

  • sowheline@xanga

    Hello

    my name is Heline, it's my pleasure to drop you some words just to say Hello and how was your day? well i will like to known little more about you, and also i want to tell you more about my self,(helinejustin@hotmail.com)please i will be very happy if you will reply me via my email address so that we can move further for knowing each other (helinejustin@hotmail.com) Thanks I'm waiting for your reply,Yours Heline

    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    ¡Hola

    mi nombre es Heline, es un placer que te deje unas palabras sólo para decir hola y cómo fue tu día? así me gustaría conocer algo más acerca de usted, y también quiero decirle más sobre mi mismo, (helinejustin@hotmail.com)por favor, seré muy feliz si usted me responda a través de mi dirección de correo electrónico para que podamos seguir avanzando para saber uno del otro (helinejustin@hotmail.com) Gracias estoy esperando su respuesta,Yours Heline

  • Sign in to Comment

  • Give eProps (?)

About the Author

  • sheworships
    • From: sheworships
    • Name: Sharon
    • About Me: Sharon Hodde Miller is a North Carolina girl, born and raised! She is originally from Charlotte, NC, and she received her undergraduate degree and Masters of Divinity from Duke University. Sharon has worked for Proverbs 31 Ministries where she was a contributing writer to the ministry’s daily devotions and radio broadcasts. She has written for Relevant Magazine’s online articles, Lifeway’s Collegiate Magazine, Ungrind Webzine, and she continues to write and minister to women all over the world about being a Christian woman in an ever-changing culture. Sharon currently lives in Durham, North Carolina with her husband, who is currently pursuing a Master of Divinity at Duke Divinity School. If you would like to contact her regarding a speaking or writing opportunity, if you have any questions, or would like to submit a blog topic, please e-mail her at sharon(at)sheworships(dot)com.
    Stats: This Week All Time
    Posts: 1 320
    Views: 284 245731
    Comments: 3 2708
    View all posts by sheworships

Who recommended?