Defense of Marriage: Answering Un-Asked Questions

by Marcus Migura

Dr. James Ulmer English 1321 01 April 2011

Migura1

Defense of Marriage: Answering Un-Asked Questions Defense of marriage is a popular topic today. It begs the question: What are we defending marriage from? Are we defending marriage from immorality and indignity? If this is the case then we may support legislation that would require stoning of adulterers (Holy Bible, Deut. 22.22). This would be a myopic misunderstanding of scripture. Professors of piety like Fred Phelps and signers of the Manhattan Declaration, represent the extreme views opposing same sex marriage. Opponents of same sex marriage cite their Christian faith as the cause of their zeal, and as their basis of reason. I oppose the misappropriation of scripture used by these myopic Christian extremists to deceive faithful followers into opposing same sex marriage on the basis of faith. Both the secular and Baptist concept of religious freedom actually give reason to oppose legislation prohibiting same sex marriage. If opponents to same sex marriage find their reason in faith then we must address the influence of faith directly. First lets recognize that the faithful likely believe homosexuality will exclude a man from salvation. If a man is an honest professor of piety, he will trust the value of Holy message, and motivated by love and the desire to bring another to salvation and this is a pious and noble act. Alternatively, if a man is so offended by another mans lack of faith, that he is motivated by pride to force the other to submit, this is not a noble act. Whether a malicious act of pride or a noble attempt to assist another man, both erupt from the unfortunate misunderstanding and misappropriation of scripture. Robert Godfrey provides a description of John Calvin, founder of the modern day Calvinists, that I believe illustrates this all too clearly. Calvin functioned as the chief prosecutor. Servetus was condemned and ordered to be executed by burning at the stakeCalvin and other ministers continued to appeal to Servetus right up to the time of his execution, but Servetus adamantly

Migura2

maintained his heresy. His dying words were, Jesus son of the eternal God, have mercy on me. By those words Servetus maintained even in the flames that Jesus was not himself eternal God (Godfrey 133-134). John Calvin has commandeered the coercive authority of the civil sword, and it is likely this example has the noble motive of creating an obedient Servetus that may then receive the Lords grace. Opponents of same sex marriage may reason that a prohibition of this marriage will create obedience, so that homosexuals may receive grace and thus salvation. However, coerced obedience is false obedience, and will not lead to salvation. Where there is no freedom or responsibility to choose faith there is no authentic faith (Shurden156). Genuine faith cannot be forced or denied by the state (49). The church should not resort to civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends (Hobbs2139). These ideas in addition to the concept of a separation between church and state, are all part of the Baptist concept of religious freedom3. Religious freedom, including the separation of church and state is necessary to permit humanity, including homosexuals, to progress from their state of total depravity, with the voluntarily obedience necessary to achieve authentic faith, to reach salvation. The Baptist idea of religious liberty3 is identical in meaning to the American legal definition of religious liberty4. This secular understanding, like the Baptist understanding includes a separation of church and state. The phrase a Wall of Separation between Church and State, provides an image describing our American concept of the separation between church and state. The origin of this phrase is a letter penned by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church. Numerous Supreme Court Justices have used this wall of separation metaphor to elaborate on the meaning of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution

Migura3

(Dreisbach48, 98-106). The Baptist faith recognizes the religious origin of this concept as being the teachings of Jesus (Hobbs 142). However there are dissenters like Pastor W. A. Criswell5 who said, I believe this notion of the separation of the church and state was a figment of some infidels imagination (qtd. in Shurden 51-52). This he said in contrast to his predecessor, Dr. George W. Truett, for whom Truet Seminary at Baylor University is named, who described the words of Jesus as, once for all, marked the divorcement of church and state (52). I believe men often find comfort in having boundaries for their life drawn like lines on a map; for ages men have disputed where these lines should be drawn and by whom. The current disputes over same sex marriage are in part a modern manifestation of this. This turmoil propagated by the precarious position of marriage, was described well by Jonathan Turley when he wrote, Marriage, however, has always been a conspicuous door placed in the wall of the separation between church and state (Turley). Marriage is widely accepted as a practice of religion, and is even one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic faith. However, in actual practice there is a distinct difference between a religious marriage and a civil marriage. In actual practice the church has yielded authority to governance of marriage to the government (Gaddy6 10). While ceremonies may be performed in the Church, the license is still issued by the state (10). As it stands now the Church is free to deny the marriage ceremony as it sees fit and no church can be obligated, even by the state, to perform a marriage (26). Misunderstanding this distinct difference between civil and religious marriage has created an understandable but unfounded fear, of the state dictating who may and may not marry to the church. Those who propose opposition founded in faith fail to recognize the issue as marriage outside the church. The misunderstanding makes it logical to apply the scriptural moral standard

Migura4

to same sex marriage. This moral standard was never meant to apply to those outside the church, as Richard B. Hayes Dean of Duke Divinity School states in his explanation of the intentions of the Apostle Paul: It should not be forgotten that the community whose unity Paul passionately seeks is not the human community as a whole. Nor is it a pluralistic community within the polis. It is, rather, always the particular community of the church. To be sure, Paul hopes for the ultimate triumph of Gods grace over all human unbelief and disobedience (Rom. 11:32 Phil. 2:9-11). Until that eschatological consummation, however, Paul speaks only to the community of faith. He articulates no basis for a general ethic applicable to those outside the church (41). This description of Pauls intent indicates that the catalog of sin described in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, is intended to apply to those inside the church, and not to those outside the church (41). Likewise if a form of religiously motivated persuasive pressure is to be applied, it is not to be applied outside the church. But homosexuality is sodomy is a catch phrase used by opponents of same sex marriage. Many derive this synonym relationship from scriptural description of the city Sodom (Genesis 18-19). There are multiple interpretations of these passages, and multiple meanings of the term sodomite6. Reducing this scripture to a condemnation of homosexuality ignores the guest host relationship, and a multitude sins, like rape, theft, and murder. Alarmingly, this over simplification reduces righteousness to sexuality, and the logic implies that all one needs to do to be righteous is be heterosexual. But the Definition of marriage is one man and one woman, may be the most common catch phrase. Baptist definition is commonly accepted as a union between one man and one

Migura5

woman. This definition is more a product of American culture than it is religion. In looking for a definition of marriage based in scriptures like Ezra 9, we may find a definition prohibiting interracial marriage. This is the opposite of our current cultural practice. But homosexuals cant procreate. This is the way some offer the infertility of homosexuality as logical reason to harbor hostility for homosexual matrimony. Genesis 1:28; 9:1-7; 35:11 provides procreative purpose to marriage. If infertility is reason to ban gay nuptials, then we may also ban barren brides, gaunt grooms and criminalize contraception. Ironically, this should motivate opponents of homosexuals to support same sex marriage, by virtue of Charles Darwins natural selection. But this is a Christian nation, In God We Trust, is on the dollar. This incorrectly implies we are a Christian theocracy. The strong and almost exclusive Christian influence on our nations construction is undeniable. However, the architects of our nation are explicit in the desire to not limit religious freedom to Christianity, or any one sect, as evidenced by repeated rejection of such narrow language (Sullivan and Gunther 1250). It will cost too much. This statement may have merit. The situation is described by Associate General Counsel Dayna K. Shah in a Government Accounting Office report to Senator Frisk concerning the Defense of Marriage Act, Consequently, as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges (Shah 1). So if homosexuals marry, the government will lose money initially provided by taxation without regard to sexual orientation. Justice Black writes, Madison wrote his great Memorial and Remonstrance against the law. In it, he eloquently argued that a true religion did not need the support of law; that no

Migura6

person, either believer or non-believer, should be taxed to support a religious institution of any kind; that the best interest of a society required that the minds of men be wholly free; and that cruel persecution were the inevitable result of government-established religions. (qtd. in Sullivan and Gunther 1247) As it stands homosexuals are not exempted from taxes, and to deny civil marriage to homosexuals is to deny the benefits they have funded. The general consensus is that the Baptist faith opposes homosexuality, and the logical conclusion is the opposition to same sex marriage. I believe that it is within the ecclesiastical authority to condemn homosexuality, and prohibit same sex marriage in the church. However, I believe it is counter to Baptist doctrine to influence government in an effort to prohibit civil same sex marriage (Hobbs 142). If a homosexual is to be led to the path of righteousness let it be by the merit of Holy message, and not coercion. We should not be blinded by the popularity of the same sex marriage debate, as its opponents indicate the greater threat to religious liberty . I have been led to believe in liberty, restricted only so as to prevent the acts of one group or individual, from denying liberty to another group or individual, thus ensuring Liberty. Having personally witnessed the madness of a theocracy, I honestly believe religious extremism, of any religion, threatens the idea that is our nation, and also fails to bring nonbelievers to salvation.

Migura7

Notes 1. Walter B. Shurden is the founding executive director of the Center for Baptist Studies at Mercer University, retired on 31 December 2007. The Baptist Joint Committee awarded him the J. M. Dawson Religious Liberty Award in June 2006, and the board of directors of the Associated Baptist Press gave him their Religious Liberty Award in October, 2008. 2. Dr. Herschel Harold Hobbs was president of the Southern Baptist Convention from 1961-1963, while also chairing the committee responsible for the statement of church doctrines, known as The Baptist Faith and Message. The Baptist Faith and Message was revised in 2000, however the areas cited in this paper were not amended by the Southern Baptist Convention. 3. Baptist concept of religious freedom (liberty): First, freedom of religion represents a commitment to complete religious liberty and not simply religious tolerationSecond, religious liberty is for all, not for a select few, nor even an overwhelming majority. The Baptist insistence on freedom of religion includes, therefore, freedom from religion. Ones right not to believe is as sacred as ones right to believe Third, Religious freedom means separation of church and state, and not accommodation of church with state. (Shurden 49-50). 4. Religious Liberty: Freedom as guaranteed by the First Amendment of U.S. Constitution, from dictation, constraint, or control in matters affecting the conscience, religious beliefs, and the practice of religion. Freedom to entertain and express any or no system of religious opinions, and to engage in or refrain from an form of religious observance or public or private religious worship, not inconsistent with the peace and good order of society and the general welfare (Religious Liberty).

Migura8

5. Pastor W. A. Criswell, was the senior minister of the largest church in the Southern Baptist Convention in 1984 (Shurden 51-52). 6. Rev. Dr. C. WeltonGaddy is president of Interfaith Alliance, pastor to Northminster (Baptist) Church in Monroe, Louisiana, radio host for State of Belief, and provides religious commentary to reputable national median organizations 7. Sodomite is a character of man describing one that is self-contained, smug, and selfish and of the highest wicked order(The Babylonian Talmud, Aboth 5.10).

Migura9

Works Cited "Religious liberty."Black's Law Dictionary. abr. 5th ed. 1983. 475. Print. Dayna, Shah K. "Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report: GAO-04-353R,." U.S. Government Accounting Office.N.p., 23 Jan. 2004. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. Gaddy, Welton C. "Same-Gender Marriage & Religious Freedom: A Call to Quiet Conversations and Public Debates." Interfaith Alliance. Interfaith Alliance, 15 June 2009. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. Godfrey, Robert W. John Calvin: Pilgrim and Pastor. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2009. Print. Hays, Richard B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament. New York: Harper Collins, 1996. Print. Hobbs, Herschel H. The Baptist Faith and Message. Nashville: Convention Press, 1996. Print. Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton: Crossway, 2007. Print. Shurden, Walter B. The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms. Macon: Smyth &Helwys Publishing, 1993. Print. Sullivan, Kathleen M., and Gerald Gunther.Constitutional Law. 16th ed. New York: Foundation Press, 2007. Print. The Babylonian Talmud: Seder NezikinHorayoth 'EduyyothAboth. Trans. Israel W. Sltoki. Ed. I. Epstein. N.p.: The Rebecca Bennet Publications, 1959. Print. Turley, Johnathan. "How to End the Same Sex Marriage Debate."Editorial.USA Today.USA Today, 2 Apr. 2006. Web. 15 Mar. 2011.