I am a pastor.
For better or for worse, our culture has decided that pastors officiate weddings. Not librarians, not mailmen, not mayors, not IRS-agents.
This is cool with me inasmuch as the Bible does talk about marriage as something God created with a certain purpose behind it. So when people want to follow the Bible, it makes sense that I would officiate their wedding, and it’s a great celebration of following God’s design for sex and romance and love and the definition He gave it therein. It’s an act of worship.
But our country is built on the principle of the separation of Church and State. The authority I have as a pastor is definitely on the Church side of things, not the State side. I can’t arrest you. I can’t collect taxes from you. I can’t make laws. I can’t sentence you to prison.
It’s not that the Church shouldn’t influence the State or that Christians shouldn’t be involved in the State side, but the institution of the Church and the institution of the State are two very different things with two very different purposes. We aren’t a theocracy.
Most pastors don’t go into vocational ministry so they can do weddings; I know I didn’t. Even before the gay marriage debate became popular, I wondered why and how legally officiating marriages got attached to my profession. I get the covenant-between-God portion of it and am all for presiding over that, but why is it up to me to preside over and give someone significant tax and legal benefits?
Did you know there are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law? (Defense of Marriage Act: An Update to Prior Report, General Accounting Office, 2004). Here is a short list of rights that legally married couples have that same-sex partners who would like to be married do not have:
- Surviving spouses of working Americans are eligible to receive Social Security payments, as are surviving parents of a child when a working parent dies.
- Shared Medicare and Medicaid coverage
- Employer-provided health insurance covers both spouses, not just the employed.
- Filing a joint tax return, which avoids many tax penalties and increases overall tax return.
- Tax benefits include: Gain from the Sale of the Taxpayer’s Principal Residence, Estate Tax, Taxation of Retirement Savings
- Medical leave to employees to care for parents, children or spouses.
- Ability to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate, as well as protection against deportation.
- Bereavement leave from work if partner dies
- Automatic inheritance of personal belonging in absence of a will
- Help from courts when divorce happens
- Hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions
- Public housing favor shown
- Joint home and auto insurance
- Protection against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings. Coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs.
- Buy and own property together.
- Withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA’s and other retirement plans.
I know some Christians will say, “Well they don’t deserve these benefits, they are living in sin.” But why are other people living in sin given these same benefits without Christians caring one way or another?
I know Christians want to fight for what the biblical definition of marriage and a family is, but divorce and premarital sex (things many Christians have done) have already culturally redefined it beyond repair. The best we can do is hold up the standard of the Bible as a light, an example for people to be drawn to (We aren’t going to change the fact that people across our culture are not following the traditional plan for sex within a heterosexual marriage that the Bible lays out–this would be an unrealistic and thus futile goal–nor is it the proper starting place for someone to meet and know Jesus).
But does a part of holding up the light of the biblical standard also have to include lobbying to deprive legal rights from those who aren’t following our Bible’s commands? And if the answer to that is yes, then why are only homosexual relationships singled out for this discrimination/legislation, and not all sorts of heterosexual sins the Bible also commands against? Why aren’t people who divorce and remarry also deprived of all of the legal rights listed above? For the Bible is very clear on this in Matthew 5:32, “But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” As well as Matthew 19:9, “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” These Scriptures are just as clear as the ones saying homosexual acts are sinful, yet we don’t lift a finger to take legal rights away from people who are committing the sin of remarriage after divorce. Maybe we should be if we are to be consistent? And this argument doesn’t even include heterosexual sins that are much harder to monitor and legislate against such as pornography and lustful thoughts–things that to be consistent, we’d also have to remove legal rights from people who willfully did these things, as these too are just as biblically damaging to marriage and the family as homosexual acts are.
(CLICK HERE FOR PART 2 OF THIS ARTICLE)
Related posts:
He is:
Author of Beyond the Battle: A man's guide to his identity in Christ in an oversexualized world
Host of the The Flip Side Podcast
Join an online men's small group led by Noah and team at BeyondTheBattle.net
- Ep. 107: Mark & Beth Denison on Betrayal Trauma - November 4, 2024
- When “I follow the Lamb, not the Donkey or the Elephant” falls short - October 31, 2024
- Why We Can’t Merge Jesus With Our Political Party - October 24, 2024
I think you may be on to something with the “gameo” idea though I don’t think it really stop the controversy. You’d still have folks clamoring to know why they are denied the “right” to the religious ceremony.
I think the whole concept of “denying rights” is an exercise in linguistic gymnastics anyway – you can’t deny something that doesn’t already exist. I see those “right” more as privileges that are extended to promote certain behavior because that behavior has been deemed beneficial to society. I see an analogy with HOV or HOT lanes. The government wants to encourage the behavior of car pooling and conservation of fuel so they extend certain privileges to those who meet the criteria.
I hear ya John, I think with your comment: “I see those “rights” more as privileges that are extended to promote
certain behavior because that behavior has been deemed beneficial to
society” —that the question up for debate is: who gets to determine what behavior is deemed beneficial for society and what those privileges are therein? I’m arguing if it’s a societal privilege, let society (government, law, etc.) determine that. If it’s a church privilege, let the church determine that. But the things the gay community is upset about are societal/civic privileges like tax and insurance benefits, but the Church gets thrown in as the culprit of the one depriving them of these privileges (because often the Church is arguing for that, where I think our energy should be used elsewhere).
THIIIISSSSS!
Haha, thanks Chris; and thanks for sharing and spreading the word on your Facebook page, I appreciate it and hope it’s helpful to your friends
Noah, you’re putting forth some needed clarity in moral reasoning. It is so easy to just put on earmuffs and conflate several arguments into each other; that’s why this conversation is often unproductive and why we have a knack for talking past each other!
Sadly, many don’t catch that the Bible never tied the status of marriage to the myriad of legal, social, and domestic issues that contemporary society has now raised.
Many think that justice, benefits/privileges, and rights should be based purely on what philosophers call “moral desert” (deservedness); which is actually antithetical to the notion of grace. As you point out via Matthew 5:44-45, Jesus indicated that God doesn’t necessarily withhold good from the undeserving… I wonder if those around Jesus accused Him of condoning sin when He said this? I wonder the same thing about the parable of prodigal son, who received the father’s wealth to go be immoral…
While a civil union (or whatever it may be called) is an unbiblical construction; unconditionally loving and doing practical good to those who live in the midst of unbiblical constructions is an entirely Biblical notion that Christians should be okay with … and something that would generate a lot less hatred and drama in the meantime.
Well said Justin, than you. Generating less hatred and drama would be very helpful; that’s really my heart in all of this.
Noah, this is truly an interesting take that I will need to think more upon. A question that just came to my mind as I was reading your article is, “So what happens when a member of a homosexual marriage comes to Christ?” To continue to engage in the monogomous sexual relationship as the Bible instructs would be in conflict with its other teachings on heterosexual gameo. Are we then to counsel our brother or sister in Christ to divorce their spouse (1 Corinthians 7:12-16)? Or to practice celibacy within the marriage relationship (1 Corinthians 7:1-5)? That doesn’t smell right either.
So what is the solution? I’m not certain.
Come, Lord Jesus.
Hey Doug, “Come, Lord Jesus” indeed! Ya that’s a very sticky situation. I think it’s important to remember that a new Christian is a baby Christian and that this obviously all has to start with Jesus and his power to change their heart. That’s a big motivation of mine: start with Jesus, not morality, then let the power of Jesus and his Spirit change people’s hearts. Getting down to the nitty gritty of pastoral counseling / discipleship: I think you’ve got to go with the gameo as a trump card over the legal ‘marriage’ document that will no doubt exist very soon for same sex couples. Jesus called people to pick up their crosses, even using as specific examples of Matthew 10:37 “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;” –I don’t think that means someone is not a Christian / going to hell if they don’t leave their partner, but it definitely is the path of maturity and obedience that Scripture points out for them and something that would have to be graciously and carefully counseled to them
I beg to differ with you. Other people “living in sin” (i.e., not gay but cohabitating, heterosexual) are NOT getting the benefits in most states. In fact, where I work, no heterosexual co-habitating couple is eligible for each other’s benefits, whereas gay couples ARE. The reason given? Those hetero co-habitators can marry whenever they want. But since gay marriage isn’t legal here yet, it is not the gay couples fault for co-habitating unwed – therefore only they are given the benefits.
Hi Sandi, are you referring to states where gay marriage is legal, though is still isn’t legal on a federal level? I’ve wondered how this works: Are those states able to give federal benefits to those couples?
I think it makes sense that cohabitating heterosexuals don’t have the marriage benefits even in a state that allows for gay marriage. The problem that you mention therein shows the problem with making marriage a matter of cultural subjectivity instead of something God defines. So in that case, I’ll let the political process duke that out–with my point being the same: Let me as a pastor give the Bible’s sanction of a covenantal marriage, the way the Bible lays that out (which would also not include heterosexual cohabitants) and keep us (pastors) out of the whole debate over who gets legal benefits and who doesn’t based on who they live with. I think it only highlights the problem of when you ignore an objective authority such as the Bible, something America did a long long time ago, and replace it with a subjective one like people’s opinions of what is fair and unfair, which is going to be ever changing and ever inconsistent. I think the solution of naming Christian marriage something different than culture’s, something true to the biblical language, would make everyone happy because most people wouldn’t even seek this type of sacred validation of their marriage, but for pastors it would allow us to only focus our authority on this validation definition and not on legal authority, something that doesn’t fit into our job descriptions.
Wow! I can’t believe this is being discussed. First, God did not associate marriage with the benefits the law gives a married couple. This is purely something that is man made so the church is simply holding up God’s Word. Second, the gay community claims they are marrying for love, not the benefits that come with it. So it doesnt make sense for you to day that gay people are mad because we are denying them there rights. Im hetrosexual and didnt get married for these benefits. Third, anything that goes against his Word is wrong and if the church doesn’t uphold his Word society will continue to collapse morally. God doesn’t say we should not obey his Word because it will make people feel a certain way. We are taught to correct each other (rebuke) so that we can learn right from wrong. His Word was written out of love, not to cramp your style. He is looking out for our best interest.God hates all sin the same but he loves the sinner. The gay community is not the only community who feels their rights are being stepped on.
Dear Anonymous, “Wow! I can’t believe this is being discussed” is not a very helpful way / loving tone to have a constructive conversation about. That is unfortunate. Some thoughts to consider:
*many in the gay community are marrying for the legal benefits. They’ve had love for a long time. They want what heterosexuals get as well. That’s why they themselves call it an “equal rights” issue
*I never said the Church is not to hold up God’s Word. It’s that we hold it up to the believing community, while evangelizing to the unbelieving community (1 Corinthians 5:12)