Saturday, June 27, 2015

Judgement, Grace, The Supremes & Same-Sex Marriage

I didn't have time today to write everything I wanted in reaction to the legalization of same-sex marriage, so I decided to do a mere Facebook post on the subject. But that itself turned itself into a basic blog post--foiled by my own good intentions! Here it is:

Darn it! I was going to write up an erudite treatise on yesterday's Supreme Court decision that was going to bring the house down. You would have wept from its eloquence, wisdom and undeniability.
But there's too much, I can't do it. Too much sun, too many things to do to prepare for the baby on the way, too many fireworks to buy, too many chores.

But I cannot let it pass without saying anything--so here is your Reader's Digest version: I was happy about the decision. I couldn't help myself. Let's set aside my personal religious instruction for a moment (of which my honest answer is--I just don't know what to think about sexual orientation and its proper relationship to the will of God right now; it's not that I don't have thoughts on it—I just don't know which ones are correct—if any—and I'm ok with that for the foreseeable future)—I was happy that so many were happy, I was happy because it felt like justice, happy that this stupid, horrible battle in the culture war maybe took one great leap forward in being put to rest.

A word to my Christian brothers and sisters who don't know what to think, or are unhappy, about yesterday's decision: The Constitution and the Bible are not one and the same. It is possible to support the right to same-sex marriage even if you don't agree with it personally. We have been lied to by our leaders into making sexual orientation into the winner-take-all battle/core issue that it has become. We've lost good friends/family and cultural influence because of our disproportionate war on sexual orientation—and the sooner we restore it to the complicated, little wrinkle in Scripture that it is, the better. The thing about this war is that it is make believe—if you crawl out of the trenches you'll find there were never liberal, godless cannons pointed at you in the first place—just a bunch of broken people (like you and me), trying to make their way in the world, trying to do right by the fading, weak flashlight beam we all have to light our path.

If you think that's long, brother, you have no idea the novel you were in for if this was a rainy October morning and my kids were somehow occupied.

2 comments:

ochobrinko said...

thanks for posting, jason.

it's a tough topic because, for me, i'm not against the people, i'm against the sin so i would just say let's afford people rights -- let unions occur but provide it its own name. marriage was defined as the union of a man and a woman so why would folks outside that definition seek it?

let's look at another example of a religiously instituted tradition/definition: the jewish bar mitzvah. as i understand it, this is a proceeding for a young man so... what about females or gay young men? what if they want a bar mitzvah? it has a definition and a party to the thing that makes it what it is. if said female/gay male determined they wanted to enter the next stage of their youth (or whatever), then set something up for them. but we don't dare challenge these religiously rooted /defined processes. why not? what about muslims and their shit? let's have at it! we've got it opened up so we should just start redefining everybody's junk. good times.

JD said...

A commenter! I must respond without alienating, so as to encourage more of this behavior.

Yeah, that whole "hate the sin, love the sinner" was a nice slogan for several years, but it was just that--words, not actions. If we only apply that phrase to one tiny group of people, with one specific sin--and we do--then there's something fishy with that. I don't think the gay community is "feeling the love," so we must re-tool.

The other thing I would say is that the institution of marriage has always been culturally conditioned and socially constructed. In the OT marriage was an issue of property rights, you could have as many wives as you could afford, and you could throw in sex slaves (concubines) for good measure, and God did not have an issue with this--see the entire OT for such examples. Christians are fond of saying "marriage is between one man and one woman," but God was cool with other arrangements, which, to me, makes the whole claim suspect.

But maybe the most important point is that Christians need to get their shit straight in terms of what they think the difference between a democracy and a theocracy is, and what the different they think there is between the constitution and the Bible. I think there is a lot of confusion there...and it's really hurting our cause. Christians don't do so good when at the levers of traditional power in society...maybe we'll do better in the margins, which is very much where we are headed.