Morphemics

Response to "Monday in Massachusetts"

Over on Semper Ubi Sub Ubi there is a post on the potential response of America and of the church to the Massachusetts ruling that has legalized same-sex marriage. It's an overall conservative Christian piece of writing, but I'm going to disagree with it. Consequently, I need to establish some identifying marks to ground my own perspective: I profess Christ; I believe, in accordance with scripture, that homosexuality is a sin; I am opposed to recent events in both the Episcopalian and the United Methodist Churches; I am an American.

How will America react? It's hard to tell. My primary reaction, as an American, has nothing to do with the morality of same-sex marriage. I am more interested in whether or not the Massachusetts state constitution was correctly interpreted and, if not, whether this was an honest misreading or a case of judicial activism. The same problem would exist if the situation were reversed; that is, if an activist judge struck down a law allowing for same-sex marriage. A nation, especially one structured as is ours, can survive laws that allow for immorality much longer than it can survive ignoring the rule of law.

Related to this last point is the distinction that should be made between laws that allow for immorality and the actual practice thereof. I do not see this event as "a serious tear in the fabric of society." That there is a serious problem in society, I will allow. Nevertheless, the legalization of same sex-marriage is not, in this case, the tear. It is, rather, the light exposing the tear. Setting aside the issue of whether this particular ruling was constitutionally viable, the problem is not that the state has decided to legalize same-sex marriage. It is that, upon the effective decriminalization of all but non-consensual sex, society confused the state's tacit confession that it was not equipped to equitably punish this sort of thing with the declaration that it was all okay.

The author, Todd Pedlar, writes that he finds himself "incensed at those who profess Christ but claim that somehow gays and lesbians deserve all the civil benefits of marriage..." Implicit here is the notion that those who think so are acting in contradiction to their profession. I do not believe that this has been established. It would first need to be demonstrated that these benefits are inherently the right of married [heterosexual] couples. It is not enough to point out that they currently enjoy them. If there is in marriage, properly defined, a right to civil benefits, then it is wrong to argue that homosexual couples have this same right. However, I find nowhere in the institution of marriage an entitlement to tax breaks and healthcare. And since this is the case, then giving such benefits to anyone else could not possibly harm marriage. I am not opposed to these benefits for married couples, but I don't see why they should be connected to marriage as such. It makes more sense to me to reward these benefits solely on the basis of close financial interdependence.

Finally, I disagree with the assessment of the church- that it has lost "the will to speak out when things are so obviously wrong." I am far more concerned with a church that has become so caught up in society and the affairs of state that it neglects to speak up when things are so obviously right. The church does not exist to ensure a moral America. It is here to declare the gospel. It is the bride of Christ; its purpose is the glory of the groom. It is not called to spend its time saying to the world, "Live like this." Nothing could be more shallow. The church's message is, "The Bridegroom is coming; repent, and join us at the wedding feast."