“Why do homosexuals require it to be called marriage?†a friend recently asked me. “Why are civil unions not enough?†This was a friend that was willing to support civil unions giving homosexual couples all the rights and privileges of marriage without the name ((I do not share this position.)) But he did not understand why the they required the name marriage.
A day or two later, I saw Obama answer a question on the program The View which revealed the real answer to this question. Listen to his answer about why he now believes civil unions are not enough,
“Part of my believing ultimately that civil unions were not sufficient…was partly because of the issues of social security benefits or other laws…part of it was also just knowing friends and family, people that I had gotten to know who had these wonderful relationships, and they would say to me, ‘You know what, the words matter. So even though you are a strong supporter of civil unions, somehow it still says we are different.’ And that particular set of conversations that I had was ultimately what led me to this decision.â€
This line is key: “You know what, the words matter. So even though you are a strong supporter of civil unions, somehow it still says we are different.†I believe this is the real reason they require the term marriage. Homosexuals want someone, anyone, everyone to tell them that they are not different than they ought to be. And why?
I would suggest it is because homosexuals are constantly met with the reality that they are fundamentally different. Nature makes the case against them in so may ways. For instance, every homosexual couple that desires children is smacked in the face with the reality that they are different from those in heterosexual marriage. They cannot produce a child by themselves.
Ultimately, I believe what homosexuals are looking for is a balm for their troubled conscience. All of us should be familiar with this desire. Each of us look for people to tell us that the sins we want to keep in our lives are normal. We want them to assure us that we are not different than we ought to be.
But there is only one balm for troubled consciences. Only repentance of sin and reception of the forgiveness of Christ can bring relief. Only the Spirit can bring new life. Christ die, rose, ascended and sent the Spirit for all of us that are different than we ought to be. If we simply find others to tell us we are not different than we ought to be, we may feel better for a moment, but our conscience will violently return with all its accusations again.
We do nothing loving when we tell those who are different than they ought to be that they are not. We simply are offering a bandage for an ailment that only death and resurrection can provide cure.
We as Christians do a disservice to homosexuals we talk to when we do not recognize that this is more than a social movement for civil rights. Only when we realize that homosexuals are struggling with a troubled conscience can we understand them and speak to them properly. Only then can we be empathetic to their situation. After all, it is one we know well. For we too have sin we would love to keep but out conscience and God’s law tells us we must leave them behind. And so we approach homosexuals as we do all who are sinning without repentance. We do so recognizing that we too know the love of sin. We seek to correct them that they might live and pray that they will do the same for us and any sins we wish to keep in our lives. We desire the death of no sinner, but wish that all would turn and live.
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to attribute the struggle for marriage equality to a guilty conscience. In the days before Loving v. Virginia, if interracial couples had been offered civil unions and yet demanded marriage, would it have been fair to chalk that up to a guilty conscience? Or for that matter, would it be fair to call any of the struggle against all the racial “separate but equal” laws a response to a guilty conscience – that African-Americans knew in their hearts that the “mixing of races” was against God’s plan? There were plenty of people telling them that interracial mixing, marriage or otherwise, was against the Bible, nature, and human history and tradition.
Now before everyone gets offended, let me be clear that my point isn’t that the LGBT community’s push for equal rights is exactly analogous to the African-American struggle for equality (though there are indeed similarities) and that all those who oppose same-sex marriage are no better than racists. I understand and recognize that there are significant differences between the issues behind these two movements.
My point is that the desire not to be stigmatized as different, even if the difference is in name only, does not always indicate a guilty conscience. I don’t believe the struggle against segregation was a desire that “everyone” accept men and women of color as no different than the white folk (though I’m sure that desire was there – not because they felt guilty for being different but because they firmly believed that both white and black communities would benefit immensely if racism disappeared). I’m sure African-Americans weren’t so naive as to believe that integration would instantly change everyone’s heart and mind. Rather, they were pushing for equality under the law, so that at the very least they would receive equal treatment from their government, even if individuals and groups would still continue to treat them with prejudice.
Similarly, the LGBT community does not believe that same-sex marriage and similar rights and protections (non-discrimination, etc.) will instantly bring about gay nirvana where the entire nation suddenly loves and accepts the gays for who they are. Nor do we need such acceptance. Most (though unfortunately not all) of us have a supportive community of family and friends. And we have grown quite accustomed to the idea that many people believe we are different than we ought to be and that others believe even worse about us. From the first time we heard that 3-letter F word used in reference to us, we’ve been confronted with the fact that not everyone approves of or accepts us (I realize that many Christians don’t disapprove of gay people, rather just their actions, but for a gay man in a loving, long-term relationship with a man who is almost just as much a part of him as his arms and hands, it is hard to distinguish disapproval of the relationship from disapproval of person. If someone told you they accepted and approved of you as a person, but not your marriage, would you be able to not take it personally? Sorry – very long parenthetical tangent). And most of us have become quite inured to this.
Rather, the struggle for LGBT rights is a desire for equality under the law, so that at the very least our government gives each of us the same treatment as it gives heterosexuals, i.e. ensuring that we and our loved ones have the same access to a fair process and legal security as straight couples. And for many in the gay community, civil unions, even with the same rights and protections as marriage, still do not provide equal treatment. Civil unions single out gay and lesbian couples as different under the law. And many contend that, as long as there is this difference, even if the difference is supposed to be only in name, it represents a loophole of sorts that could still potentially be used as a basis for denying certain benefits and rights under marriage by crafty lawyers and legislators. And there’s certainly historical basis for this suspicion, i.e. the rampant inequality that existed under racial “separate but equal” laws.
Personally I’d be fine with civil unions if they came with all the same legal rights as marriage. Perhaps my conscience isn’t working as it should. 😉
As teenagers we stress out on hoping we are good enough to not insult our parents and church members on that one special day. I still remember that day and wanting to answer and say perfect words until we confirmants as a group could sit down and let the attention again turn to the pastor and hymns.
You have a good argument here about seeking affirmation of our sins, once we are accepted in our Lord’s elete club of sinners. Forgiveness is so simple to receive, yet excluding some sins is akin to losing a part of our lives. I to can be positive about civil unions but again it affirms the habit of unrelenting sinful behaviors. Keep posting your questions as people who are wordsmiths can help us help sinners who think we are judging them when all we want is to point them toward Jesus and forgiveness.
Mr. Hoppe,
What you’ve neglected to mention here, is that the LBGT community that you’re commenting on, didn’t make a decision to be LGB or T. They didn’t wake up one morning and *POOF!*, anymore than you made the decision to only love a member of the opposite sex. Andy wrote in his comment about the struggles of the African American community to have equal rights. They didn’t wake up one morning and decide to be African American, they were born that way. Just like you, me and members of the LBGT community. Ask any LGB or T person when they made the choice to be the way they are and they will all say, “I’ve always been this way.”
The other problem with any anti-gay marriage stance or anti-gay sentiments of any kind, is that the focus is on the sexual relations part of the equation. LGBT couples are no different than any other couples. They hold hands, they kiss, they go on long walks, they watch television and yes, they make love. Just because they happen to love someone of the same sex, doesn’t make their relationship any less valid than ours. LBGT couples don’t constantly “have relations” with any person that will join in. They want to find the right person, fall in love and get married. It’s the dream of millions. Black, white, Latino, Asian or gay. We all want to love and be loved in return. Marriage is the ultimate expression of love. Committing to one person “Till death due us part” should be the right of everyone wanting to make that vow. To deny a member of the LBGT community of that, is the same as doing that someone of another race.
God says to, “Love the sinner, but hate the sin.” We allow prisioners to marry, they have sinned. You and I were allowed to marry and we have sinned. As a matter of fact, we continue to sin on a daily basis. Does that mean our marriage should never have happened? You want the LBGT community to come to God for forgiveness, but even if they did that, they’ll still sin and continue to do so until they die. No one is perfect. Not you and not me. All sins are equal, if it’s a murder or stealing or coveting your neighbor’s wife. Why then, is being LGBT suddenly worse than all the rest and therefore denied the same rights as murderers, thieves and adulterers? The bible condemns all of these people, but you and others only cry out against the LBGT’s. There is something that doesn’t make sense here and I’ve never heard a good reason as to why this sin is much worse than the others.
That is my two cents. Thank you for listening.
I apologize Pastor Hoppe, for referring to you as “Mr. Hoppe”. You didn’t get the respect you deserve and I am sorry. Thank you.
Bingo – Hole in one on this post, Rev. Hoppe!
I have been extraordinarily pleased with the younger pastors in our Synod and the way they respond to pleas to present the Word of God in full Law and Gospel application and allow the Word to do its work. I see great hope for the future of our beloved LCMS if guys like you maintain the foundation upon which you have built the first decade of your ministry.
Pastor Hoppe,
I just want to re-emphasize what I said,
Thank you so much for this post. For the last few weeks it seemed I was drowning in a sea of posts from Lutheran pastors which presented only Law and more Law. And then, to come across this post in which the pastor spoke about his own troubled conscience and pointed to Christ and the resurrection as the answer – well, just WOW. It was great to see this. This post made my whole week better.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
P.S. may I copy your post and use it as a demonstration of how the topic should be approached from a truly Lutheran perspective?
Matt, I appreciate your kind words, and feel free to use it in whatever way you can.
Jon,
Homosexuality itself is no different than any other sin. This is why I mentioned how each of us struggle with sins and even our love of them. And yet, the difference is this. Most who struggle with impure thoughts towards the same sex in our day end up embracing that as a positive identity rather than a sin to struggle with. And so, we would be wrong to call this sin worse in and of itself, but we are right to say that unrepentant sin is far worse that repentant sin. Anyone repenting of sin and receiving forgiveness and new life is quite welcome in my church or any true church. But anyone claiming their sin as their identity, rejoicing in it, and taking pride in it removes themselves from God and his church. This is true of heterosexuals engaged in adultery, premartial sex, pornography, etc. You must understand the difference between sinning, repenting, and living in Christ and sinning, not repenting, and dieing apart from Christ. While there are those who have impure thoughts towards the same sex would do the first, the face of the movement manifested in the desire for marriage is about taking pride in sin.
As far as being born that way, I do not spend a lot of time being concerned with whether on is or is not. Science cannot prove this. Experience seem to confirm it. But regardless, having impure thoughts from birth is only a symptom of being born sinful. For instance, naturally, I am attracted to women other than my wife, and always have been. But to claim that as who I am and take pride in it would be wrong and would remove me from Christ. I must constantly strive in the spirit for purity, and when I fall, return to Christ. So must those who might be born with homosexual tendencies.
Also, what is you biblical reference for “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” This is a phrase that in helpful in some sense, it is often used to end up justifying sin along with the “sinner.” The “sinner” is only truly love when he is urged in love to turn and live.
To equate homosexuality and race is simply not accurate in any sense. One is noted in the scriptures as sin, and another is noted as the beautiful diversity found in the creation of God. The fact that the scriptures were perverted for evil’s sake does not mean that we should do so again.
And don’t worry about the Mr. thing. I am that also 🙂
Pastor Philip Hoppe
Andy,
I am glad that you acknowledge differences between racial equity and sexual preference equity, but I think from a Christian standpoint, the difference is night and day. Nowhere doe the scripture mention one race being less than another unless it is talking about a “race” of people in rebellion against God being less well than those in line with him. The scriptures assertion that marriage and sexuality are given to men and women to share is present from Genesis to Revelation without any deviation.
I understand that Christians tried to use their faith to justify slavery and perhaps racism. But no unbiased scholar could claim that the case for racial inequity is made in the scriptures. People allows use their “God card” to try to justify their sin.
And finally, I will and think I did yield that there are some ways that legally there remains a difference between civil unions and marriage, particularity at the federal level. But I would still suggest that even if there were not any differences, the call for marriage would still be just as loud. And this because they want even need the biggest authorities to say that their is nothing deviant is any realm about homosexuality.
I personally think this is the problem with civil unions as well. It says that homosexuality is not deviant in any way. I do not think the government should call evil good whether it is homosexuality or any other sin.