Amendment One Foes Misguided, Sort Of…
According to this article in the Charlotte Observer, over 30 religious leaders in Charlotte used last weekend’s services to speak out against passage of Amendment One, which would ban gay marriage in North Carolina and is on the ballot during the May 8 Primary elections.
Cats laying with dogs might be an almost over the top metaphor here, but it’s no wonder organized religion is losing credibility when churches are coming together to support action expressly prohibited by the tenets of the Christian belief system.
Indeed, Rev. Chris Ayers of Wedgewood Baptist Church went on the record as saying, “Shame on Baptists who support Amendment One. The fulfillment of the scripture is the love of God and loving your neighbor.”
He certainly has the part about loving your neighbor correct, but seems to forget the verse, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22)
We certainly love our neighbors, but we must not forget to also condemn sin and value those who seek forgiveness rather than continue to behave in a sinful way.
The clergy’s opposition to the amendment is disappointing, at least for the reasons they have given.
You see, opposition to the amendment is actually the correct course of action for believers in both limited government and the sanctity of the church.
Marriage is a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Government didn’t invent it and I don’t believe government should have any role in defining what it is. To get really anal (no pun intended), by defining what is a religious institution, I think that this is a violation of the separation of church and state.
Understand full well there is no such thing as the “separation of church and state” in the usual use of the term. The statement comes from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists where he outlines that the state would not interfere with the church. In this amendment one situation, it looks like the state is trying to do exactly that by making a religious act a government edict.
The State’s role is contract law when it comes to this. While the amendment specifically states it won’t interfere with mutual contracts of ownership, it still sets the definition of marriage, which is outside government’s purview to do, or should be.
Here is the text of the amendment:
“Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”
By defining marriage as between a man and woman, is not government making a law establishing a particular religious institution? It might be one this author happens to agree with, but nonetheless.
The ministers in question have every right to voice their opinion, regardless of what side they fall on. To be in opposition to the amendment is the correct position to take.
However, they should be against the amendment for defining marriage for them, not because of any claim to “tolerance” or “Christian love”. That is nonsensical. They are in effect endorsing the practice of gay marriage, against even a layman’s interpretation of scripture, and not defending their right to claim marriage as a sacred institution up to the church to define.
As a Deist who leans in favor of Christianity, I do believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, and regardless of what the government tries to define it as, I always will. I just get a little worried when the government starts to take the place of religion in a circumstance like this where there is no actual harm or damage to 3rd parties being done. (For example, “thou shall not murder” is a religious edict, but perfectly in tuned with government jurisdiction.)
Marriage is an institution that should be up to the church to define. As the recent resolution by the North Carolina Libertarian Party says, “A free and proud people do not ask the State for permission to marry.” Government should look to contract law alone. If two people desire to share their possessions or grant hospital visitation rights, that is certainly not a problem, and government should defend the decisions that two consenting adults make between themselves.
Government, however, oversteps its bounds when it decides what “marriage” is in terms of domestic legal unions. To them, it should be a matter of contract, and nothing more. As such, it should recognize any and all contracts regardless of sexual orientation.
Leave the definition of marriage to those who actually have authority in the matter. It isn’t the government.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=9199
