What Do You Think? Wednesday
As I stated on my Facebook page Monday, I have been ruminating on President Obama’s announcement of his personal opinion in favor of homosexuals being able to marry. I stated then that I don’t agree with his opinion but believed I needed to say more. 
As one who writes publicly I believe I need to say publicly more than I disagree. So this post gives some of my early thoughts that I’m sure will develop as I come to conclusions I have not yet reached.
First, this post is first and foremost a Christian’s response (mine) to a fellow Christian (President Obama) with whom I disagree. Second, I want to explore how a personal opinion impacts political decisions. And finally, as I always do, particularly on a What Do You Think? Wednesday, I want to invite you to give me your opinion that may add to the debate (not tear down anyone for their opinions).
“In the beginning God…” (Genesis 1:1). This begins the Christian narrative of creation. God existed before He created anything. When He did, He decided to create the heavens and earth and what would dwell in each and how each would operate. He created land animals, sea animals, plants, trees, insects and other species that fit into some sort of system. He decided how the ecosystem would work. He decided how the family system would work. “And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’” (Genesis 2:22-24). And Jesus repeats this standard in Matthew 19:4-6: “He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Genesis gives us God’s design for marital relationships—between a man and a woman—and Jesus expounds upon this, first repeating the original design and stating that divorce breaks apart God’s intent for men and women coming together in marriage. We know that divorce happens but that doesn’t change what God’s intent is for marriage. As some might believe, God is not speaking in isolated terms in Genesis when he specifies a man and a woman. This mention goes beyond Adam and Eve, as Jesus uses Genesis to make a proclamation of God’s doing, His putting a man and woman together. So, by application, divorce is not just individuals separating from one another but individuals separating—tearing apart—the original meaning of marriage to make it something new. “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:6b). I believe redefining marriage is a tearing apart of God’s original intent for His institution therefore I do not and cannot support homosexual marriage.
And though I have used the narrative of the creator defining how His creation is to be from the Bible, the Christian’s guidebook, this is not a narrative limited to Christianity. As a Christian who believes all Scripture was given by inspiration of God and is beneficial for instruction in righteousness and that God desires that no man should perish, I believe His word and the intent of His word is applicable to all mankind (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 3:9). As a Christian who recognizes the authority of my creator over my life and the life of all mankind that He created, I believe I must follow His intentions and not my opinions, whatever they may be. Sure, God created us with free will, but He wants us to freely choose the best that He has for us. There are deadly consequences when we don’t choose what He wants for us (Deuteronomy 30). These consequences are not just for individual participants, but God doesn’t approve of people approving others who choose opposite of what He would want (Romans 1:32).
Though I don’t agree with President Obama’s support for gay marriage, I am not yet clear how my disagreement affects my support of him or any candidate who supports gay marriage or any other issue with which I disagree. I am well aware of the latest cliché “Obama is the president not the pastor of the United States.” Actually, this statement is not entirely true. Any individual put in charge of anything has been given the job of shepherding (pastoring) their responsibility. President Obama has been given the responsibility of shepherding the nation and thus the people that comprise the nation. He is to defend the constitution,which still has the Defense of Marriage Act and uphold the laws of the land, including the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
With that in mind, how much of an impact do personal opinions impact the job of shepherding and, therefore, affect the sheep? I know my personal opinions impact how I shepherd those under my leadership. I also know that my opinions impact how I support someone, including casting a vote in favor of political candidates. I know that it’s unlikely that I will agree with every decision a candidate makes. This is true in marriage or any relationship any of us has. We—I—just have to decide what issues are deal breakers. Can a candidate’s personal opinion translate into political policy? It could. With Mitt Romney as a Mormon, a member of a cult, and one whose business practices clearly seem to economically and otherwise disenfranchise those less fortunate than he, and President Obama who seems to have opinions and actions based mostly on political expediency, I am in a quandary. I have prayed and am committed to praying as to who will have my vote. I want to be in God’s will not my own. And only God can guide me in that way.
What do you think about President Obama’s support of gay marriage? Does his opinion affect your opinion of him? If so, how? Should a candidate’s support of gay marriage cause you not to support that person? Please, tell me what you think.
The Defense of Marriage Act is not a constitutional amendment, it is a law like thousands of other laws. So that distinction must be made. Also, I don’t think Obama did it for political expediency. In fact all the reports coming out of the White House make it clear that Biden jumped out there and put Obama in a tough spot. But with all that being said, this country has separation of church and state. Therefore, religious definitions should not bind federal law. A church can say no to gay marriage but our government does constitutionally guarantee equal protection under the law. Therefore, it should not prohibit gay marriage. I think what Obama did was courageous because it might cost him the presidency if black folk stay home. And whenever you stand up for civil rights, you are on the right side of things. His role is president not pastor. His role might have some shepherding aspects to it but this is not a theocracy and so no one set of religious should preside over any other. According to the constitution he did the right thing, he upheld the constitution and that is what he swore to do not proselytize.
I stand corrected on not specifying DOMA as a law. I will make that correction.
The NAACP announced that they support civil same sex marriage and that is what this is all about – civil marriage. No one is saying that religious marriage must include same sex marriage. That is a church based decision but civil marriage must meet the equal protection clause of the consititution. The government has domain over civil laws and policy not religious laws and policy. Just like the church has domain over religious law and policy not civil law and policy. Thus, the meaning of seperation of church and state. This presents no conflict for the Christian. If you are a Christian and you beleive that Christian law should trump civil law, then you need to move to a theocracy because the US is a democracy with religious freedom. Many will say but the founders really meant . . . but that is simply not true, many of our founders were agnostic or deist, but clearly not religious. At least one or two were atheist and some where clearly Christian. The point being you can even look to the founders to say they were in support of Christian law trumping civil law. So if you are looking for a Christian theocracy, start packing and go across the pond. Vatican City and Ireland are as close as you are going to get.
I read about the NAACP announcement. That is its perogative. As a Christian that believes for MY life Christian law trumps civil law, I will do whatever I feel led to do, like writing on my blog, to protest my disagreement with same-sex marriage. I will exercise my voice at the voting booth and by moving, if that’s what God leads me to do. I believe as a guardian of God’s word, I need to share my understanding of it. That’s what I have done and will continue to do.