Tag: Same-Sex Marriage

Chief Justice John Roberts on the Definition of Marriage

~ Evan Lenow ~ 2 Comments

The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples.

-Chief Justice John Roberts on the historical development of the definition of marriage during Supreme Court hearings yesterday.

If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, ‘This is my friend.’ But it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend.

-Chief Justice Roberts responding to the argument that marriage means something and should be used to apply to same-sex couples.

Chief Justice John Roberts

The Supreme Court heard arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry (California’s Proposition 8 case) on Tuesday, March 27. Today the Supreme Court hears argument in United States v. Windsor regarding the Defense of Marriage Act.

_________________________

Adam Liptak, “Justices Say Time May Be Wrong for Gay Marriage Case,” The New York Times, March 26, 2013.

The Associated Press and the Normalization of Same-Sex Marriage

~ Evan Lenow ~ 20 Comments

Last week the Associated Press (AP) notified its constituents of a new entry in the AP Stylebook. This new entry addresses the appropriate use of the terms husband and wife. The text of the entry is:

husband, wife Regardless of sexual orientation, husband or wife is acceptable in all references to individuals in any legally recognized marriage. Spouse or partner may be used if requested.

This entry has been officially added to the online version of the AP Stylebook and will appear in the print edition later this spring.

The Associated Press is perhaps the most influential news organization in the world. Their stories and photos have run in news outlets since 1846. The AP Stylebook (first published in 1953 and updated annually) serves as the standard style guide for journalists. As a result, the choices the Stylebook makes in the use of language impact how readers and listeners of news media will view issues.

In a press release on the new Stylebook entry, Mike Oreskes, AP Senior Managing Editor for U.S. News, stated,

The AP has never had a Stylebook entry on the question of the usage of husband and wife. All the previous conversation was in the absence of such a formal entry. This lays down clear and simple usage. After reviewing existing practice, we are formalizing ‘husband, wife’ as an entry.

I find the comment by Mr. Oreskes to be quite interesting. For 50 years, the Associated Press had never seen a reason to post an entry regarding the usage of husband and wife. However, now they determine there is a need for such an entry, and it reflects a change to the long held understanding of marriage in our society. I would argue that the reason no entry was needed previously is that society at large clearly understood the meaning and usage of husband and wife. A husband and wife are the two individuals in a marriage. The husband is male, and the wife is female. It was understood that a husband would have a wife and a wife would have a husband.

However, in this age of attempts to redefine marriage, the AP has determined it will weigh in on the matter. Notice the language of the entry. It reads, “Regardless of sexual orientation, husband or wife is acceptable in all references to individuals in any legally recognized marriage.” Thus, journalists can use AP-approved style to refer to two husbands or two wives. They could, perhaps, even refer to the two individuals in a same-sex marriage as husband and wife with the approval of the couple if that is how the individuals view their roles in that “marriage.”

The AP has jumped into the fray with an agenda to normalize same-sex marriage in society through the use of language in journalism. What I find ironic in all of this is the tag at the end of the press release describing the AP. It reads:

The Associated Press is the essential global news network, delivering fast, unbiased news from every corner of the world to all media platforms and formats. Founded in 1846, AP today is the most trusted source of independent news and information. On any given day, more than half the world’s population sees news from AP. On the Web: www.ap.org.

There are a few adjectives that the AP uses to describe itself that are violated in their latest addition to the Stylebook. They claim to be a “global news network,” to deliver “unbiased news,” and to be a “trusted source of independent news and information.”

As a “global news network,” surely the AP is aware that same-sex marriage is not a global norm. In fact, most of the world does not recognize same-sex marriage as legitimate. Delivering “unbiased news” means that it is free of political agendas, yet there is hardly a more vocal political group than the homosexual community attempting to normalize their lifestyle. Finally, a “trusted source of independent news and information” will refrain from promoting a particular viewpoint over other valid options. In making this change to the Stylebook, the Associated Press has violated all three of these descriptions for its own mission.

The normalization of same-sex marriage (and homosexuality in general) has been a goal of the homosexual community for decades. They have often found a sympathetic ear among journalists, especially those whose politics lean to the left. However, they have now found support from the “essential global news network” known as the Associated Press. Despite the fact that the AP claims to be unbiased and independent, it has now voiced an opinion in this matter. The opinion was placed in the most subtle of places—a journalistic style manual. I dare say this was not by accident. Why make a public policy statement when you can simply change the use of language?

In Matthew 10:16, Jesus told his disciples, “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.” As Christians, we tend to do fairly well on being “innocent as doves,” but we often lack the shrewdness of serpents. This is a time when we need to be shrewd and attentive to our culture so that we are prepared to defend the biblical model of marriage as it is being attacked on all sides.

_________________________

“New entry in the AP Stylebook: husband, wife,” Associated Press, February 21, 2013.

*Special thanks to Benjamin Hawkins, Senior Writer in the Office of Communications at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, for bring this announcement to my attention.

UK on Verge of Approving Same-Sex Marriage

~ Evan Lenow
Photo by DAVID ILIFF (Wikipedia Commons)

CNN has reported that the British Parliament has taken initial steps to make same-sex marriage legal in the United Kingdom. In spite of strong resistance by Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative Party, the measure received an initial vote of approval 400-175. According to the report, the measure must still receive another vote in the House of Commons and a vote in the House of Lords.

While the Conservative Party in the UK has opposed the legislation, Prime Minister Cameron has been supportive of the measure. He has considered it to be an issue of equality while still claiming to support marriage.

This should prove interesting since the Church of England officially opposes the legislation, yet it is the state church. CNN notes:

As drafted, the bill would enable religious organizations to choose to conduct same-sex marriages if they wish and includes provisions intended to make sure no religious organization or person is forced to do so.

The Church of England is among the religious bodies opposed to the legislation.

The Church of England also sent a brief to Parliament citing its objection. The news report states:

The Church of England also outlined its objections to the bill in a briefing note sent to lawmakers Friday.

It cannot support the legislation “because of its concern for the uncertain and unforeseen consequences for wider society and the common good when marriage is redefined in gender-neutral terms,” it said.

While the reported objection is probably not the full reasoning, the Church of England brings up a good point. When marriage becomes gender-neutral, it is automatically separated from procreation. Marriage is then defined in terms of emotion. Once intensity of emotional bond becomes the definition of marriage, other forms of marriage must be approved. These include polygamy, polyamory, and ultimately incestuous marriage.

This will be a big defeat for supporters of traditional marriage. It will also prove to be a source of tension for the Church of England as it attempts to serve as the state church while opposing the law. My guess is that the Church of England (in England) will ultimately be forced to comply if this law is enacted.

We will be well-served to see what happens in the UK because it may be the future in the United States.

_________________________

Laura Smith-Spark and Atika Shubert, “UK lawmakers approve same-sex marriage in first vote,” CNN.com, February 5, 2013.

What Did Jesus Teach About Homosexuality?: Answering Matthew Vines Part 4

~ Evan Lenow

This is part 4 in an ongoing series where I answer the arguments of 22-year-old Harvard University student, Matthew Vines. In the previous three parts, I addressed his interpretation of Genesis 2 and Romans 1 and his claim that denying marriage to homosexuals inflicts undue pain. In this post, I consider his omission of Jesus’ teaching on the issue. Follow the links for Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Throughout his argument, Matthew Vines attempts to contrast the supposedly legalistic teachings of the Old Testament and Paul with an ethic of love in the teachings of Jesus. His overall premise is that teaching cannot be good if it leads to “emotional and spiritual devastation” or “the loss of self-esteem and self-worth.” Vines claims that such concepts come from the teachings of Jesus, thus elevating the words of Jesus above any other teaching in Scripture.

He states:

Sacrifice and suffering were integral to the life of Christ, and as Christians, we’re called to deny ourselves, to take up our crosses, and to follow Him. This is true. But it assumes that there’s no doubt about the correctness of the traditional interpretation of Scripture on this subject, which I’m about to explore. And already, two major problems have presented themselves with that interpretation. The first problem is this: In Matthew 7, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warns against false teachers, and he offers a principle that can be used to test good teaching from bad teaching. By their fruit, you will recognize them, he says. Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Good teachings, according to Jesus, have good consequences. That doesn’t mean that following Christian teaching will or should be easy, and in fact, many of Jesus’s commands are not easy at all – turning the other cheek, loving your enemies, laying down your life for your friends. But those are all profound acts of love that both reflect God’s love for us and that powerfully affirm the dignity and worth of human life and of human beings. Good teachings, even when they are very difficult, are not destructive to human dignity. They don’t lead to emotional and spiritual devastation, and to the loss of self-esteem and self-worth. But those have been the consequences for gay people of the traditional teaching on homosexuality. It has not borne good fruit in their lives, and it’s caused them incalculable pain and suffering. If we’re taking Jesus seriously that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, then that should cause us to question whether the traditional teaching is correct.

This line of argumentation suffers from a couple of problems. First, it diminishes the inspiration and authority of Scripture by subjecting the Word of God to an artificial hierarchy. Vines considers the words of Jesus to be more authoritative than the rest of Scripture. While Jesus was certainly God incarnate walking this earth and teaching his followers, the rest of Scripture is also from the mouth of God. Second Timothy 2:16–17 reads, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” Thus, the words of Paul in Romans 1 are just as inspired as the Sermon on the Mount.

However, this is not the only problem with Vines’ arguments from the teachings of Jesus. Vines simply ignores Jesus’ teaching on marriage, which is devastating to his larger discussion. In Matthew 19:3–12, Jesus is confronted by the Pharisees about marriage. While their question addresses the issue of divorce, Jesus answers them with his interpretation of God’s design for marriage—one man and one woman for life. In verses 4–6, Jesus responds, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined 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 no man separate.” In this passage, Jesus affirms that God created male and female and that marriage is designed between one man and one woman. Those who say that Jesus never addressed the issue of same-sex marriage typically overlook this clear passage of Scripture. Biblical marriage and biblical sexuality are heterosexual in nature according to Jesus himself.

Based on his “love ethic,” Vines is missing a crucial part of Jesus’ teaching. Jesus declared that marriage is designed for one man and one woman. Even in his hierarchal hermeneutic, Vines must acknowledge Jesus’ words on this subject. Therefore, his condemnation of false teachers falls back on himself. Jesus made a clear statement about both gender and marriage. Any departure from that standard is a false teaching. Vines stands convicted by his own words on this issue.

It has been my hope in this series to provide reasonable answers to the arguments posed by Mr. Vines. Almost nothing about his argument is new; instead, he has repeated the same points that have been made by proponents of homosexuality for the last 40–50 years. While my counterpoints do not cover the entire scope of the discussion, I hope you can see that his logic is severely flawed.

This debate will most likely continue for years to come, especially in light of the push for legalizing same-sex marriage. I encourage you to study the Scriptures diligently and see how the consistent message of the Bible is that homosexuality is a sin. However, we must also remember that it is not the unpardonable sin. Paul declares, “Such were some of you; but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11). The key here is that some in the church at Corinth WERE homosexuals. They were redeemed by Christ, and he changed their lives. May we pray for the same for Mr. Vines and others struggling with this and any other sin.

_________________________

For the full text of article on The Christian Post, see Lillian Kwon, “Theologians Find Vines’ ‘Homosexuality Is Not a Sin’ Thesis Not Persuasive,” The Christian Post, September 28, 2012.

For the full text of Matthew Vines’ defense of homosexuality, see Matthew Vines, “The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality,” http://matthewvines.com.

Does the Denial of Same-Sex Marriage Inflict Undue Pain?: Answering Matthew Vines Part 3

~ Evan Lenow ~ 4 Comments

This is part 3 in an ongoing series where I answer the arguments of 22-year-old Harvard University student, Matthew Vines. In the previous two parts, I addressed his interpretation of Genesis 2 and Romans 1. In this post, I consider his argument for same-sex marriage. Follow the links for Part 1 and Part 2.

As with most discussions regarding homosexuality, the focus eventually moves to the idea of same-sex marriage. As Mr. Vines has already noted in his argument (see part 1), he believes that homosexuals are commanded by God to join in loving, committed relationships. In addition, he believes such relationships should be recognized as marriage by both the church and the state. He also believes that denying marriage to same-sex couples inflicts undue pain on them, which is a violation of God’s command to love.

Vines presents his argument as follows:

Being different is no crime. Being gay is not a sin. And for a gay person to desire and pursue love and marriage and family is no more selfish or sinful than when a straight person desires and pursues the very same things. The Song of Songs tells us that King Solomon’s wedding day was “the day his heart rejoiced.” To deny to a small minority of people, not just a wedding day, but a lifetime of love and commitment and family is to inflict on them a devastating level of hurt and anguish. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that Christians are called to perpetuate that kind of pain in other people’s lives rather than work to alleviate it, especially when the problem is so easy to fix. All it takes is acceptance. The Bible is not opposed to the acceptance of gay Christians, or to the possibility of loving relationships for them. And if you are uncomfortable with the idea of two men or two women in love, if you are dead-set against that idea, then I am asking you to try to see things differently for my sake, even if it makes you uncomfortable.

When Mr. Vines speaks of inflicting devastating pain and anguish on homosexuals by denying them the opportunity to marry, he is attempting to quantify pain and pleasure and determine if one outweighs the other. However, such attempts at moral calculus are inconsistent at best. Instead, we should evaluate whether or not homosexual relationships accomplish the goods of marriage according to Scripture. One of the goods of marriage in Scripture is unity (Gen 2:24). This is expressed through love, commitment, and the sexual bond. While one could make the argument that same-sex relationships accomplish this good, they only do so in violation of God’s standard for sexuality—sex between one man and one woman in the context of marriage for a lifetime. Since marriage is not commanded, proponents of same-sex marriage are actually attempting to accomplish a good at the expense of biblical sexuality. Therefore, the evil inflicted by active participation in sin actually undermines any good that could be accomplished in a loving, committed relationship. Mr. Vines, then, has transferred the blame for sin from those in violation of God’s command to those who are attempting to uphold the clear teaching of Scripture. The other goods of marriage from Scripture are also violated by homosexual couples. Genesis 1:28 proclaims procreation as a good of marriage, but that is biologically impossible for same-sex couples. The other good of marriage is sexual fidelity. While one might make an argument for fidelity in a committed same-sex relationship, the biblical concept of sexuality is between one man and one woman. We even see this in Jesus’ teaching in Matt 19:3-12.

I think Christians can always do better when addressing the issue of homosexuality. We need to remember that homosexuality is not the unpardonable sin. In 1 Cor 6:9-10, Paul gives a vice list with a number sins, including homosexuality. However, in verse 10 he states, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” It seems evident that there were former homosexuals in the church at Corinth. The key here is the idea “former.” Paul said, “Such were some of you.” It was in their past, but God had redeemed them from this sin. They had repented and were being sanctified. We need to focus on this.

The argument that Mr. Vines proposes typically leads to labels. The label most often attached to supporters of traditional marriage is hatred or hate speech. Even if we focus on the redemptive aspects of the biblical message and the former status of those in the church in Corinth, I suspect that Christians who oppose homosexuality will continue to be labeled as hateful. However, this is a misuse of the term. It is not hateful to disagree with someone’s position.

Proponents of homosexuality constantly call for tolerance. Unfortunately, their understanding of tolerance is one-sided. True tolerance acknowledges the existence of differing opinions, but it does not require agreement or acceptance. Mr. Vines calls for acceptance of his view while being intolerant of those who disagree. While he does not use the term “hatred,” the idea is present in his statement that proponents of traditional marriage “inflict . . . a devastating level of hurt and anguish.” Our entire culture could benefit from discussing the actual arguments rather than labeling people as hateful.

_________________________

For the full text of article on The Christian Post, see Lillian Kwon, “Theologians Find Vines’ ‘Homosexuality Is Not a Sin’ Thesis Not Persuasive,” The Christian Post, September 28, 2012.

For the full text of Matthew Vines’ defense of homosexuality, see Matthew Vines, “The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality,” http://matthewvines.com.