‘Because of the explosive nature of this topic,
let me begin by describing the proper context for our thinking about it and by
affirming a number of truths about my readers and myself which I am taking for
granted as I write’. Chapter Eight, Involvement, Homosexual Partnership, John
Stott.
We are all human beings, and we are all sexual
beings. And, I believe that most visitors to the FSAOF are Christians with the
majority having a Salvation Army link. A wider and more common ground is that we
invariably submit to the lordship of Jesus predisposed to seeking light through
Scripture.
In the course of the last 6 weeks we’ve
introduced visitors to virtually every pro and con argument for homosexual
partnerships as a valid alternative life-style as expressive of human love as
one finds in a committed heterosexual
partnership. In so doing we have sought to
differentiate between ‘being’ and ‘doing’, that is, between the person’s
identity and activity.
Non-Salvationists penned the large majority of
the articles. Some 25 or so were written by, and submitted by persons with no
expressed religious belief or affiliation. Throughout the series the FSAOF
sought to remain transparent and non-supportive of any preferred or stated
positions.
The next several posts reflect my summary of
what I deem are the most relevant opinions and positions as they relate to both
the Army and the FSAOF. We acknowledge that we know a number of LGBT persons in
the SA and within our fellowship. Many are in long-term committed relationships,
SS unions and marriages. Some are celibate, others not, with some serving
actively in SA corps and with others participating through public worship
meetings.
The
articles will move through the many issues beginning with those not unique to
the SA. We begin with the
nationwide campaign to legalize same-sex marriage; the civil rights battle of
the 21st century. I trust you took time to share your position in the 10 day
poll posted in the blog.
The general opinion is that “Opponents are going
to lose. So like trial lawyers who settle cases on the courthouse steps, they
should abandon this wasteful fight.” (Same-Sex
Married Couples Will Get Federal Tax Breaks, No Matter Where They Live.)
A recent Forbes magazine article, “Married, With
Complications,” provides a rundown of practical issues. “Under
federal law, same-sex married couples aren’t getting all the legal benefits
that opposite-sex married folks enjoy. They aren’t entitled to each other’s
Social Security benefits, can’t
sponsor each other for citizenship and aren’t covered by the law that protects
a spouse’s right to a company-sponsored retirement account, for example. Yet
like heterosexual couples they take on the financial burdens that come with
marriage, including the obligation each spouse has to support the other if one loses
a job, becomes disabled or runs up big medical bills not covered by insurance.”
If you think some arcane, antiquated
constitutional ruling is to blame for today’s civil rights inequities and
violations, you would be on the
same page as most Americans, and
you’d all be wrong. The groundwork
was laid during the Clinton Administration, in the federal Defense of Marriage
Act of 1996 (DOMA). It defines marriage as a “legal union between one man and
one woman.” In 40 states there are mini-DOMA laws, meaning that state law or
the Constitution bans same-sex marriage.
Same sex marriage advocates say that. ‘to end
it, we need a constitutional amendment prohibiting discrimination based on
sexual orientation.’
Those digging in their heels in opposition aren’t
just the politicians but the people who elected them. They range from overly religious
flag wavers to folks who understand the civil rights issues but maintain a
mostly muffled anti-same sex league of voters. They “have trouble getting used
to the idea” of same-sex relationships.
The Marriage Equality Act was introduced to the New York
State Assembly by Assemblyman Daniel
O'Donnell and signed into law on June 24, 2011.
The Next Same-Sex Marriage Battle: Who Will Officiate? And
who will profit?
Where some people see controversy,
forward-thinking entrepreneurs see profit opportunities.
It’s quite common to find cake toppers with two
brides or two grooms, but lining up someone to officiate can be more difficult.
Marketing gurus will know the dilemma of bringing new products to market, with
one being the selection of the correct and most effective marketing channels.
Introduction of a service is inevitably more difficult especially when a
considerable market segment is firmly opposed to the services demanded by this growing
demographic.
Many couples may not be affiliated with an
organized religion or care at all about the spiritual significance many
traditional married couples associate with their wedding vows.
And even if they are affiliated with a church or
temple, clergy may decline to conduct a same-sex ceremony.
What
then are the options? A google search? Enter ‘Internet marriage officiation’
into your search engine browser and a wide selection of ‘instant ordination’
specific denominations will vie for your ‘call to ministry’. One of the largest, with 22,000
ordained ministers is the Universal
Life Church.
Initiate the application process in the morning
and you’ll be baptizing by noon, officiating at a funeral by mid-afternoon and
conducting a beachside same sex marriage ceremony at dusk! In spite of the
ordination certificate arriving by e-mail or as a Facebook attachment, in ‘most
places, a marriage is valid if the license was properly filed and the parties
held themselves out as being married, even when the only qualification of the
officiant was an Internet certificate of ordination.’
‘The bottom line: gay couples have choices–just
not as many as straight couples might…. Before assuming that a certificate of
ordination is sufficient, an officiant or the couple should check whether there
are additional requirements. This can be done by a call to the county clerk
where marriage licenses are obtained or, of course, through an Internet search.’
And there’s this enterprising initiative in Louisiana and mid-America Iowa.
Same-sex marriage is legal in just seventeen
U.S. states. A gay-rights group plans a legal challenge to the Louisiana
Constitution's prohibition against recognizing same-sex marriages performed
legally in other states. The Forum
for Equality Louisiana and four gay married couples have called a February 12,
2014 news conference on the issue. A draft of the group's planned lawsuit,
obtained by The
Associated Press, attacks the marriage recognition ban on several
fronts.
For instance, it says state revenue department
policy, based on the ban, essentially requires married same-sex couples who
file joint federal tax returns to falsely claim they are single on state
returns — a violation, the Forum says, of free speech.
The lawsuit also challenges the state's refusal
to recognize both members of a same-sex union as parents of a child born to
them or adopted.
A 2004 amendment to the Louisiana Constitution
says marriage in the state "shall consist only of the union of one man and
one woman," and goes on to prohibit state officials or courts from
recognizing a marriage "contracted in any other jurisdiction which is not
the union of one man and one woman."
Currently, 17 states allow gay marriage.
And in Iowa, for instance, a 2008 UCLA study
predicted that same-sex marriage could generate $160 million in new revenue there
in just three years. The state approved same-sex marriage in April;
by June, Christopher Diebel had founded MyIowaGayWedding.com. He questions why
any Iowa politician would risk undercutting a growing segment of the state's
economy. "Those of us that are involved in that
industry are certainly going to want to protect our investments and the
business that comes to our state," Diebel said.
END PART ONE
Sven Ljungholm
PhD
Ethics and Human Values
8 comments:
I wonder if they'd accept complete equality with married heterosexuals but without the title 'married'? Clearly the bible doesn't see it that way.
They wasted no time in adopting the word 'gay'. Give the lawmakers a word that would suit your purpose and I'll join your cause. But the word 'marriage' has some very distinct language and conditions that homosexual couples can't ever fulfil. And Christian LGBT folk should be out front supporting and defending the Scriptures.
I look forward to reading how the FSAOF dissects the army's positional statement.
SA former
USA East
I'm not comfortable with the term "they". Surely there must be a more inclusive term when speaking in particular of Christian gays,
And if withholding the word "married", what substitute word do you think would suit the purpose without causing offence?
Statistics suggest that the LG folk represent around 4-6 per cent of our population but that less than half are in committed relationship. And of those less than half want to enter into a civilian contract. That leaves us with less than 2 per cent. Do they really represent a threat to the traditional sanctity of marriage?
Former officer
'Do they really represent a threat to the traditional sanctity of marriage?'
Of course they do. Single sex 'marriage' is a complete misnomer, and those who have driven through this legislation have done so foolishly. The manic race for 'equality' has proven to provide just the opposite - SS marriage is not, and cannot ever be, equal to heterosexual marriage. Everything about it is different, except for the civil equalities it provides - equalities that were adequately provided for within civil partnerships. SS 'marriage' directly contradicts God's definition of marriage between one man and one woman, and I don't see how Christians can accept it.
Politics trumps Christian standards. My guess is that most Christians don't fully appreciate what we've lost through these new laws. I support equality but not at the cost of rewriting God's plan.
I've learned from and enjoyed reading this series. There's a lot of useful teaching material.
God bless you.
Active officer USA
As I read the posted article and the comments, the Questions are really about circumstances within the USA...
As I'm a European in general and in particular Swedish, I might have kind of different approaches towards the questions in mind.
In many countries in Europe, SS-marriage is a solved question since quite a long time.
In my mind - correct me if I'm wrong - the Americans tend to be more either Very libertarians or Very Conservative when it comes to the Christian concepts ... like Marriage, but also in other church-divisive questions, am I right?
Don't get me wrong here. Even in my own country, there were much debating, especially between the evangelicals vs. Church of Sweden.
To day, it's possible for a gay couple to conduct their marriage ceremony in their own parish church and conducted by one of the parish priests.
Note that even some of the traditional Evangelical congregations contemplate how to manage the question. Some of them has declared that it is for every single congregation to decide.
Is the Bible totally and absolutely clear when it comes to Marriage?
Among the Theologians it's still up for debate.
And what about the difference between the 'beeing' and the 'doing'?
My simple question in this well educated time we all live in:
Is it possible to ask a bird not to fly? Or tell the left handed to use the other hand, or ... ...
Of course it all boils down to our conception of the Holy Scripture. In another word, Interpretation. Interpretation of the text itself, and applying the historical context on what is written.
Kjell-Erik Edlund
Former
Sweden
Kjell-Erik, Parts two and three in this final grouping are both articles focusing on our homeland, Sweden. And, where as you say, circumstances are indeed very unique. You'll recognise the names of both authors as well respected Christian spokespersons.
I think it a shame that some fail to recognize the difference between Rite and right. We the people of the U.S. have a right to equity and justice under the law. Hence denying committed same sex couples the 1300 or so secular rights, privileges and obligations directly keyed to the word marriage is clearly discriminatory. That just is the fact, it is the basis upon which DOMA and other discriminatory laws are being struck down.
As for the religious Rite of marriage, I have heard no one suggest that any secular law change would affect the how any theology views the matter. Sectarian denominations are, and will continue to be free to decide which persons to bestow their blessings upon no matter how the secular issue is decided. The law does not obligate the religions, why do some feel their religion should obligate the law?
I am consistently vexed as to why proponents of some theologies feel empowered to effect the non-sectarian issue, even in violation of the rights of more inclusive religions. How in the name of God can one religion demand to control the beliefs of all others?
'How in the name of God can one religion demand to control the beliefs of all others?'
Because of the Bible - the inspired word of God, and the fact that we live by faith, and not by sight. We live by conviction, as the Holy Spirit guides us, not by what 'man' tells us to do. In civil matters we are told to 'render to Caesar that which is his' - in other words, live by the law of the land, but in spiritual matters our instruction comes form God via our consciences, and this means different things to different people.
Post a Comment