Marriage Equality: Reasons Behind the Reasoning

Before you read, you should know that I will not be making any statements about my personal beliefs on this topic in this post. I do not intend to support either side of the issue. Furthermore, this article will not deal with the morality of homosexuality itself—only the political issue of homosexual marriage will be addressed. I figure if you want someone’s opinion on the subject, you can read the thousands of other articles that have been written over the past decade.

Why am I writing a public article about a divisive issue without championing a side? I like to understand why people believe what they believe. I like to get to the primary beliefs that cause us to hold other deeply-held opinions—the bedrock beliefs, the ethical anchors, the unchanging truths we base everything else upon. In this post I will present what I believe to be the primary cause for the divisiveness surrounding the issue of the legalization of homosexual marriage.

In my opinion, the core of the issue is the very nature of the agreement being made when two people choose to marry. All of the arguments I’ve heard in support of or against the legalization of homosexual marriage have pre-supposed an answer to this question: Is it a religious covenant or a legal right granted by a government? Those who oppose homosexual marriage have assumed that marriage is primarily religious while those who support homosexual marriage believe that it is a legal contract overseen by a government.

The reason these two differing opinions exist is probably the way our government was founded. The western idea of marriage was, originally, a religious institution. Since it was the common religion when the United States was founded, the origins of our nation’s marriage system are defined largely by the traditional Christian views of marriage. The Constitution was written with a decidedly Christian slant and the original laws of our country were blatantly religious. It is not a stretch to say that our founding fathers had no concept of an entirely secular governing body void of any religious concepts.

In the minds of the original Americans, there was no distinction between political legality and religious morality; therefore, the right to control marriage was given to the government. That is why, although a deeply held tradition, two people who desire to be married do not need a church or an ordained minister. They simply need to visit a courthouse, obtain a proper license from a government official, and then swear to their commitment with legal witnesses.

And the line gets even more muddled. Despite the supposed separation of church and government, every state allows any ordained minister to legally officiate a marriage as the government’s official representative, but judges or marriage commissioners may head up the proceedings as well. It is easy to see why some believe it to be religious while others believe it to be governmental. The two have been intentionally intertwined.

Obviously, this is not intended to be an all-encompassing statement. There are, I’m sure, many who will not be able to identify with my premise, but I will say that all of the arguments I’ve heard for or against the legalization of homosexual marriage follow one of these general patterns:

 

Cereal Bracket

Here’s another bracket from our young adults Bible study last week.

I was shocked that only one Cap’n Crunch (Crunch Berries) won a single matchup when we voted on the winners. My final four would be Cinnamon Toast Crunch, Frosted Mini Wheats, Cocoa Pebbles, and Cap’n Crunch Crunch Berries.

What would your final four be?

 

 

90s Kid-Friendly TV Bracket

@webby778 and I usually head up a young adults’ Bible study at our church every Wednesday night. We try to have practical lessons and include some sort of activity or discussion that can be anywhere from “Complete Flop” to “Complete Chaos.” Either of those extremes result in a lot of laughter.

For four weeks, our pastor has agreed to teach a series for us so, without actually needing to worry with the learning portion of the class, I have been able to devote my prep time to putting together an activity. Each week, we are voting our way through different brackets. Here was the first: The ’90s Kid-Friendly TV bracket.

Who is your final four?

 

I’m a Little Stitious

I’m not superstitious. I just like to make sure that I play my part in helping my team win. Here’s how that played out recently:

On Thursday, January 31 my dad, brother, and I were about an hour from home watching our high school teams win their season finale tournaments until almost 10:00 (Go Crusaders!). We rode back to Virginia Beach together listening to the Virginia/Duke game on the radio and arrived home with about nine minutes of game time remaining and decided to watch the remainder of the game at my parent’s house. After all, three fans parting ways with a ten point lead could have been disastrous.

Although not sports fans (at least not like the three males of the family), my sister and my mom had the game on while they were doing other things in the house. My sister was in the middle of composing a rather lengthy post for an online discussion board as part of a class assignment for her work at Liberty University, but joined in the intense watching when we arrived.

With about five minutes remaining and a ten point lead, my phone dinged as my sister (her name is being withheld to protect her identity) updated her Facebook status to “is trying to complete a class assignment while my parents and brothers are all here enthusiastically watching UVA beat Duke. Not a bad distraction.” She even had the audacity to tag me in the post.

I was outraged! You can’t claim victory when you are the underdog and there are still 5 minutes remaining! I told her she had cursed Virginia and that the “basketball gods” don’t smile on that type of thing. David and my dad completely agreed and, as Duke hit a three within a minute of her post, we started blaming her for the imminent collapse. She denied her obvious mistake claiming “I said they were winning now, not going to win! It’s present tense!” When Duke stole the ball and cut the lead to five on the next possession, she had to admit her error and agreed to delete the post.

I argued that the damage had been done and simply deleting the post would not remove the curse. She must make a sacrifice of atonement to the keeper of the brackets, Joe Lunardi. We all sat in stunned silence as Virginia flailed around the court and we knew we were in the presence of the one who caused the collapse.

A few minutes later she realized “Oh, no! In my rush to delete the Facebook post, I closed the discussion board tab!” She had lost all four paragraphs she had typed…and Joe Harris immediately hit a three pointer! A sacrifice had been offered, restitution had been made, forgiveness granted, and UVa went on to win.

The next day, I posted this story to a sports message board along with the statement “UVa punched their ticket to the big dance!” I don’t have to tell you what happened next—Virginia lost two straight games to inferior opponents and was placed outside ESPN’s predicted field of 68.

I had to make my own sacrifice. On Saturday, I purchased a honey bun from 7-11. Not a four-for-a-dollar Little Debbie deal. I’m talking about a ridiculously unhealthy, 850 calorie, mammoth honey bun with white icing a half inch thick covering the top and sides. It is sitting on my dresser under a Virginia hat, not to be eaten until UVa’s season is completed.

And lo, it came to pass that on the first day of the week the Cavaliers did prevail against the Terrapins of Maryland, and thus have they found favor in the eyes of Joe Lunardi.

That’s not superstitious at all.

 

Admitting Doubt

Preface/Disclaimer: I have written various versions of this post at least four different times. It doesn’t say exactly what I hoped it would as well as I hoped it would, but it is at least a start. I’m pretty sure that, if I were to rewrite it again in a week, I would say some things differently, but hopefully you can understand my main point.

I’ve seen this posted on Facebook a few times:

I understand the point. I get it. I know what you are saying—it is impossible to KNOW that your religious beliefs are correct. After all, we have no proof of what happens after death. We are physically incapable of observing the supernatural. We cannot begin to experience the past or the future. You’re saying that some things are unknowable.

I’d like to think that all of us who were raised in religious families or espouse ourselves to a particular belief system have thought through that particular conundrum. I don’t put any stock in someone’s faith who hasn’t questioned its validity at some point. Unless you have experienced some form of internal faith conflict, your opinions are probably not held deeply or defensibly. We have all realized that most religions are mutually exclusive and passed down from generation to generation and most of us have questioned these teachings.

In my mind there are only five possible conclusions to this inner struggle:

1. My religion is right- So, now affirmed in your faith, you continue on in your belief…until your next moment of doubt when you repeat this process.

2. Another religion is right- So you espouse this new (or at least different) belief system…until your next moment of doubt when you repeat this process.

3. All religions are equally valid- So you go on practicing, or not practicing, whatever religious system fancies you for the moment trusting that the god that is somehow represented by all of them knows your true heart and intent…until your next moment of doubt when you repeat this process.

I’m going to interject a little commentary on this one- This is the worst of all the solutions because, in an attempt to examine the facts logically, logic is somehow completely dismissed from the process. The idea that all religious systems can please a single god is contradictory in itself as many religions are mutually exclusive and their key tenets state specifically that the others are wrong. In fact, it is the primary, stated objective of most religions to convert unbelievers and proselytize other believers.

4. There is no god- Convinced that there is no supernatural being who cares or interferes in the affairs of humanity, you choose to base your life on pragmatism and the scientific method (rough description of humanism)…until your next moment of doubt when you repeat this process.

5. The answer is unknowable- You decide that it is impossible to know which answer is correct. If you come to this conclusion, you will need to choose to live according to the basic principles of one of the four previous conclusions. While you are not entirely certain that it is correct, you must at least have some sort of ethical and moral code…until your next moment of doubt when you repeat this process.

After examining the options, I feel that the people who made this meme are right. In a world demanding tangible evidence, the complete truth about the supernatural is unprovable at best. At worst, you could say it is completely unknowable. All of us, at various levels, live according to option #5. It is as impossible to prove that there is a god as it is to prove there is not a god. We have not been able to prove what we believe so we live according to a specific belief system that we feel is most likely to be correct.

I have no problem with this way of living—the honest seeker. My problem is with the cynic. The one who knows what is right (or at least what is most likely to be truth) and still chooses to live differently on a chance that it may be false. This person chooses comfort over conviction. This person seeks to undermine other belief systems without claiming to have an answer. This person posts religious memes meant to enrage others on social media sites.

I’m not enraged. I’m saying you’re right. And I hope you’ll become more right as you continue to search for truth.

 

Baltimore Ray-vens

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With the Super Bowl kickoff about five hours away hours away and Ray Lewis’ retirement about three hours after that, I’m relieved that we can stop hearing about the guy for a while. But before we close the book on that discussion (until 2018 when he is eligible for the Hall of Fame) I think we have missed one important aspect of his life change- contrition.

It’s not often that my opinion on somebody turns around so drastically as it has Ray Lewis. I couldn’t stand the guy after his brush with the law. Like most fans, I thought he had literally gotten away with murder because of his wealth and celebrity status. Although I’m still pretty sure that opinion is valid, I don’t root against him anymore. It appears he really has found God and has made a 180 in his life. I find Ray Lewis to be one of the most exciting, entertaining, and uplifting players in the NFL.

My opinion has changed for many reasons: His positive words, his speaking out for God, his use of Scripture, his encouragement to those around him, his generally good reputation now, his charitable work, the forgiveness of culture as a whole.

There’s only one thing I haven’t heard–”I was wrong.”

I have heard him plead guilty to obstruction of justice. I have heard him say he was sorry. I have heard he paid over $1 million to the families of the men who were killed. I have heard him speak of forgiveness. I have heard about God’s mercy. I have heard him tell of his change.

I haven’t heard him admit guilt or tell the whole story of how he was involved in an altercation that left two men dead. Even after the obstruction charges, he didn’t testify against his friends and they walked. Two men were stabbed, three other men were there when it happened, and no one was convicted of murder.

There are generally two schools of thought regarding Ray Lewis:

1. Let it go. It was a long time ago and he has obviously turned his life around. Everyone deserves a second chance.
2. Your actions determine who you are. He made a huge mistake and that should be a huge part of his legacy.

My opinion is somewhere in the middle- I would love to move on and forget about his wrongdoings, but I can’t forgive someone who hasn’t done anything wrong.

¹ Whoever dwells in the shelter of the Most High
will rest in the shadow of the Almighty.^[a]
2 I will say of the Lord, “He is my refuge and my fortress,
my God, in whom I trust.”

³ Surely he will save you
from the fowler’s snare
and from the deadly pestilence.
⁴ He will cover you with his feathers,
and under his wings you will find refuge;
his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.
⁵ You will not fear the terror of night,
nor the arrow that flies by day,
⁶ nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness,
nor the plague that destroys at midday.
⁷ A thousand may fall at your side,
ten thousand at your right hand,
but it will not come near you.
⁸ You will only observe with your eyes
and see the punishment of the wicked.

⁹ If you say, “The Lord is my refuge,”
and you make the Most High your dwelling,
¹⁰ no harm will overtake you,
no disaster will come near your tent.
¹¹ For he will command his angels concerning you
to guard you in all your ways;
¹² they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.
¹³ You will tread on the lion and the cobra;
you will trample the great lion and the serpent.

¹⁴ “Because he^[b] loves me,” says the Lord, “I will rescue him;
I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name.
¹⁵ He will call on me, and I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble,
I will deliver him and honor him.
¹⁶ With long life I will satisfy him
and show him my salvation.”

- Psalm(s) 91 (NIV)

 

Having the Right vs. Being Right

Here’s a tip…

I love local news.

Waitress fired after posting picture of snarky minister’s receipt.

When I saw the story this statement that I have heard many times popped into my head:
Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean it is right to do it.

 

• The minister had the right to ignore the restaurant’s policy of adding 18% gratuity to large parties.
• The minister had the right to write the comment.
• The minister had the right to compare her gifts to God to her gifts the wait staff.
• The waitress had the right to publicly post a picture of the receipt.
• The minister had the right to call the restaurant and complain about the employees reaction.
• The restaurant had the right to fire the waitress.

The last one is the only right that I will defend as right.

What do you think, was anyone right in this situation?