Christian Filet for the Gay Palate… (Part II on Marriage)

A couple weeks ago I posted Gay Fil A for the Christian Palate..., part I of a discussion on Gay Marriage in my blog, Truth in Words at 1400.me. Without saying so, my intention has been to post a Part II in an effort to stir the pot and hopefully invite new perspective or perhaps deeper understanding regardless of which "side" one falls on.

Since posting Part I, I have received a great deal of feedback and very passionate commentary regarding this subject.  Please now afford me the grace to present the other side...

Gay marriage is not about civil rights any more than Dan Cathy's comments were an expression of Anti-Gay sentiments.  We need to be careful about how we label others because in so doing we inadvertently label ourselves and not always the way in which we intend to.

Perhaps Derek Broes, recently writing for Forbes has said it best, in his article, Chick-Fil-A Day Not What The Media Portrays - Forbes. He notes that "For thousands of years marriage has been defined by religion as between a man and a woman. In the past, couples were married by their church, not the state, up until people began requesting legal support from the state to define their separation or divorce. For most Christians, this has never been about equal rights but about attaching gay marriage to the definition defined by the bible. Christians get married before God and not the state. The state has laws that protect and grant couples’ rights based on that marriage. I, nor most Christians I know, have never opposed gay couples having equal rights to heterosexual couples, they have only been opposed to the church being forced to redefine what it has recognized as marriage for thousands of years within the church."

As I mentioned, I voted no on prop 8.  How would I vote if it came back around?  Well, what's being asked for?  Are Gay couples asking for the right to be recognized by the biblical definition of marriage?  Is it really fair to say, "I want what you have and I don't have to share the beliefs that not only make it available, but that make it meaningful?  But if Gay couples are asking to be recognized by a newly defined state definition that doesn't dilute or take away from an established unifying relationship between God, man, and woman, then I don't feel the same way.  Is it too fine a line?  Too luke warm?  I don't know.  My intention here is to employ a means for understanding that there is more than one side to the discussion.  More than just yes or no.  It's not entirely black and white and ultimately, how we choose to discuss it is just as important as what side we choose to support.  No matter what the topic.

Going back to Broes article, he also suggests that the controversy surrounding Chick Fil A and it's CEO Dan Cathy's comments have been blown out of proportion and misportrayed.  In the United States, we have every right to freedom of speech and religion.  Dan Cathy's business practices should never have been called to question simply because he stated his belief in biblical principles.  In my last post I called Cathy's business practice un-Christian.  But is it?  If you were willing to agree with me when I, like so many called him out for stating his beliefs, then perhaps you are willing to consider what you believe to be true... and on the flip side, if you were in disagreement, then ask yourself how you responded?  Did you attack?  Did you retreat?  Or perhaps you chose to admonish with love?  Whether we agree or disagree, the difference is in how we do it.

The question needs to be asked... Is standing by what you believe wrong?  Is it offensive?  I mentioned last time that God is Love.  With that in mind, shouldn't the tolerance being asked for by the Gay community not also be afforded by them?  Doesn't Dan Cathy have the right to believe in God without being accused of discrimination?  I believe in God.  I try to follow Jesus' example.  I truly believe that the single most important thing I can do as a follower of Jesus is to love God and my neighbor.  That means, whether my neighbor is Gay, Straight, Friendly, Rude, Difficult, Trying, or Patient, Purple, Diseased, Loving or Broken, I should still show him love.  And I do.  It is a choice.  And don't we all choose our behavior?  When someone upsets us, we can choose how to react, albeit in anger or with humor, or even love.  That ability to choose and the choices we make are ultimately what defines us as individuals.  Choice is a gift.  And inherent in that gift is the ability to choose God.  For what would it matter if it wasn't a choice?  If we were born believers (in anything) without choice, it would mean nothing.  It's why as parents we strive to guide our children, not force them, so that they might become free thinkers with the ability to choose what's right and wrong.  Check out Proverbs 22:6.

We choose our beliefs but that does not have to dictate our response to other people's beliefs.  We still choose how we feel about them.  We choose what we think about them.  Why is it then that we don't choose to listen more often?  One of my favorite passages in the bible comes from James, "Be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry."  When we get in to discussions like Gay marriage, I think this passage applies.  Yet how quick are we really to listen?  How often do we choose not to speak instead?  How fast do we let anger overtake us?  The truth is, whether you believe in God or not, you can choose to respond with love.  I happen to believe that God is love, so I'll keep on choosing to respond with God.