<?php
$group = "writings";
$groupURL = "/writings/";
$keywords = "Gay Marriage";
$title = "A Letter To Brian";
$ALLOW_COMMENTS = 1;
require('../layout.inc');
?>
<i>I wrote the following letter to my pastor Brian Emmet at
<a href="http://www.covmin.org/ChurchSite/index.htm">Covenant Ministries</a>,
in response to his <a href="http://www.covmin.org/ChurchSite/church/newsletter/covchron0402.pdf">latest newsletter</a>,
which decried permitting homosexual marriages.</i>
<br><br>
Brian,
<p>
Greetings to you! I very much appreciate that you had the wherewithal
and the bravado to take on the issue of gay marriage in your last
newsletter. Thank you for expressing your views and opening the floor
to discussion on the matter. I've always been impressed not only by
the wisdom that you relate but also by your open ear.
<p>
I'm not sure you're going to be surprised to hear from me on this
issue, given the discussions that we've had on similar topics
before. But this particular issue is very important, because it
concerns what America is and what America is built upon and it
concerns your own freedom in ways that you may not have yet
considered.
<p>
I'll begin with a humorous little snippet that has been going around
the Internet to illustrate a basic set of counterpoints to the
concepts of "traditional marriage":
<blockquote>
Any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by
action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a
proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on
biblical principles:
<p>
A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one
man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
<p>
B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in
addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron
11:21)
<p>
C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a
virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut
22:13-21)
<p>
D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen
24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
<p>
E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be
construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
<p>
F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the
widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does
not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be
otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10;
Deut 25:5-10)
<p>
G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town,
it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him
(even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young
and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this
rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)
</blockquote>
While it's a bit over the top, it serves to illustrate the basic point
of "Biblical" marriage not being between one man and one woman at
all. That instead is Western tradition (minus Mormonism, perhaps). So
I think the premise of trying to defend "Biblical" marriage is
basically moot.
<p>
The real problem with opposing gay marriage is that it violates the
Church / State boundary that provides <b>Christians</b> with basic
protections and freedoms. There is a reason why getting a marriage
license is a function of the State and performing marriage rituals is
a separate affair. Christians do not oppose recognition of the
marriage of a Hindu man and a Hindu woman, two Buddhists of opposite
sex, or even two atheists of opposite sex. Does God bless the union of
two atheists? Would you oppose state recognition of the marriage of
two atheists? Of two Muslims?
<p>
The purpose of marriage is to signify to the State that two
individuals are planning on having their affairs permanently
intermingled and interchangeable. It is like forming a special
corporation of two and enables official recognition of this union by
wills, insurance companies, employers, and for taxes.
<p>
There is a very important and separate definition of marriage that
perhaps even deserves its own word - the <b>sacred</b> union of two
<b>Christian</b> souls under <b>God</b>.
<p>
Words cannot express how important I feel it is that these two
definitions are separate. The freedom for a pair of individuals to
declare themselves a corporate union is not a religious
statement. Religion ought have no place in the matter, and what goes
around comes around - imagine perhaps a Catholic State that did not
recognize Protestant weddings! Indeed, history has shown these
examples to be more than hypothetical.
<p>
I respect the decisions that you make personally, your freedom to hold
your own opinion, and (very importantly!) your freedom to express your
opinion to other people. I will fight for this right. I <b>have</b> fought
for this right -- <a href="http://www.communitycolo.net/">my
non-profit</a>
<a href="http://www.eff.org/Legal/ISP_liability/OPG_v_Diebold/">went
to Federal Court</a> to defend the
right of people to
<a href="http://www.why-war.com/news/2004/01/25/thetyran.html">publish
the faults of a company</a>. My non-profit was
founded to provide speech to <b>all</b>. Why do I spend inordinate amounts
of time and money making sure that people, even people with whom I
strongly disagree, can say what they have to say? Because I believe in
Free Speech. I think God believes in Free Speech.
<p>
So to that end, let me say that it is a false argument for you to
claim that you will lose your rights as a Christian if you do not
stand up now against gay marriage. Your vision that the state will
tell you exactly what you may say is and is not a sin is indeed a
terrifying one, Brian. But I assure you that as hard as I will
persecute you for your un-Christian foolishness in opposing civil
unions of people you personally feel God does not approve of, I will
come after those who would seek to stifle your speech
athousandfold. As long as I, and those like me, live -- you will be
able to preach whatever you would like to your congregation. I will
defend your right to call homosexuality a sin with my life.
<p>
I am here to warn you that you will lose your rights as a Christian,
and deservedly so, if you do not stand up now in support of the
recognition of gay civil unions. Because if the present majority is
permitted to declare <i>by use of religion</i> what constitutes a valid
civil union or not, you put yourself in terrible peril. While you may
now feel your branch of the Protestant Church has popular appeal, what
if it were to sway from the warm comforts of majority opinion? I know
you to be a strong man, Brian, and one of your word. You are the very
last sort of person I could see cowing to what most people thought. So
what if that strength of conviction was to take the church beyond what
the common American supported? What if it became a common "corrective
technique" to disband marriages not approved as being "sufficiently
Christian"? Is it possible that if you were no longer deemed legally
married to Kathy and your children now all legal bastards, you might
think twice about how your message came across? As I said above,
history shows this sort of thing to not be hypothetical at all. By
turning functions of the state into a popularity contest, you endanger
America's future liberty and your own.
<p>
I challenge you, Brian, to meet with some of these gay couples, to
observe -- I challenge you because I believe you are up to a challenge
like this and have a good eye and a loving heart. I would challenge
you to first hear their stories, see how they do or do not care for
each other, and then to explain to them why you think that it should
not be legal for the state to declare them a union. Because something
grates against me as wrong for two people who have loved each other
for <u>decades</u>, lived together, supported each other through good times
and bad, in times of sickness and of health, for richer and poorer,
and faithfully stood by each other's sides...for these people to be
told that their union means nothing and that their fidelity and
perseverance is moot in the eye of the State because some people
believe that in their belief system, God does not appreciate two
people loving each other in the way they love each other. You have
every right to say that these two people are living in sin. You have
every right to say that these two people are not Christians as you
would recognize. You can claim that the union between these two people
is void under God, as you understand Him. But ask yourself if you
really have authority to declare that this union ought be void under
the State.
<blockquote>
"Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He said to
him, "<font color=red>'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with
all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first
commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as
yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the
prophets.</font>"
</blockquote>
Actively barring the legal recognition of civil unions between two
loving people feels like it is neither loving God nor one's
neighbor. In fact, it seems to be rather strongly disrespecting both.
<p>
I hope for you to stand by me then, as a Christian firm in your faith,
declaring that gay civil unions under the State are a separable issue
from holy matrimony recognized by your Church, and that you are as
eager as I to perpetuate the freedoms that enable you to speak freely
about Jesus by permitting people to have the freedom from having their
unions validated by a court of religious opinion.
<p>
Sincerely & Respectfully Yours In Christ,<br>
David Weekly
<?php
require('../layout-tail.inc');
?>