Christians Opposed to Gay Marriage Aren't Bigots
By Eric C. Redmond
In a 48-hour period this week, Washington D.C. and Maine joined Iowa, Vermont,
Massachusetts and Connecticut in recognizing "same-sex marriages."
According to law, Congress has 30 days to review the D.C. City Council's
vote. The vote in the Maine Senate that sent the bill to their governor was
21-13 with one lawmaker absent. The vote in D.C. was 12-1 with the lone opposing
vote ironically coming from former D.C. Mayor Marion Barry. This vote most
certainly foreshadows the eventual allowing for "gay marriages" to be performed
in D.C.
The atmosphere in the days immediately before the vote found
pastors of churches within the nation's capital joining together in order to
rally their members to protest against a favorable vote. Prior to the vote there
was a very emotional debate on the issue in the council chamber. Afterwards,
those protesting in front of the D.C. City Council building, including many
members of the clergy, stormed the hallway outside of the city council's
chambers, vowing to fight to unseat the members of the council who supported the
bill. The uproar was of such a nature that law enforcement personnel were called
in to clear the hallway of the crowd.
Charges of bigotry were leveled at
the protestors by those supporting gay marriage. Some epithets lodged at the
band of ministers even suggested that the protestors were using the Bible as a
cover-up for their bigotry. Marion Barry, though not called a "bigot," was told
by one of the council member that his position was bigoted, and that he was
standing against equality for two fellow council members who are openly gay.
Seemingly, this council member felt that Barry, in determining to side with "the
ministers, who stand on the moral compass of God," did not see the two gay men
as his equals -- "equal" in a sense reminiscent of Sean Penn's Oscar
speech.
It must be asked, however: Why are people, especially Christians,
labeled "bigots" when they disagree with the legalization of "same-sex
marriages?' Rather, why are we not considered to be people who have a moral
standard based on the objective instruction of the word of God -- a people also
who do not like it when one segment of a society attempts to impose its (errant)
views and standards upon the entire society? It seems that the opposition --
those who are for "same-sex marriage" -- should be considered to be people who
are stuck in their intolerance toward heterosexuals who use the Bible to find an
objective standard for defining marriage.
It is likely, however, that
supporters of "same-sex marriage" will continue to vilify those who oppose them,
depicting their opposition as people akin to those who opposed civil rights for
African-Americans four decades ago. This will allow them to gain supporters to
their position who would not want to be associated with a vilification similar
to being called a "racist." Also, it is easier to make such vilifications than
to look at the Scriptures and judge oneself according to the standards of
"natural" and "unnatural."
The "bigot" label should not deter believers
from standing fast for traditional marriage. We must believe that God has
spoken, that he has spoken clearly on both the structure of marriage and the
sinfulness of homosexual acts -- acts that are against the "natural" order of
relationships between men and women that was established by the Creator in the
creation (Romans 1:26-27). We must make God's voice known to our children and
grandchildren so that they might be able to articulate the truth with certainty
and credibility in the world of ideas on Wall Street and Madison Avenue, in
Tinsel Town and Cambridge, Mass.
"Because you are not of the world, but I
have chosen you out of it, the world hates you," says Jesus (John 15:19). So as
his chosen, when we oppose the world, we will be hated, ostracized, rejected,
jeered and labeled "bigots." Yet it is equally true that those who oppose those
of us who support traditional marriage are locked in their hatred toward the
truth while claiming to be loving toward all people. It is really they who are
the bigots, and such bigots should come out of the closet and be seen for who
they are.
------------------------
Eric C. Redmond is senior pastor of Reformation Alive
Baptist Church in Temple Hill, Md., the and author of "Where Are All The
Brothers? Straight Answers To Men's Questions About the Church."
© Copyright 2009 Baptist Press. All Rights Reserved.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Gay marriage is slightly insidious to the separation of church and state .
I support the civil union between same sex couples. But that's all anyone's marriage is to their government. It is two financial entities becoming one.
Since the word "marriage" is affiliated with religious beliefs, if "marriage" legally becomes a human right, then private religious institutions that do not perform same sex marriage could one day be taken to court for hate crimes . In at least one country where homosexual activists have won major concessions, a church pastor was threatened with prison for preaching from the pulpit that homosexual behavior is sinful.
People should not be afraid to voice their opinions. Saying that you don't agree with someone else should not become a hate crime . And prison should not be threatened just because your opinion isn't popular.
Mr. Redmons: The source of bigotry is irrelevant to the fact of bigotry.
If I were to say Slavery is sanctioned in the Old Testament, would I be less a bigot? Many thought for generations that Africans were descendants of Canaan. It's a stupid belief, but its adherents were no less bigots because their attitude was justified by a personal moral certitude.
If I can justify my bigotry by some adherence to an objective belief, this doesn't lessen my bigotry. It only risks labeling my belief as bigoted. Denying gays the right to committed marital relationships is a bigoted practice -- unworthy of a Christian.
As a Christian, I object to having my religion used as an excuse to deny basic human rights to an entire class of individuals. I don't believe God really has a problem with Gay marriage... but I do believe he objects to the treatment that Gays receive by their neighbors.
If God does have a problem with gay marriage, I'm sure he will reveal this to me when appropriate. In the meantime, for people here on earth to so vehemently oppose makes me wonder what are their real motivations.
We live in a culture in which it is incorrectly assumed that one can tenably hold the position in which you are intolerant of anyone who does not embrace radical tolerance. We live in a culture that has concluded that all points of view are valid except those which do not accept that all points of view are valid.
When said explicitly this perspective is absurd on its face, and so those who act it out and clearly hold to it dismiss this as some kind of over simplification of what they mean. But it is not. If you have a belief which excludes anyone, anything, for any reason, you are vulnerable to being excluded, yourself, and that is somehow permissible under this model of radical tolerance. There is only one thought crime and it is the crime of believing there is more than one thought crime.
This allows conservatives of all stripes to be dismissed out of hand on most topics as bigots of one stripe or another.
The reason this has all come about is that it is much easier to simply dimiss your opposition as a bigot than to try to understand -WHY- they hold a contrary point of view and to actually attempt to dismantle their rationale.
This isn’t radical tolerance, it only just makes sense. We all want to be excepted, we all want to have friends and family, we all want to have a nice life. If someone believes that someone else, whether for race, orientation, sex, religion , etc. isn’t a fit individual, then that individual is partially excluded. That individual will be even more barred as more people believe that the individual is not worthy. Is that something we want to promote? To be a society at peace with itself do we really want people being left out? Outcasted? Ridiculed? Etc… I don’t think we do… Do you?
You all want to be -accepted-.
And yes, this -is- a discussion about radical tolerance. And many, many people in this country who espouse it -do- want people left out, outcast and ridiculed. They want to exclude conservative Christians because they have labeled them bigots. They ridicule them endlessly and they want them to be outcast from society .
You have expressed it perfectly. We want to be a society at peace with itself. The problem is, there is a growing faction in this country that believes that to oppose supposedly progressive politics is to be a thought criminal, is to be de facto a bigot, fit only for isolation or re- education .
Whether or not I personally believe the LGBT community should have equal rights and protections is completely tangential to this discussion. Although, as an aside, I think they should. _BUT_ I also think that religious conservatives _ALSO_ should have equal rights and protection under the law and therefore any solution to resolve inequalities cannot create new inequalities.
That is the topic.
"They want to exclude conservative Christians because they have labeled them bigots. They ridicule them endlessly and they want them to be outcast from society . "
lol, they are all out to get you man, to get ya.
"progressive politics " ? dont u mean civil rights?
U do know that the people u talk about (the opposers) are ok with gays being fired for being gay, gays not being able to marry, gay not being able to have a family.
I call people a bigot because they are in some way trying to restrict me for their religious beliefs. You are making it out to be that religious radicles should have the right to controll everything when they dont.
Also i didnt go off topic, since i am arguing that it isnt radical tyvm. It just makes sense. If you want to talk about radicalism, then talk about people who are being attacked even though they arent attacking anyone (not your opposers). THAT IS RADICAL.
I don't debate 12 year olds. And you write like a 12 year old, whether you are one or not. So we're done. If you want people to take you seriously, learn to spell, learn homophones and use the correct one each time, write out words in their entirety, check what you wrote for typos, and don't resort to non sequitur as a means of apparently refuting a statement.
Would you mind me quoting you in an essay? I'm assuming your name isn't Jim Marks but I will look up MLA standards for citing and give you due credit for your statement.
Yes, that's my name. Why wouldn't it be? Email me if you need additional details for the citation.
Sincerely I think you did a great job of putting into words with a concept I've been trying to wrap my brain around for months since I returned home to find the country I love, formerly United being divided over something this ridiculous when we're (to quote our illustrious President) "In the worst economic crisis since the great depression." Thanks for your candor. It's refreshing.