The Benefits of Same-Sex Marriage

I don't think anyone who reads my stuff has any question what I think on the subject of "same-sex marriage". Indeed, the quotes around the term is an easy indicator. It's like asking me, "What is your opinion of unicorns?" I have none. They don't exist. Nor does "same-sex marriage". Well, the courts have decided and the people are concurring that marriage doesn't actually exist and they're now using that term for something else, something new, something different. They'd like to say, "new and improved!" And when pressed, I'm sure it comes as no surprise that I don't consider it an improvement.

First, a side note. The loudest voices are all rejoicing that the Supreme Court struck down DOMA and Prop 8 when, in fact, it didn't. Here's what SCOTUS did. They struck down the part of DOMA that withheld benefits from same-sex couples, and they refused to rule on Prop 8. DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, has two parts. One defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The other says that the federal government is not required to give marriage benefits to marriages that do not fall in that category. The Supreme Court struck down the second part, but not the first. And on Prop 8, California's constitutional amendment that only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman, SCOTUS simply ruled that the people bringing the suit to the Supreme Court had no grounds on which to do so. They did not rule that Prop 8 was illegal, unconstitutional, or any other. The effect will certainly be that marriage will now be utterly redefined, even in your state and mine, but that is not what the court ruled.

Okay, so, we're all clear that I think there will be serious damage from this new definition of marriage. Marriage is already in trouble and this will push the dying beast a little farther down the road. Parenting has become horrendous and this will further blur the lines. Religious freedom is already classified as "optional" in any real sense and this will make it less tolerable. And anyone carrying around a biblical view on the topic will become legally rather than simply emotionally or rhetorically classified as hateful. The backwash will make it vastly more difficult for future generations to comprehend "marriage" in any genuine or even historical sense, given that we typically believe that was is has always been, and anyone with a biblical view of marriage, therefore, is a loon. This does not bode well for genuine marriage, healthy families, and religious freedom.

Still, I think there might be some benefits. What benefit can come from this? Well, there is certainly one, I think, and it can obviously spawn more. And this benefit comes, first, from nearly the beginning of mankind and second from the mind of the Creator, so I have to say that it's a good one.

Back in the Garden of Eden the serpent (placed there by God, please remember) tempted Eve (also placed there by God, please remember) to sin. She did, and "gave some to her husband who was with her" (also placed there by God, please remember). Thus, an Omniscient God put in place all the components that would, as He surely knew, produce a sinful race of humans. "That's bad," we might say, but not so God. Instead, He had in mind from the beginning (Titus 1:1-3) (We are not currently in "Plan B".) a demonstration of His wrath and power and mercy (Rom 9:22-23) with the offering of His Son for the sin He knew that would occur in order to be both just and justifier (Rom 3:23-26), to illustrate His wrath, holiness, grace, and mercy. Thus, He turned evil to His good purposes. That was the plan. And I can see many benefits here in that light.

First, living genuine marriage will become visible. Indeed, we need to model and live genuine marriage! Marriage has been declining for decades under our very noses and we need to step up to a biblical version of marriage and live it in front of our friends, family, and neighbors. You see, just because we don't agree to wed two men or two women doesn't mean what we've been doing is genuine marriage. Now that they're ripping out the definition, the meaning of genuine marriage should be much easier to illustrate by those who live it.

Second, we are sent as lights (Matt 5:14). Part of the "good works" we are to display to the world (Matt 5:16) is genuine, biblical marriage. This display of truth provides all sorts of clarification not found in many of the relationships currently classified as "marriage" simply by government assent. For instance, living a genuine marriage will better illustrate the connection of Christ and the Church. After all, that is one of God's primary purposes in marriage in the first place.

Third, the certain negative effects of redefined marriage will provide an increasingly sharp contrast with the positives of genuine marriage and its benefits. This, in turn, will more clearly illustrate the need for repentance. "We view ourselves as married, so why do we not have the same wonderful lives that that family does? What's the difference?" And the questions will provide clear opportunities for presenting God's perspective on marriage as a starter but more importantly on sin in general and on the Gospel in particular.

Fourth, this will give us an opportunity to demonstrate love that holds to God's Truth while offering the Gospel of repentance and salvation without ire or hate. It is my suspicion that many Christians -- genuine Christians -- have been fighting against the sin of homosexual behavior for so long that we've lost some of our compassion. Do we recognize how hard it is for those with same-sex desires to follow Christ? (Do we realize how hard it is for any of those with a besetting sin to follow Christ?) We're happily telling people to repent. In so doing we're following the example of Christ. But when Jesus did it He did it with compassion. We need that compassion for the lost without succumbing to acceptance of sin. They need love that we, through Christ, can give.

Finally, Jesus came to seek and to save lost sinners. In this action, our world is making itself more visibly and closely aligned with the tag, "lost sinners". In a culture where 70% of Americans like to classify themselves as Christians, this just makes it easier and easier to identify those who are not. That's a good thing. Debating the fine points of the Trinity or discussing the merits of Predestination is perfectly suitable among fellow Christians, but fairly pointless between believers and unbelievers. This should make it much clearer which is which. If nothing else, it will provide more clearly a common ground for discussion. For Christians to Christians, the common ground is Scripture. For Christians to unbelievers, the common ground is the need for repentance. Much clearer.

Clearly we do not live in a "Christian nation". A biblical view of marriage is not allowed in the courts. The statement, "God says", carries no weight in our legal system. Morality in our society is fluid, not static like it is in the Bible. And that means that what God considers good is not what our nation considers good. They'll vote on that. Oh, and sometimes that vote won't even count. Don't count on the courts or the Congress or the government or even the people to stand by God's perspective. That will be your job. It won't always be comfortable and it won't always be pleasant. But the sharper the contrast, the easier it is to see. And, based on God's choice to allow sin in the Garden, I have to conclude that it isn't all bad. "You intended it for evil, but God intended it for good" (Gen 50:20) still works here as well. Don't get mad. Get even ... by loving your neighbor ("for you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you" (Prov 25:22)), by shining the light "so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven" (Matt 5:16), and by sharing the Gospel and making disciples.