Readers,
It is not often that I take a stand on a social issue, but it sits at the heart of the libertarian way of life. It is important to talk about a hot topic that is in the news. Unless you have been in Uzbekistan over the past weeks, you know that
Chick-Fil-A is in a huge controversy due to its and CEO's stance on gay marriage.
CHICK-FIL-A SUPPORTERS AND DETRACTORS
Allow me to first outline my views on the voices shouting back and forth, then I will outline my personal convictions involving gay marriage. Those who are Christian Conservatives are huddled around Chick-Fil-A as though those who oppose the points of view they have should still be happy to buy the chicken sandwich. Conservatives also say that if one opposes Chick-Fil-A on those grounds, that those who are upset with their views should abstain from ALL businesses that oppose gay marriage. This is ludicrous in its entirety.
Chick-Fil-A is in something known as the
free market. That means, the decisions made by the company can and will affect its business operations. The choice of the people to withhold business from companies they feel endanger their way of life is their right. Furthermore, it is an informed choice. On the second point, it is absolutely out of the realm of possibility for people to completely live their lives without having some of their money going to places that are unsavory. The reason Chick-Fil-A is in this controversy is because its CEO trumpeted their efforts proudly and loudly. People cannot do the market research on every item they buy in a store, the store itself, all subsidiaries, parent companies, etc. It is impossible. What these Conservatives argue is absurd and dumbs down the entire argument. As much as Chick-Fil-A and its CEO has a right to their opinion, the average joe has just as much right to oppose said point of view.
Those on the other side are not without blame. I am tired of those on the left constantly calling for the end of Chick-Fil-A and mayors wanting to restrict the company from within its limits. This behavior is detestable and runs afoul of the basic precepts of free speech. Free Speech does not mean "Free as long as I agree with it." Get over the fact that some people do not agree with you. To those government officials who will actually use the government to restrict speech that has not called for death, beatings, and other actions that endanger the lives of others should be taken out of office for failing to uphold the constitution and infringing on individual rights.
Enough of the grandstanding, it is time to get to the nitty-gritty.
MY STANCE ON GAY MARRIAGE
(Disclaimer: This is not intended as a sermon to convert people to Christianity, my personal beliefs, etc. If you happen to agree with me, that is fine. If you disagree with me, that is just as fine. My ONLY intentions are to show my reasoning for my stances and to show people of the LGBT community that Christianity itself is not the coercive force, but the people pushing their own agendas.)
I hope that this short expose' highlights my personal beliefs in liberty and how it meshes with my Christian beliefs. I do not believe that
Jesus Christ was the catalyst for oppression, instead his words have been twisted by those who wish to take and maintain control; to subject others to their will.
Marriage is a ceremony/ritual binding two souls together. There are two parts to this ceremony, normally there is a religious component and a legal component. On the legal component, I say that failure to allow gay couples to marry is a violation of Equal Protection as afforded in the 14th Amendment. Gay couples who share income and for all other purposes are a single household cannot benefit from tax credits; also, inheritance taxes that a gay couple would have to pay to the government at the death of one's significant other is circumvented by the marriage of heterosexual couples.
Now, on to the religious component. It is true that Christian Conservatives have their right to voice their opinion and influence policy. I just believe that their viewpoints are wrong in general on this issue. Marriage is a
sacrament. A sacrament is a ceremony or ritual milestone.
Mark 12:33-34 (
King James Version; hey what can I say, I am a history buff at heart!)
33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.
I get chills just reading those verses. Jesus says that ceremonies and sacrifices central to the faith up until then are second to loving God and to love one's neighbor. That (in my opinion) is the whole reason Jesus came. He changed the game. Jesus never talked about homosexuality, but he would love his homosexual brethren had they come to him or walked by him on the street.
Would Jesus use government to coerce homosexuals by restricting gay marriage? He doesn't say, but let's look at a couple things Jesus DOES say.
John 8:3-7
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
So Jesus tells people that adultery, a crime punishable by death, can only be carried out by someone without sin. So, Jesus stood against the persecution of a sexual deviant (deviant by law at least).
Furthermore, forcing homosexuals to live differently from heterosexuals is coercing them, pushing them toward a lifestyle they refuse to live. Does Jesus ever say that coercion is a proper channel to salvation?
John 14:5-7
5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Jesus says that a man must COME through him to get to God. This is clearly a voluntary action on the part of the person seeking God.
Revelation 3:20
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Jesus does not say: "I will open the door, tell you about myself and you will convert to Christianity." He says he knocks, it is up to us to open the door and he will sit and eat with us. Furthermore, he says ANY man, not straight men or Jewish men or white men. ANY man.
Politicians and evangelicals like to look at the laws they pass and grandstand on them. Passage of laws using the pretext of the Bible violates two principles. First, the principle of non-coercion as stated above. Second, the following principle:
Matthew 6:1-7
1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
We are to pray silently, worship silently, give silently. A relationship with Jesus and God are personal. The passage of laws coercing others to live a certain way is how the religious right tries to be right with God. Jesus said plainly that our faith should not be screamed out and our prayers not long winded; so how does that jive with forced coercion? It doesn't.
Conclusion
To my Christian Readers:
Passing laws does not make one closer to God. Coercing people into a certain lifestyle is not bringing one closer to God. Our personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God is the factor we must be concerned with for salvation. Jesus wants us to open the door and to let him in, not have his followers bust the door down and put non-believers to the sword. Allowing gay marriage should be legal across this country (on legal grounds), and individual churches should be allowed to decide whether they wish to bind two same-sex people in holy matrimony.
Two men or two women marrying does not affect your marriage. Being a bad husband/wife or father/mother will affect your marriage.
With a divorce rate between 40-50%, heterosexual people have a poor track record and self-righteous indignation of homosexual love is not going to bring the divorce rate down.
To all readers:
Libertarianism and Christianity can walk hand in hand. We have to actually look at the words of the Bible and look at what Jesus' message was. He stood for tolerance and a breaking of antiquated dogma that had built up. He erased the rituals and ceremonies tied to salvation. If that isn't the sign of a libertarian, I do not know what is.
I am not here to convert anyone to my line of thought, or to change their lifestyle because of my words. My only goal here is to show that Christian belief does not necessarily equate to oppressive tendencies. Oppression occurs because people who read the Bible pick out the verses they want to further their own goals to attain and maintain power.
The argument that either side of this issue should be silenced by government is counter to our First Amendment's precepts. It is the "
marketplace of ideas" that springs forth the best and brightest ideas.
Be an active member of that marketplace so that we can all prosper with new knowledge and paradigms.
POST-SCRIPT
Here are a few things to keep in mind about what is allowable from the Bible and the danger relying solely on the Bible for public policy can bring.
Were you a rape victim who didn't scream loud enough to be heard? You must be put to death. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
Genocide seems pretty cool with God 1.0 (God in the Old Testament). (Zephaniah 2:12-15; 1 Samuel 15:2-3;
Joshua 8:1-29;
Jeremiah 50:21-22; Judges 18:27-29)
Ever cursed a parent? You must die. (
Leviticus 20:9)
Is there a non-believer in your city? Then the entire city must be destroyed and all inhabitants killed. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)
Had sex before marriage? Well, you must die. As it says in the chapter, you are an evil that must be purged. (
Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
Have you ever worked on a Sunday? Well, you must be executed. (Exodus 31:12-15)
Ever made fun of a man of God? You might be killed. (2 Kings 2:23-24)
Women, have you ever thought about religious beliefs differently than your significant other? Well too bad, shut up. (1 Timothy 2:12)
Don't ever promise God 1.0 a family member as a sacrifice; you have to live up to it. (Judges 11:29-40)
Posts
