President Obama Declares Support for Same-Sex Marriage

President Obama Declares Support for Same-Sex Marriage

The Wired Word for May 20, 2012

In the News
 
"... this is a game changer for many people, to hear the president of the United States for the first time say that personally he has no objection to same-sex marriage."

That's what Robin Roberts, co-host of Good Morning America, said to President Barack Obama during an interview at the White House, broadcast on the program Monday. The president had just said that he'd "been going through an evolution on this issue," that he'd "always been adamant that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally" and that he was no longer opposed to same-sex marriage. This was his first public statement in support of same-sex marriage.

"I've stood on the side of broader equality for the LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered] community," Obama said. "I had hesitated on gay marriage -- in part, because I thought civil unions would be sufficient -- that that was something that would give people hospital visitation rights and other elements that we take for granted. And I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people, you know, the word 'marriage' was something that evokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs and so forth."

"But," the president continued, "I have to tell you that over the course of several years, as I talk to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are incredibly committed, in monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf -- and yet, feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is gone -- because they're not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point, I've just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

The president also told Roberts that while he now personally supports same-sex marriage, he doesn't want to nationalize the issue, leaving it instead to the states to work out, "because historically, this has not been a federal issue."

To that, Roberts pointed out that 30 states have now banned same-sex marriage. But Obama pointed to New York's recent legalization of it, and said he thought that state "did a good job in engaging the religious community --  making it absolutely clear that what we're talking about are civil marriages and civil laws." This means, said the president, that the New York law is "respectful of religious liberty, that … churches and other faith institutions are still going to be able to make determinations about what their sacraments are, what they recognize."

Reportedly, Obama had planned to make public his support for same-sex marriage later in the week during an appearance on the TV show The View, but last Sunday, on a morning talk show, Vice President Joe Biden said he was "absolutely comfortable" with the prospect of people of the same gender getting married, making his comment the first official word of support for same-sex marriage from the administration. In the interview with Roberts, Obama said Biden got "a little over his skis" with his statement, but also said that Biden did it out of a "generosity of spirit." The president stated that he had already made a decision that he would affirm the right of gays and lesbians to marry and was planning to do it in advance of the election. Thus, Biden's statement merely moved the timetable up slightly.

Obama's public acceptance of same-sex marriage joins two other actions of his administration to expand the privileges of  the LGBT community. Those include his ending the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy about homosexuals serving in the military and of his support for the Justice Department's decision to not defend the Defense Against Marriage Act (a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman), calling it unconstitutional. Given these steps in support of gay rights, Andrew Sullivan, writing in the current issue of Newsweek, dubbed Obama "the first gay president," using the title in a symbolic sense, in the same way that John F. Kennedy has been called "the first black president" for his public support of civil rights.

More on this story can be found at these links:

The First Gay President. Newsweek
Robin Roberts ABC News Interview With President Obama. ABC News 
For Some, Same-Sex Marriage Is Not Politics, It’s Personal. New York Times
 
The Big Questions

1. President Obama spoke of same-sex marriage in terms of civil law (what government recognizes and sanctions). He differentiated it from what churches and religious institutions might recognize, sanction and consider a sacrament. That means that while a state might legalize same-sex marriage, a church in that state might not recognize such a union as marriage. Given that difference, how should a congregation whose denomination does not recognize same-sex marriage respond to a same-sex couple who attends after being legally married by the state? Whatever response you suggest, explain why that response might be considered Christian.

2. In every state in the union, heterosexual couples can choose to be married by either a civil or a religious authority. What different understanding of marriage is implied when couples choose to be married by a member of the clergy rather than by an officer of the state?

3. The president has characterized the matter of same-sex marriage in terms of fairness and equality (equal rights). The terms "fairness," "equality" and "rights" are used often in debates regarding governmental legislation. To what degree do they belong in the discussions about what the church will support? What, if any, are the religious or biblical equivalents of these three words?

4. Some branches of the church consider marriage a sacrament, by which they mean it makes present that which is sacred and holy. What happens when you apply the idea of sacrament to same-sex couples? Some churches consider marriage an ordinance, by which they mean it involves obedience to God's commandments. Some churches use neither term, but consider it a "holy estate." Which does your church observe? Does this make a difference when it comes to alternative definitions of marriage?

5. What are God's purposes in creating marriage? How are they fulfilled in marriage? How might they arguably be fulfilled in same-sex marriage?

Confronting the News with Scripture
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:

Romans 1:26-27
"For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men ..." (For context, read 1:18--2:8.)

The Bible doesn't speak often about homosexuality, but it is difficult to see in what few references there are any support for homosexual behavior. The two verses above from the apostle Paul are among those most often cited by those who argue that homosexual behavior is sinful. It seems quite clear in these verses that Paul, at least, thought it was.

There are those who argue that such a reading of Paul's words and the other passages that refer to homosexual behavior misunderstands what was intended. (For one such argument, see My Take: What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. CNN). We, however, think one must proceed very carefully whenever one starts arguing that the Bible isn't really saying what it seems plainly to say. Some would even say that such an argument is built on a slippery slope.

At the same time, we recognize that sincere Christians are strongly divided about how to understand homosexuality today. So if a Christian is to take a view on that subject different from what seems to be the biblical view, rather than argue that the Bible doesn't really say what it apparently says, that person does better to simply say why he or she thinks these particular references don't apply to the subject today. For example, one might argue that, in the case of the verses above, Paul was stating a personal, not a divine, viewpoint. Or one might argue that Paul was a citizen of the culture in which he lived and didn't have the benefit of a 21st-century understanding of human sexuality. Or one might argue that the Bible does not speak with one voice on this topic, and that other passages that urge compassion or justice override such verses as these from Paul. Or there may be other reasons suggested. Such arguments aren't likely to convince those who advocate a literal reading and timeless application of Scripture, but at least they don't try to subtract words from the Bible or nullify their obvious meaning.

In any case, these verses should not be used to condone mistreatment of homosexual people, for such action would be malicious, haughty and heartless, all of which Paul explicitly condemns in verses 28-31, which follow the ones quoted above.

Questions: To what degree does the Bible shape your views on social issues today? Why? Does the argument that a biblical view on a single topic may be out of sync with the times threaten the authority of the Bible as a whole? Why or why not? Has a biblical view ever been out of sync with the times in previous centuries? If so, what are some examples?

What movements against same-sex marriage today seem to be mean-spirited? What might Paul say about those?

Exodus 23:19
"You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk." (For context, read 23:18-19.)

This is one of the Jewish dietary laws, observed still by orthodox Jews today in their practice of not eating milk and meat together. We Christians, however, though we consider the Old Testament part of our Bible, don't "keep Kosher." Regarding Old Testament definitions of holiness, law and lifestyle, many Christians point to specific points, such as those concerning sexuality, but ignore questions of clean and unclean when it comes to foods that can be eaten. Many Christians mix meat and milk by eating something like beef stroganoff, or enjoy eating bacon and ham (Deuteronomy 14:8) or wear clothing made of different fabrics (Deuteronomy 22:11).

In the Old Testament polygamy is taken for granted. In New Testament times it seems to be a rarity or even nonexistent. The only possible injunction against it is a directive on the part of Paul that deacons ought to be married to only one wife, but that might suggest that they should not remarry after the death of a spouse. We don't practice polygamy at all and consider it a sin.

Question: How do we choose which biblical laws directly affect us, and which have been superseded or reinterpreted? As individuals? as a people? Why do we embrace biblical injunctions against various forms of sexuality, but not against other things that directly affect lifestyle?

If we, as Christians, have reinterpreted what seems to be lawful in Scripture, how, when or in what circumstances do we choose the collective wisdom of believers in reinterpreting other changes over time? Is reinterpretation something we do as individuals? as congregations? as denominations? as Christendom? Is Scripture study enough? Can one act solely on the basis of how one feels?

Lamentations 3:35-36
"... when human rights are perverted in the presence of the Most High, when one's case is subverted -- does the Lord not see it?" (For context, read 3:25-39.)

Interestingly, the Bible seldom uses the words "fairness" and "equality," but it does use "rights." Rights are not actually defined in the Bible, but in usage, the word seems to mean "one's just cause," or something that is owed to a person individually, to a group or to people in general. To pervert such human rights, as the verses above speak of, implies a refusal of justice.

Questions: In our time, the desire to marry a person of one's same gender is now being described as a right. Does that help in thinking about the subject? Why or why not?

Matthew 22:39
"You shall love your neighbor as yourself."  (For context, read 22:34-40.)

This statement from Jesus of the second of the two great commandments is so well known that it needs little commentary to explain it. But in the current discussion, it leaves room for the questions below.

Questions: The idea of loving our neighbor as our self often means acting for good on behalf of someone who is significantly different from us. Sometimes we can understand and sympathize with some of that difference when we "put our self in the other person's shoes." But if we are heterosexual ourselves, when the difference is in sexual orientation, we may have more difficulty finding a point of understanding and sympathy. Why? If we want to have the privilege of marriage for ourselves, does that require that we redefine marriage to include an arrangement between two people of the same sex? Why or why not?

Hebrews 13:4
"Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and adulterers." (For context, read 13:1-6.)

This statement is one of several admonitions about living the Christian life that the author of Hebrews includes in bringing his book to a close. His subject in the entire passage is the Christian life, and one of the things that he directs Christians to do was to hold marriage in honor.

Questions: The author was not thinking about same-sex marriage; rather, he was calling for marital faithfulness. Still, does the idea of holding marriage itself in honor have a bearing on our thinking about same-sex marriage today? If so, what bearing? How might someone with the other view on this controversy say that he or she is holding marriage in honor by his or her own position?

For Further Discussion

1. Some Christians are willing to support civil unions for same-sex couples, which would include all the rights and privileges that heterosexual couples have, but do not want this arrangement to be called "marriage." What is the difference? What is lost or gained by redefining marriage to include same-gender couples? Are heterosexual marriages harmed in any way when homosexual unions are declared to be marriages? If so, how?

2. Do you know any homosexual persons personally? If so, how does that acquaintance affect your view of same-sex marriage?

3. To what degree do your personal feelings -- quite apart from any religious or moral view -- affect your view of same-sex marriage? To what degree is it helpful to allow those feelings to influence your judgment about such unions? To what degree might it be harmful? Why? How have your opinions about homosexuality changed over time, in either direction, and what was the cause or impetus?

4. Are you aware of anyone (including yourself) whose opinions or beliefs about homosexuality have changed because of a sermon? a church directive? personal experience? discussion with others? Is this an issue in which people seem to be entrenched? Why do you think that studies seem to show that younger people of all religious and ethnic backgrounds accept the idea of homosexual marriage more easily than those who are older?

5. How did the early Christian Church leaders deal with various taboos of the time? Is there anything that is still a taboo in our society today? What are the implications for the church existing in the midst of a taboo-less society?

6. Is it consistent with one's Christian faith to support something as a legal right without supporting it as an option for Christians? Explain your answer.

7. Respond to this comment from a pastor: "Marriage is primarily a legal matter required by the state, not the Church, regarding protection of any children, property rights and inheritance, etc. Accordingly all people who live in committed relationships where money and property are shared should have equal rights under the law, including the right to medical info in sickness, and the home they share when one partner dies. ...  It is not a sin for anyone to fall in love with another person and want to build their lives and home together. However, hatred, rejection and harming another human are sins according to Jesus."

Responding to the News
 
This may be the right time to review our own position about same-sex marriage. Regardless of what conclusion we arrive at, it's good to remind ourselves that our Christian faith, love for God and love for neighbor should be at the root of all that we say and do about this subject.
 
Other News This Week

Aussies Mourn the Passing of the Angel of the Gap

Australian Don Ritchie, the man credited with preventing at least 160 suicides (and perhaps as many as 500) over a span of nearly half a century simply by extending a helping hand and a kind word, is being remembered following his recent death at age 86. The former sailor and life insurance salesman lived across the road from Jacobs Ladder near the Gap Park, where people sometimes contemplated jumping off a cliff to end it all. Ritchie would approach with a smile and ask if there was something he could do to help. His suicide-prevention tactics ranged from inviting people over for a cup of tea, a beer or breakfast and conversation back at the house to physically tackling someone.

Mr. Ritchie "challenged each of us to rethink what it means to be a good neighbor," Tam Johnston of the National Australia Day Council said. Don's daughter, Sue Ritchie Bereny, saw in her father a "strength with compassion" that served as a role model for her grandson.

Read more:

Death of the Angel of the Gap. Sydney Morning Herald
Australians Mourn Don Ritchie. The Telegraph
A Conversation Could Save a Life. Sydney Morning Herald (video)

Some Bible References:

Nehemiah 6:1
"... that I had built the wall and that there was no gap left in it ..." (For context, read 6:1-9.)
Ezekiel 22:30
"I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found none." (For context, read 22:23-31.)

Standing in the gap or filling in gaps in the wall around the city of Jerusalem were measures vital to the security of the nation of Israel.

Questions: How did Mr. Ritchie stand in the gap or fill gaps on behalf of people so they would not be destroyed? How has someone performed a similar function in your life? Have you ever built a strong wall of protection around someone who was vulnerable? How did you accomplish it? Is it possible to build walls of protection into our society that can protect people from themselves?

Matthew 10:42
"... and whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple -- truly I tell you, none of these will lose their reward." (For context, read 10:40-42.)

Question: There is a famous scene in the movie Ben Hur in which Jesus gives water to the nobleman-turned-slave. When have you experienced how something as simple as a cup of water, tea or beer, a smile or conversation had long-lasting transformative effects?

Acts 9:39
"All the widows stood beside [Peter], weeping and showing tunics and other clothing that Dorcas had made while she was with them ..."  (For context, read 9:36-42.)

Questions: When does a cup of water become the water of life that saves a life? When is clothing more than clothing? Even if you think you don't have much to offer, what simple thing could you do, give or say that could make all the difference in the life of someone who is hurting?

Luke 10:29, 33-37
"'And who is my neighbor?' ... But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, 'Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.' Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers? He said, 'The one who showed him mercy.' Jesus said to him, 'Go and do likewise.'" (For context, read 10:29-37.)

Questions: How was Mr. Ritchie a neighbor to strangers on the edge of the cliff? Compare his attitude and actions to the Good Samaritan. How did Mr. Ritchie's attitude and actions compare with those of Jesus toward us?

Closing Prayer
 
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love. Where there is injury, pardon. Where there is doubt, faith. Where there is despair, hope. Where there is darkness, light. Where there is sadness, joy. O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console; to be understood as to understand; to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive. It is in pardoning that we are pardoned, and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life. Amen. (The Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi, 1181-1226) 
 

Copyright 2012 Communication Resources