Dear Theophilus:: December 2003

Opinion Column: Thoughts on the Massachusetts Gay Marriage Decision

This article does not necessarily represent the opinions of the Dear Theophilus editorial staff or Emmanuel Church.

Let's get one preliminary item out of the way. Homosexual intercourse is a sin. Period. It is impossible to think otherwise if you believe that the Bible is inerrant. You'd be hard-pressed to find any topic on which scripture takes a clearer position.

And yet, and yet…

In case you've been living in a cave for the last month, on Nov. 18 the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided the case Goodridge v. Dep't of Public Health, which required the state to legalize gay marriage. Needless to say, the decision has been extremely controversial, and many opponents have threatened to respond with boycotts, constitutional amendments, and other very bad things.

Most of these opponents have been Christian groups of one sort or another - which is understandable given what I just said three paragraphs up. But is it the right response? I think not. In fact, in my opinion the only proper Christian response can be summed up in two words: "Who cares?"

That may be a little bit of an exaggeration, but only a little bit.

This might seem counterintuitive. How can we just stand by in the face of something so obviously contrary to God's will? I'd answer that in a couple of ways.

First off, as a simple factual matter, legalizing gay marriage isn't going to increase sin, any more than prohibiting it until now has prevented sin. I have no particular desire to go into detail here. But the basic point is that homosexuals were already free to act sinfully. Whether or not they also have a marriage certificate is, in a way, beside the point.

But some might respond that the government shouldn't show approval for sinful lifestyles. Maybe not. But so what if it does? What's our stake in maintaining the moral purity of the state? I'd say: zero. In the end, our job is to save people from this world, not to make the world a better place to live. Or to put it another way: "This world is not [our] home, [we're] just a-passin' through." New Testament Christians didn't occupy themselves lobbying their local proconsuls to outlaw toga parties or gladiator rings or orgies or even slavery. America may be a lot less pagan than the Roman Empire, but that's just a difference of degree, not a difference in kind. Fundamentally, all earthly governments and social structures are just vestiges of this fallen world. Focusing our energies on moralizing them is a waste of our time, no matter what society and which age of history you live in.

Now on the other hand, we're citizens of this country as well as Christians, and it's our duty to take part in civic affairs. And since our faith is an inseparable aspect of our identities, as long as we need to vote or otherwise participate in civil society, our acts should be informed by our beliefs. Also, we care about preventing people from getting hurt, and so it's legitimate for us to influence the government as a means of stopping, say, abortion, or discrimination, or economic exploitation, or any other type of injustice. But Christianizing our country's governmental and social structures as an end in itself? Pointless.

And that's all that would be accomplished by keeping gay marriage illegal - nothing but empty symbolism. Hooray, we made a statement that Christian morality is favored by the state! But so what?

Second of all: what if we actually could stop people from sinning? What if we didn't just outlaw gay marriage, but also outlawed all sodomy, like some states used to do before the U.S. Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional earlier this June? Those laws were rarely enforced, but what if we changed that? Wouldn't that prevent people from sinning in practice? Maybe. But I'd argue that even if it worked, it would still be wrong for us to try.

I think one of the most elementary principles of Christianity is that true belief can't be forced externally - if anything, that will just backfire. It must be freely given. But laws are, by definition, instruments of coercion. That is their nature. So when it comes to spreading the Gospel, they are useless instruments.

That doesn't mean that laws are worthless. We need them to stop antisocial acts, to keep life on earth livable. Even if outlawing theft won't change a thief's heart, we need to do it or else somebody will get robbed. But gay marriages have no victim. The only rationale for banning them is to do it for their own good. Except that it won't do them any good. In the eyes of God, an unsaved person who cheats and steals and sleeps around is no better than an unsaved person who doesn't do any of those things. Criminalizing a victimless act, no matter how sinful that act might be, is just another waste of time.

This is not to say that we should be happy about the Massachusetts decision. I'm not. But we should recognize that it's just an academic question. We shouldn't go on a political crusade to change our laws. And we shouldn't waste time bellyaching about the moral decline of our society. All societies are immoral - we should never expect otherwise from a fallen world. In the end, society is just an abstraction, and morality is a red herring. Our job is to save people, and the best way to do that is by spreading the Gospel.

The Bible is clear: homosexual offenders are sinners. But that doesn't make them any different from any other non-Christians out there. Nobody ever tries to pass laws outlawing pride, or lust, or unbelief. We just try to present those sinners with the Gospel, and trust that the rest will take care of itself. I say, let 'em marry. If we lead them to Christ, then it won't matter if we didn't keep it illegal. And if we can't lead them to Christ, then it won't matter if we did. .