"Amendment One: The Right Thing" by Link2Eternity

Amendment One: The Right Thing

Blog: Link2Eternity

March 26, 2012

I know many will dismiss this column as a “religious” intrusion into political and legal affairs, a typical response for our day, but since most columns I've read are devoid of any consideration of the divine in regard to the gay marriage issue, I thought it important to balance the issue by invoking the one reality usually omitted in such discussions, God.

After all, civil rights, at least of the historic kind with Martin Luther King Jr. at the helm, emerged from the very source that most modern civil rights activists conveniently ignore. King, in fact, believed in a transcendent, absolute, and personal God and and that this same Judeo-Christian God was foundational to his efforts. So much a part of his thinking was this reality, that even his classification of “just” and “unjust” laws were determined by the same. “A just law,” he said, “is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a man-made code that is out of harmony with the moral law,” In other words, the justness of any human law is directly proportional to its compliance with the transcendent and unchanging law of God. Conversely, any law that clashed with the objective law of God was, in MLK’s mind, unjust and untranslatable into any “civil rights” as he perceived them.

If alive today, and consistent, I am confident that King would refer to the original and divine intent of marriage, as noted in Scripture, and see it as a union between a man and woman worthy of the greatest protection. He would refer to the creation of Adam and Eve and then fast forward to Jesus' confirmation of this divine paradigm found in Mark 10:1-9.

King had no problem holding culture's feet to the fire of Scripture when he wrote his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” because, as I understood the acclaimed document, he really believed what he wrote and what he wrote was that morality, generally, and “just law,” particularly, sprouted from the pages of Scripture itself with every expectation that legislation should logically follow. Conversely, then, without consideration of God's law, no logical basis for anything either civil or right exists.

Hence, I have a valid reason for thinking that King would consider any defense of marriage a worthy cause, and would consider the defeat of “Amendment One” equivalent to an organized theological revolt. It maligns both God, his Christ and the most basic institution of society, marriage, making mockery of the Divine and natural norm for the sexes – the very marital model that Jesus espoused, endorsed, and, with his physical resurrection, authenticated.

I believe he would see this contemporary and favorable slant toward gay marriage as the intentional rejection of the Judeo-Christian basis from which his movement grew, and if consistent, see this rebellion against the divine standard as Francis Schaeffer saw it, as an "Obliteration of the distinction between man and woman...as complementary partners.” Intending, in fact, that “all of God's creation is to be fought against..." (The God Who Is There 37).

It doesn't really surprise me that such realities are ignored in the debate on gay marriage. After all, pulling a page from King's civil rights play book, particularly one that includes the Bible, would inevitably make “Amendment One” sound very much like the right thing to do that it is.

Tony

pgericson 1 year, 1 month ago

I believe one has to be careful when advancing the likely views of the long deceased on a contemporary topic. I believe that Dr. King was a strong supporter of the equality of all men and women. His emphasis was on achieving equality for all races and, given the times, a discussion of gay rights during these contentious times would, at best, be highly imprudent. In the end, the issue is not whether Dr. King would have approved of gay marriage, but whether he would support the rights of gays and lesbians individuals to share in his dream of equality for all people in all things. His widow once said, in a public speech, that everyone who believed in his dream should “make room at the table of brother and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people. The amendment coming up for a vote not only precludes gay and lesbian marriage but specifically denies these individuals the legal protections afforded by the State of North Carolina to married individuals: there is no option for a civil union offering similar protections. As Dr. King said “we must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.”

link2eternity 1 year, 1 month ago

Hello pgericson,

Thanks for the response.

I would like to say, however, that if you read my column more closely, you will discover that I qualified my argument with “if consistent.” “If consistent” King would approve of Amendment One because his belief, at least as he told it, was that “just law” must be based on the unchangeable law of God. Since God created man and woman for one another and marriage as the only legitimate context for the expression of sexuality, all confirmed by Jesus, of course, then it is fair to conclude that King would side with the protection of marriage. What you are saying is that he would abandon the very logical base upon which he claimed to stand, a mark more in keeping with your typical politician. At least I give him the benefit of the doubt as a man of consistency.

As for his widow, it is very possible that she has deviated form the biblical base upon which her husband argued, a move, I might add, that abandons the unchanging moral foundation that MLK emphasized.

Finally, if marriage is indeed sacred, a reality dictated by its divine origin, then it warrants protection. Secular thinking does not affect this reality.

Thanks again for the response.

Tony

babiehop 1 year, 1 month ago

I'm curious as to your view of divorce. It is used to deal with discontentedness the way abortion is used to deal with unwanted pregnancies. My point is, marriage in this country is already not consistent with God's law. If Dr. King truly believed in the sanctity of marriage, perhaps he wouldn't have been the philandering adulterer that he was. I don't disagree with your point of view, but am not certain that I'm willing to impose it on others.

link2eternity 1 year, 1 month ago

Hello babiehop,

My view on divorce, while important, is a far cry from the issue at hand. The gay marriage issue is an attempt to change the divinely implemented paradigm for marriage, and even though our country cheapens it, divorce does not tamper with the foundational standard. In fact, no matter how many problems we see in marriage per se, it gives us no right to change or discard the divinely instituted standard.

Concerning King, remember, I stressed “if consistent.” That being the case, he was not beyond inconsistency. If he violated his marriage vows, it was inconsistent indeed, but that does not nullify my argument. Law, legislative or constitutional, must be based on God's law. If not, its actual justness or unjustness is indeterminable.

Thank you for the discussion.

Tony

babiehop 1 year, 1 month ago

Tony, Okay, but if "without consideration of God's law, no logical basis for anything either civil or right exists," then what of Christ's deeper explanation of keeping the Sabbath ? By the letter of the law, basically nothing was to be done on that day, but are we to leave our neighbor's oxen in the ditch to observe this, or is it as man's law that has an intent that although not spelled out, is expected to be understood ? So then, is God's law to be followed as written and as understood by man or with consideration of His law as we understand it with our hearts as what is right and just and good ? Good discussion, thanks for counting me in.

ann

link2eternity 1 year, 1 month ago

Hello again babiehop,

I don't think that King was emphasizing the “letter” of the law, but he did emphasize the “unjustness” of human law that contradicted the most basic realities revealed in Scripture. Those basic realities are the laws to which he referred. Of course, the fact that all men are created in the image of God, a reality, law, unaffected by the color of one's skin.

The divine origin of marriage fits the same category. Either God or man “invented” the institution and if God did, then any human law that runs counter this reality would be unjust no matter how we spin it. Conversely, any law that protects the institution is just.

Thanks again.

Tony

AM910 1 year, 1 month ago

Will you stand by an amendment to rid the state of all seafood house's? Just curious.

link2eternity 1 year, 1 month ago

Hello AM910,

That is a good question and a popular one to be sure. It also rises from a misconception concerning biblical interpretation. So, I will answer you as briefly as possible.

Of course not I wouldn't support an amendment banishing shrimp from the American diet.

As a “dispensationalist, and for those who don't know that that is, it is an interpretive school that keeps Israel and the church separate while interpreting scripture. The specifics to which most people refer, the eating of shrimp, wearing mixed fabric clothing, etc, etc, were given to Israel.

A good read on this is “Dispensationalism Today,” by Charles Ryrie.

The church as such, nor other nations, were subjected to those laws. Even the Sabbath, Saturday, was Jewish, as is indicated with the change of the day or worship noted in Scripture, Sunday, the first day of the week. This of course was a testimony to the day that Jesus rose from the dead. The church, therefore, reveres Sunday as the primary day of worship.

In regard to diet and other particulars of the Jewish law, consider the following explanation given by Paul in Colossians 2:16-17

"16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

If you read my first post, I mentioned the fact that King didn't refer to the “letter of the law,” but to those biblical universal realities designed and instituted by God. Human equality, for example is based on our creation in God's image, the basis of his argument, and marriage was designed and instituted by the creator himself as well.

It all boils down to one's view of origins, doesn't it?

I hope this helps some.

Tony

AM910 1 year, 1 month ago

It also boils down to how people can pick and choose what to follow in the Bible (it's not misconception if it's written in black and white). It's been done for a very long time.

link2eternity 1 year, 1 month ago

Hello Again AM910,

Before answering, I thank you for the civil manner in which you argue your point. As I've said before in some of my discussions, it is a rarity.

I understand your concern here, but the fact of the matter is, there is a right way to interpret the bible. In fact, even the Apostle Paul told young Timothy to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 3:15). There is, according to Paul, a right way to interpret scripture and, therefore, a much greater number of ways to misinterpret it.

My point is that with Scripture rightly interpreted, your original assumptions and allegations are nullified. You said, “Will you stand by an amendment to rid the state of all seafood house's? Just curious.” I merely answered your question and noted the reason I would not “stand by an amendment to rid the state of all seafood houses.

You assume and allege that scripture is the problem when, in reality, the misinterpretation of the text is the real culprit. Rightly interpreted, one can take a firm stand against homosexuality and gay marriage without fear of contradiction or inconsistency, because, basically, both the lifestyle and the fight for gay marriage violates the most basic purpose of the sexes as divinely created.

Thank you again.

Tony

snookyone 1 year, 1 month ago

Gay marriage is illegal in NC and Amendment I won't change that. There is marriage in the eyes of the law...then there’s marriage in the eyes of the church. If a church chooses not to perform same-sex weddings then they don't have to. May I remind Tony and others who think they can speak for The Lord: Gays are God’s children too.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago

Please see this article on The Metropolitan Community Church and explain why your religious doctrine on marriage should be favored in the law over theirs.

Metropolitan Community Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you, and God bless.

link2eternity 1 year, 1 month ago

Hello Duystyrhoades,

This is an easier question than others. I refer you again to the column where King noted the necessity of human law being grounded in a higher and absolute law, the law of God. Of course, the Metropolitan Community Church avoids the very law to which King referred, the law of the Judeo-Christian God particularly. At one point in his letter, he distanced himself from the God of Islam.

More factually, if Jesus actually rose physically from the dead, and the historical evidence tells us it does, then what Jesus said about everything is valid. Jesus confirmed the creation of man and woman as complimentary partners and marriage as the context of sexuality. Hence, any paradigm that deviates from or devalues this standard is inherently wrong. The modern gay movement is a war on the God of creation, and our Lord Jesus Christ who confirmed the original creation and design. It defies the divine standard for the most basic institution of society.

Furthermore, the Apostle Paul noted that marriage was a picture of Christ and the Church, and the language declares it between a man and woman absolutely. (Ephesians 5:25-33)

Why should “my”religious doctrine on the issue be favored? Actually, it isn't my view at all. I merely concede to that which God intended and Jesus confirmed in his physical resurrection.

So, simply, I base it on the authority of Christ Jesus.

Thanks for the discussion.

Tony

katimae 1 year, 1 month ago

Representatives in our state assembly swore on the Bible to uphold our Constitution- they didn't swear on the Constitution to uphold the Bible. Using "God's Laws" to justify discrimination is just plain intolerance. Yes- marriage is sacred. Allowing everyone to participate is the RIGHT thing to do. Using the Constitution to DENY equal treatment of a segment of the population is just plain WRONG- and a horrendous misuse of power.

link2eternity 1 year, 1 month ago

katimae,

At least they didn't swear on the constitution to uphold the Bible. The fact that they "swore" on the Bible places it above the human document they desire to defend.

Tony

dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago

link: all you've done is reiterate that your belief as to what God says is different from that of the MCC and your belief should be favored over theirs because you believe your interpretation is right and they're wrong.

Sorry, America doesn't work that way.

link2eternity 1 year, 1 month ago

Hello Dusty, I didn't merely state "my" belief. I stated the physical resurrection as the basis. It is historical and verifiable and if true, then what Jesus said about sexuality and marriage is also true. In affirming the gay lifestyle, the MCC totally ignores Jesus' input on the matter.

Against the grain of modern culture, I will go with Jesus on the matter.

Tony

thoughtful1 1 year, 1 month ago

I understand that many people feel that Amendment 1 is an attempt to defend traditional marriage, and I know that many people also have deeply personal, faithful reasons for this belief. But, I cannot see how this amendment will defend marriage between a man and a woman. It would do nothing to change or improve the status and legal protections already given to married individuals. And of course, marriage between two persons of the same gender is already illegal in NC. No matter the outcome of the vote, same-gender individuals will still not be allowed to marry after the election.

The proposed amendment states that, "Marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state." This means that it would strip away the protections and benefits from all domestic partners and their children, whether the partners are same-gender or opposite-gender. The idea may have been to simply strengthen the existing ban on gay marriage, but many straight couples and their children will also pay the price should the amendment pass. This legislation seems mean-spirited and hateful -- not at all in keeping with Christ's loving ministry.

Thanks for listening to my opinion.

visigrad 1 year, 1 month ago

For anyone who thinks there will be no consequences if this ammendment does not pass..there is ample evidence to the contrary. Ministers refusing to perfom a same sex"marriage" have been jailed. Businesses refusing to cater a same sex "marriage" reception have been penalized. and if you want to see more consequences go to: massresistance.org

ningram 1 year, 1 month ago

Great article! So many try to use to Bible in a contradictory manner when never truly understanding the different dispensations and how that plays a large role on how we as Christians are to interpret the Bible. Thank you for taking the time to truly study this matter and offer this view. As you said before, it's not your own personal view, but what is true from God's word.

Also, although some have stated the NC law already bans gay marriage, that could easily be overturned by a liberal Judge that doesn't agree with it. We need this amendment to prevent that from happening in this state like it has in others. The end result of this amendment not being passed would be that churches could lose the right to speak freely about the sin of homosexuality, as that would become "Hate Speech" punishable by law. It would also require that children in public school as early as Pre-Kindergarten be taught that the homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable and normal life choice.

SallyLarson 1 year, 1 month ago

link2eternity, Government's job is to govern over the enormous diversity of people in this country in the most fair and equal way and to force favoritism from one group is self serving and wrong. Evangelicals like yourself already have the infrastructure to make changes in society through your churches and community involvement. You have the freedom to practice and spread your beliefs to make changes but what I don't understand is why are you trying to make the government do your work for you? I feel this is a desperate attempt from a sinking ship to make everyone do what you want because you are loosing your foothold in this modern and more complicated world. Religious institutions need to put their money where their mouth is and step up to do a better job if they want to make a difference and not act like helpless wounded victims with their hands out for help from the government.

SH59 1 year, 1 month ago

Where are you Link2eternity?

link2eternity 1 year ago

Right Here SH59,

Sometimes I believe it better to let several speak their minds and then, if anyting particular arises worth resonding to, I try to do it.

So, I'm watching and thinking.

I am also working on finalizing a book in response to Rob Bell and his denial of Hell's eternality. In the book I decipher and unravel his faulty philosophical and theological underpinnings.

Mainly, just busy.

Will be looking at the threads again today, though, and will post again to some of the allegations and arguments.

Hey, never had anybody care where I was, much less ask. lol

debsalomon 1 year ago

I know little of the intricacies and definitions of marriage cited here and in threads responding to the other recent stories ,,, but I'm learning. Please clear something up for me: Marriage between a man and a woman during Biblical times...Old Testament or New...was, in some ways, a master-servant relationship where the wife was chattel, ruled by her husband. She obeyed him. Whatever was hers became his. All this has changed --- as has everything else in the universe. Maybe some of the negative energy directed against loving same-sex couples who wish to marry should be spent on men who father children with several women --- and disappear. I think society as a whole would be better served by addressing this problem rather than imposing their interpretations on couples of different theologies or affiliations. But, then, this is an endless, solution-less discussion.

link2eternity 1 year ago

I'm still not sure why the standard for marriage between a man and woman should be discarded. Your concern addresses neither the origin of marriage, the foundational concern, in fact, nor the authority people think they have to change that which was divinely instituted. Unless, of course, you are discarding the divine in your assumptions. If so, that is another issue that needs addressing. Even the abuse of the standard by heterosexuals doesn’t suggest that something is wrong with the standard.

You also assume that "love" gives a free pass to love however one wants to love, but even love must have boundaries. How can we be sure that we "love" the right things. Pedophiles "love" children but we abhor the idea and believe, quite strongly I might add, that their "love" is perverted.

Love must also have boundaries. Men "love" drugs, some people "love" in an adulterous affair, others "love" their race so much that it drives them to racism. We must know how to rightly define and direct our love toward the right things.

debsalomon 1 year ago

You seem to be the authority, the last word, the one and only interpretation on all matters. So be it.

getreal 1 year ago

How wonderful that in your column you can speak for God and speak for Dr. King. You are eloquent in your delusions. People who think they are the ultimate authority on any subject are fooling themselves. Please remember, "It is better to be thought a fool, then to speak and prove them correct." What others do is none of your business and you have no right to deny equal rights to others. I feel sorry for you. I always thought Dr. King preached love, understanding and equality for everyone. Those who are so smug in their bigotry should have to experience the sting of rejection that they themselves support.

link2eternity 1 year ago

Hello "getreal"

You said, "How wonderful that in your column you can speak for God and speak for Dr. King. You are eloquent in your delusions."

I ask only one question here, How have I misrepresented either God or King?

Tony

getreal 1 year ago

link2eternity, you stated:I am confident that King would refer to the original and divine intent of marriage, as noted in Scripture, and see it as a union between a man and woman/ and : I have a valid reason for thinking that King would consider any defense of marriage a worthy cause, and would consider the defeat of “Amendment One” equivalent to an organized theological revolt. It maligns both God, his Christ and the most basic institution of society, marriage, making mockery of the Divine and natural norm for the sexes – the very marital model that Jesus espoused, endorsed, and, with his physical resurrection, authenticated. if that is not speaking for someone else, I don't know what is. You are a pompous A, you are well read and verbose, but that does not give you the insight and divine power to tell people what the writings of others, including the bible mean exactly. It is all conjecture and interpretation, yet you dare to tell others what it all means. That is where the "delusion" part comes in. By the way, good luck with that link to eternity.

link2eternity 1 year ago

Hello again getreal,

If I dont have, as you say, "insight and divine power to tell people what the writings of others, including the bible mean exactly," then feel free to tell me what they do actually mean.

I'm all "ears."

Tony

getreal 1 year ago

link2eternity, Unlike you, I wouldn't even begin to tell others what the writings of the deceased mean. They are not here to defend or explain themselves. I am only a mere moral, unlike your impression of yourself. You write over and over in your long winded posts about the resurrection of Jesus, "More factually, if Jesus actually rose physically from the dead, and the historical evidence tells us it does, then what Jesus said about everything is valid." Historical evidence? What historical evidence? There is none, just the belief in the words written by unknown people in a book of stories, Please great sage, tell us who wrote the Bible and when was it written and how you personally know everything contained within is the divine truth? Explain to us poor unenlightened people how you know all and see all? All we see in your posts is "I believe", I think" I know". You know only what you have read, not experienced. What you have read is only the words of others. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Let those who follow their beliefs decide what the words mean to them, they do not need someone like you to explain anything to them. Your arrogance is has no boundaries! You say you are in the process of writing a book, God help us all, will we all have to read it so we will know how to think as you want us to? I am tried of your posturing and conceit, I have wasted enough of my time trying to understand why someone like you feels so superior to the rest of us poor souls and feels the need to lead us in the right direction. People have the right to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions. You are not needed nor appreciated. Tony, please go get a life and stop trying to tell me and the rest of the population what God and Rev. King would do and say about this biased, unfair and hateful amendment, only they could answer for themselves, not you.

link2eternity 1 year ago

Just a couple of notes about getreal's response: Since he believes that all should have the right to read and decipher for themselves what King and Jesus meant, then it is my prerogative to do just that, and if any conclusion, even mine, is just as valid based on this assumption, then my view is just as valid as anyone else's. The point is, if we can't know what they actually meant, then reading them for any true interpretation seems a practice in futility.

Getreal said, " Let those who follow their beliefs decide what the words mean to them, they do not need someone like you to explain anything to them." Notice carefully that his is a statement that dispels certainty but he dispels it with the very certainty that he denies.

I know getreal isn't interested, but for those who are, here are the 12 historical facts posited by Gary Habermas. These facts, at least many of them, are granted by some of the most arden skeptics.

Gary Habermas

(Class Notes - Southern Evangelical Seminary)

Jesus died due to the rigors of crucifixion.
Jesus was buried.
His disciples doubted and despaired because His death challenged their hopes.
The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later.
The disciples had real experiences that they believed were actual appearances of the risen Jesus.
The disciples were transformed and were even willing to die for the truth of these events.
This gospel message, including the resurrection, was the very center of preaching in the early church.
The gospel was even proclaimed in Jerusalem, the city where Jesus died.
The Christian Church was firmly established by these disciples.
The primary day of worship was Sunday—the day Jesus was reported to have risen.
James, Jesus’ previously skeptical brother, was converted when he believed he saw the resurrected Jesus.
Paul, a leader in the persecution of the Church, was also converted by a real experience he believed to be the risen Jesus.

According to Gary Habermas, and convincingly in his debates, these 12 facts militate against any naturalistic explanation of the empty tomb, and argue, quite successfully, for a supernatural one.

This will be my last post in this thread unless someone asks a particular question.

I know that makes getreal happy.

Tony

getreal 1 year ago

Finally the "Sermon" has ended! I will leave this post also with one final thought. What is the difference between the religious zealots from the Middle East causing the horror of 9/11 because of their beliefs that this country was a threat to their religion and the hate and bigotry aimed at the gay population because of the beliefs that they are a threat to the teachings of the Christian religion? The premise is the same it is just in different degrees. Think about it, hate and lack of understanding, is still hate and lack of understanding, no matter what, it is still wrong. Those who profess to know the "real" meaning of "God's Word" and speak for "God" in their posts are delusional and misdirected. God and Jesus would probably be amused at the posts in this thread. This amendment is unnecessary and a threat to not only gays but those who are not married and living together with their children. It is a breach of the Separation of Church and State. I can only hope it will be defeated and put an end to this forum of evil intent. "So let it be written, so let it be done" Yul Brynner, "The Ten Commandments" LOL