Why Should the Church Care About Marriage?

I was asked by my friend, Audrey, at the GLAD Alliance (Gay & Lesbian Alliance of Disciples) to respond to the question in the subject line above. For some, the Church is the final bastion in the culture war to preserve the notion held by some of “traditional family.”  For others, marriage is merely a civil contract, in which organized religion should have no part.

I think both are wrong.

Yes, the Church should care about marriage, but not in order to maintain a position of moral authority in the culture. It should care about marriage, whether it involves two people of the same sex or of the opposite sex. I do believe that marriage, specifically, should be separated from the state’s powers to recognize civil unions, and that there should be no legal privileges or rights tied to the ritual of marriage. It should simply be that: an act performed before God and others to make an important statement.

Marriage is covenant: First of all, at the heart of what has become the marital-corporate machine is still a simple but profound covenant – a holy promise – made between two people in love. But there’s more to covenant than that; a true covenant requires commitment from the larger community to help uphold that covenant as well. The marriage ceremony is an opportunity for all to recognize this covenant and to begin holding one another accountable for maintaining it.

Marriage is sacrament: Technically, I believe that a couple doesn’t actually need a wedding ceremony or even a state-recognized civil union to consider themselves “married.” For me, it is a promise made between one another and to God that is deeply personal. But the sacrament part of it is important too, particularly as it ties in to the point above. A sacrament literally means “an outward expression of an inward act.” So it begins with the personal bond forged by the personal covenant, but it is made sacred by the act of marrying before a gathering of peers and loved ones.

Marriage is celebration: I love the joke about the minister who called in sick one Sunday morning and went to play golf. One hole after another, he hit holes in one. After shooting a miraculous 18 for the whole round, he was sure that God’s hand had blessed his incredible game. And then he realized that, since he had lied about what he was doing that day, he couldn’t tell a soul.

Our joys are exponentially multiplied when shared. And Church, at its best, should be a place where our joys are grown and shared, and our sorrows are borne together and made lighter. There are so few markers in our culture for important rites of passage. We tend too often to operate in relative vacuums, only connecting in transient or superficial ways. The Church provides the opportunity for people everywhere to come together for the purpose of celebrating life in its many forms. In as much as who we choose to marry is one of the most important decisions we ever make, it should be marked and celebrated as such.

As the socio-political landscape around marriage and civil unions continues to shift, there always will be a need in our society for covenant, sacrament and celebration. It’s my hope that, rather than taking particular moral positions that exclude particular groups from taking part, the Church as a whole recognizes it’s important role as servant and steward of these live-giving and truly holy moments in our lives.

 

About Christian Piatt

Christian Piatt is the creator and editor of BANNED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BIBLE and BANNED QUESTIONS ABOUT JESUS. He co-created and co-edits the “WTF: Where’s the Faith?” young adult series with Chalice Press, and he has a memoir on faith, family and parenting being published in early 2012 called PREGMANCY: A Dad, a Little Dude and a Due Date.

  • Mark

    Yeah, there’s a real danger here when religious commitment and the state recognition of marriage are separated. I have encountered situations where Christians have made commitments to each other (and to God) that they are married – and it’s a covenant – and then when it falls apart there is no legal protections. Informal marriages can be economically devastating when they blow up, and the law protects people in this case – especially (sorry to say) women.

  • Asemodeus

    “I do believe that marriage, specifically, should be separated from the
    state’s powers to recognize civil unions, and that there should be no
    legal privileges or rights tied to the ritual of marriage. It should
    simply be that: an act performed before God and others to make an
    important statement.”

    This is the anarchist stage of bigotry Christians go through when dealing with advancing civil rights. It is where they realized that they lost the culture war and have to resort to face saving measures in order to maintain power. Racist Christians in the south last century did this when the government forced them to integrate public schools. Instead of admitting defeat several states, Virginia included, decided to close down all public schools to prevent integration.

    They would rather have it so nobody got anything lest they were allowed to discriminate. That sort of thinking isn’t any different from this authors demand that the state have zero say in marriages just because a small segment of the population wants marriages.

    Eventually what will happen is what happened with racists 50 years ago. It will become socially unacceptable to be homophobic in public, so a underground culture of resentment and strife will blossom and go from there. The problem is that since it cannot be out in the open anymore, indoctrinating children with your hate becomes less and less effective, until you get a generation that has zero ties with their bigoted forebears.

  • Yonah

    No, Chris. You can’t deny a word to someone who is just going to apply it to themselves no matter what word-recipe you come up with.

    On Covenant, you’re short there. It’s just not about “love”. Marxist that I am, I would point out that the Marriage Covenant involves the Community of the two. That means I have to take out the trash, and fix the toilet. Gay or Straight, the Community will have to be worked out.

  • RockyC

    Intriguing article Christian, but it left me with many questions. Here’s a couple:

    First, since you argue that “the church” should care about marriage, I assume that you are referring to Jesus’ Church of course.

    Jesus is pretty clear on the nature & meaning of marriage: one man & one woman. How does this square with your statement “whether it involves two people of the same sex or of the opposite sex”?

    Second, states will always have a vested interest in marriage–and legitimately so. This is because states know that their very survival depends on the raising of more children that grow up to contribute positively to society as opposed to those that are a burden to the state. Nothing does this better than a home in which children have a loving mother and father. To preference such a union–a truly particular & unique union–makes sense from the state’s perspective. So why not preference it?

    • Monimonika

      If the states’ vested interest is about the raising of children, why do the states not deny marriage to those couples who clearly cannot (due to old age, disease, etc.) or refuse to procreate? Oh, wait, let me guess. It’s not really about whether children will actually result from a marriage, it’s all about the Biblical man&woman “becoming one flesh” that really matters. Because Christian God said so. *rolls eyes*

      Meanwhile, children being raised by marriage-denied homosexual parents are only allowed to receive work healthcare benefits, parental protection, etc. from only one of their parents rather than both, despite being raised by both parents. So, despite your insistence of caring about the raising of children, you are deliberately spitting on the well-being of these children because you believe only children with a mother and a father should be afforded benefits from the state that come with having married parents.

      Oh, it’s also been shown that children do best when they are raised by their biological mother and father. According to your logic, this is now compelling reason for the state to prevent adoptions.

      • RockyC

        Monimonika,

        I think you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Natural marriage is the ideal because we all know that children do best with a loving mommy & daddy. To deny this reality it to be unloving to children. Just ask them. In the absence of the ideal, we do our best with a Plan B, C, etc. This includes single parenting, extended family help, adoptions, foster homes, etc. So no, it does not follow from my logic that just because the ideal cannot be achieved that we give up completely. Of course not. We do our best as I’ve said. I think you realize this.

        Just because some marriages fail to produce children due to being barren, choice, old age, etc., I don’t think your argument proves anything. Cars are designed to be driven. But if a car is made and never driven, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t designed for a purpose.

        In the same way, as a writer smarter than me put it: “the natural tie of marriage to procreation is not nullified because in some individual cases children are not intended or even possible. Marriage is still what it is even if its essential purpose is never actualized. The exceptions prove the rule, they don’t nullify it. Marriage is intrinsically about and for children.”

        At the heart of my argumentation is simply corresponding to reality (it takes opposite genders to have a marriage) and to do what is best for children.

        Thanks for the dialogue and all the best.

        Rocky

        • Monimonika

          So, what did you mean when you said “To preference such a union…makes sense from the state’s perspective”? In what way is the state to show “preference”?

          I took it to mean that you wanted marriage withheld from same-sex partners. To, in other words, show preference to opposite-sex marriages by outright banning same-sex marriages and sending a clear message that all same-sex couples are by default considered to be crappier parents than convicted heterosexual child abusers (who have the legal right to remarry and create more children if they so desire!).

          But, all of what you said in your reply about achievement of the ideal should seem to indicate otherwise. Can you please clarify how you meant a state is to show preference?

          ETA: Oh, and I hope your reply takes into account the fact that convicted child abusers are allowed to legally marry as long as the pairing is opposite sex.

          • RockyC

            Hello Monimonika,

            I hope you are well.

            I think I covered the “preference” point in my initial post. Here it is again: “This is because states know that their very survival depends on the raising of more children that grow up to contribute positively to society as opposed to those that are a burden to the state. Nothing does this better than a home in which children have a loving mother and father.”

            Examples of showing preference to natural unions of a father & a mother include: tax breaks, reduced-rate home loans, paid maternity leave, etc. The point is that since the state must have good citizens for it to survive long term, it is in the state’s interest to encourage the best producer of good citizens–family units that have a loving mother and father.

            The state preferences all kinds of things. For example, it preferences ambulances with the right & license to surpass the speed limits, use whatever lanes they want or need to, and to expect other motorists to give preference to them via giving way. But the state does not grant the same preferences to we typical motorists. And rightly so. There are many, many other examples of this.

            And this isn’t an issue of promoting inequality as I sense from your question. The state’s preferences or licensing to one but not another is common sense. We grant equality to equals, but not equality to non-equals. For example, We don’t grant drivers’ licenses to children for obvious reasons, the most obvious being that children are not the equal to adults in their driving ability. But it doesn’t follow that we deem children less valuable than adults. It’s actually the opposite–we value the lives of children & adults so we deny the former drivers‘ licenses but grant them to the latter if they demonstrate the requisite competency.

            This competency matter applies to your point about the child abuser. If he meets the essential biological and legal requirements for natural marriage (of age, has another of the opposite gender willing to marry him who is not too closely blood related) he is allowed to marry. I’d feel sorry for his wife. But as a convicted abuser, he’s likely (& justly) lost all access to his children.

            So this scenario does not disprove or take away from the ideal (and simple reality): it takes a man & woman to create what our species has described for millennia as a “marriage,” regardless of how good or bad the couple may be. That’s a different category from the category of parenting (& being allowed to or not).

            All the best & thanks for the dialogue–you make me think!

            Rocky

          • Monimonika

            WARNING: This is going to be a loooong reply.

            Oh, wow. You just straight up admitted that marriage rights do not really have anything whatsoever to do with providing adequate parenting for (potential) children.

            ” If he (the convicted child abuser) meets the essential biological and legal requirements for natural marriage (of age, has another of the opposite gender willing to marry him who is not too closely blood related) he is allowed to marry.”

            Yet, you use the reasoning that marriage should be about providing children with “ideal” parents as a reason to ban same-sex marriages. Even for same-sex couples who are actually raising children together and whose children would really benefit from the following:

            “tax breaks, reduced-rate home loans, paid maternity leave, etc.”

            as well as things such as inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, insurance coverage, and family leave (to, for example, take care of the sick children).

            Also, thanks for making it really clear that you consider all same-sex couples to by default be crappy at parenting. Your analogy with the driving skills difference between adults and children really makes me cringe:

            “For example, We don’t grant drivers’ licenses to children for obvious reasons, the most obvious being that children are not the equal to adults in their driving ability.”

            Adults have to pass driving tests in order to prove they are capable of driving. You know, tests that directly have to do with driving skills? What tests do opposite-sex couples have to go through in order to prove they have the “skills” to marry?

            Apparently the needed “skills” for marriage consists only of being above a certain age, complimentary genitalia, and not being incestuous. Nothing about parenting competency is tested. What was it you claimed opposite-sex-only marriage was supposed to help promote?

            “But it doesn’t follow that we deem children less valuable than adults. It’s actually the opposite–we value the lives of children & adults so we deny the former drivers‘ licenses but grant them to the latter if they demonstrate the requisite competency.”

            *deep breath* *trying very hard to not go into a rage* *deep breath*

            Do you really want to be saying that you “value the lives” of same-sex couples by telling them that they are incompetent at parenting as a matter of course, so don’t even bother to try taking the test?

            Oh wait, the test isn’t about being able to raise children. It’s about the age/genitalia/blood-relatedness stuff, of which same-sex couples automatically fail one part of. A test they would fail at even if they had been successfully raising children together for the past two decades. Again, what was it that you said opposite-sex-only marriage was supposed to help promote?

            In your analogy, it is understood that children, by virtue of simply waiting for time to pass, can eventually mature into adults capable of trying to take a drivers test. How are same-sex couples expected to “mature” into opposite-sex couples that can pass the so-called test for marriage? Sex-change operations, perhaps?

            Also, there’s this major disconnect in logic about your banning of same-sex marriage in order to promote the raising of children in opposite-sex marriages. Basically, banning same-sex marriage does not in any way prevent same-sex couples from raising children.

            Here it is again, since it’s important:

            Banning same-sex marriage does not in any way prevent same-sex couples from raising children.

            Same-sex couples can currently adopt children (as single parents) and even are able to raise one partner’s biological children from previous opposite-sex relationships, sperm donations, or surrogate mothers. There are estimates of hundreds of thousands of such children in the U.S.A.

            Banning same-sex marriage does not in any way shape or form magically provide these children each with a “loving mother and father” nor the state/federal benefits that comes with having married parents. How can it? What it does do is single out these children with same-sex parents as being uniquely denied by law to gain the state/federal benefits provided to children of married couples.

            Both same-sex and opposite-sex couples with children can decide to not marry and thus not claim the marriage benefits. Neither is required by law to have to marry for the benefit of the children. But same-sex couples who do want to provide such benefits to their children are outright denied this in most states, and thus their children suffer and are thus more likely to not “grow up to contribute positively to society as opposed to those that are a burden to the state.”

            Marriage, through unique benefits and provided rights, does indeed uphold stability for a couple to share their lives, property, responsibilities, etc. so that they are uniquely empowered for things such as sudden death, inheritance conflicts, medical emergency decisions, court proceedings, etc. concerning their spouse and/or children. Children benefit greatly from such stability.

            But you think that children currently being raised by same-sex couples should never ever be allowed such stability because… why? What do you have against these children? What is accomplished by making sure their lives are more difficult than necessary? Schadenfreude? Is making sure children of same-sex couples are specifically being denied stability really a vested interest for the state?

            One other thing. You keep repeating that having a loving mother and father is the ideal for raising children. I’m not going to deny that having two loving parents is great for children and is statistically shown to be better than single parenting in rigorous studies. I also will not deny that rigorous studies have shown that children statistically do better when raised by their biological parents rather than non-biological parents.

            Now, name a study in which it was clearly shown that children raised by loving opposite-sex parents do statistically better than children raised by loving same-sex parents. I’d be surprised if you can find anything. The only study I can think of that even comes close to claiming this is the Regnerus Study, which failed to support its author’s conclusion against same-sex parenting.

            There are studies that conclude there is no significant difference in the outcomes of children raised by same-sex parents vs opposite-sex parents. These studies are usually attacked for having too small samples sizes that are self-selected. Unfortunately, this limitation is difficult to overcome due to there not being enough obvious same-sex couples raising children for a long enough time to compare outcomes of.

            However, when asked for studies that show same-sex parenting as being detrimental to children, the only studies presented have been studies that compared children raised by both a mother and father to those who were raised by single or divorced parents. As I said above, these studies clearly show that children raised by both a mother and father fared better than the other groups. But do note that these studies did not show that same-sex parenting was detrimental, because the studies did not even look into same-sex parents raising children together.

            In comes the Regnerus Study, whose author claimed to show that there was a statistically significant detrimental effect on the outcomes of children raised by same-sex parents as opposed to opposite-sex parents. This study was used in court cases to defend bans on same-sex marriage. It has so far not succeeded due to its very obvious flaws in methodology and faulty conclusions. In the study, adult respondents from a large database were asked various questions, among them being whether (to their recollection) either (or any) of their parents had had a same-sex romantic relationship during their childhood. Based on this, the respondents were categorized into 8 groups:

            (1) intact biological families throughout childhood (respondent was not asked whether either parent had a “same-sex romantic relationship” after answering “yes” at this point)

            (2) families where the mother had a “same-sex romantic relationship” at some point during the respondent’s childhood
            (3) families where the father had a “same-sex romantic relationship” at some point during the respondent’s childhood
            (4) families where the respondent was adopted at birth or before age 2
            (5) families where the parents divorced later or had joint custody
            (6) families where respondents were raised by one biological parent and that parent’s spouse
            (7) families where respondents were raised by a single parent
            (8) “all others”

            In order to get big enough samples for groups (2) and (3), any respondent that would have fit in multiple groups (other than group (1) ) were shoved into a single group with priorities being group (3), followed by group (2). So still-together same-sex parents, divorcees, adopters, single parents, etc. were all bunched together in groups (2) and (3).

            After grouping the respondents, comparisons were made of the outcomes of respondents among the groups. Specifically, groups (1), (2), and (3) were compared and the conclusion was made that group (1) fared better than groups (2) and (3). Thus, somehow, same-sex parenting is detrimental to children.

            If you didn’t quite catch what is wrong with this picture, let me spell it out:

            #1: The question merely asked whether a parent had had a “same-sex romantic relationship” during the respondent’s childhood. There is nothing about being raised by said parent and/or the parent’s same-sex partner(s).

            #2: While groups (2) and (3) were a mix of quite a lot of different family orientations barely held together by #1′s premise, the compared group (1) is deliberately excised of all the already established problematic effects of divorce, adoption, non-biological relations, etc.

            This would be like if respondents were asked whether their left-handed parents (if they had at least one) had (to their recollection) ever had a romantic relationship with another left-hander during their childhood. Make the same groups as above. Clearly, the results of comparisons to group (1) would show that left-handers should not be allowed to marry each other. Think of the children!

            There are more problems with the Regnerus Study, but the above two were the most obvious to me.

            / end long reply

            ETA: Oh, and in the Regnerus study there were only two respondents who had actually been raised by same-sex parents (both lesbian couples) for their entire childhoods. Regnerus himself conceded that the two respondents were well-adjusted and compared favorably to other respondents.

          • RockyC

            Hello Monimonika!,

            You’re as voluminous a writer/debater as you are intelligent!

            There’s a lot here and my time is limited so I’ll just pick out what stands out the most to me….

            You wrote: “Apparently the needed ‘skills’ for marriage consists only of being above a certain age, complimentary genitalia, and not being incestuous.”

            I’d say “natural disposition” instead of “skills” to keep these 2 categories distinct. More on this to follow….

            You: “Nothing about parenting competency is tested.”

            Me: Are you advocating that all hopeful parents undergo testing prior to being allowed to raise their children? Who will administer this? Who’s standards will be used?

            You: “What was it you claimed opposite-sex-only marriage was supposed to help promote?”

            Me: The well-being of children of course…which (with exceptions of course) produce good citizens…which produce a good state.

            But you’re making a category error here and committing the “all or nothing” / “either or” fallacy. Natural marriage is one thing. Good parenting, though related, is another. I’m for natural marriage as the only union described as a “marriage” AND for helping children no matter what their circumstances. This is both / and.

            More on categories…

            Nature is pretty exclusive about the brute fact that natural marriage is the only union can produce children on its own. This is one category. That kids need a mommy & daddy for optimal raising is a second. Doing the best we can when category two cannot be experienced is a third category. So, if extended family, adoptions, foster homes, etc. are the child’s only options, I’m for helping them out as much as possible of course!

            But helping out alternative constructs in raising children is not the same category as “what is a marriage?”

            You: “Do you really want to be saying that you “value the lives” of same-sex couples by telling them that they are incompetent at parenting as a matter of course, so don’t even bother to try taking the test?”

            Me: First, you’re putting words in my mouth; I never said anything of the sort. Second, you’ve mixed categories again. Intrinsic value, the ability to produce children naturally, and parenting competency are three distinct categories.

            You: “In your analogy, it is understood that children, by virtue of simply waiting for time to pass, can eventually mature into adults capable of trying to take a drivers test. How are same-sex couples expected to ‘mature’ into opposite-sex couples that can pass the so-called test for marriage? Sex-change operations, perhaps?”

            Me: Reality reveals that SS couples cannot ever pass the “test” so to speak to have their relationship be described as a “marriage,” if by “marriage” we mean natural marriage. I’m sorry, but it’s a biology & nature thing. As a man I can never pass the “become a woman test,” even if I take female hormones and mutilate my genitalia. The sun cannot become the moon. A cat cannot become a dog. A SS couple–though just as intrinsically valuable and human as anyone else!!!–cannot become a natural marriage union. I’m not being mean or a “hater” or a “bigot” here, I’m just describing reality.

            Monimonika, there are simply things in this life that are brute facts and cannot be changed. I’d love play basketball as well as LeBron James. But nature has not given me such abilities. So while I am LeBron’s equal vis-a-vis my humanity, I am not his equal on the court. That’s just reality.

            Keeping these categories clear helps our thinking on such matters, including the SSM debate.

            You: “Also, there’s this major disconnect in logic…Here it is again, since it’s important:…Banning same-sex marriage does not in any way prevent same-sex couples from raising children.”

            Me: I never said that it does. These are two different categories.

            You: “Banning same-sex marriage does not in any way shape or form magically provide these children each with a “loving mother and father” nor the state/federal benefits that comes with having married parents. How can it? What it does do is single out these children with same-sex parents as being uniquely denied by law to gain the state/federal benefits provided to children of married couples….

            But you think that children currently being raised by same-sex couples should never ever be allowed such stability because… why? What do you have against these children? What is accomplished by making sure their lives are more difficult than necessary? Schadenfreude? Is making sure children of same-sex couples are specifically being denied stability really a vested interest for the state?”

            Me: Different categories again. I would advocate helping the children being raised by non-married couples (M-F, M-M or F-F) by the same standards. For goodness sake help all kids!

            But it doesn’t follow that such unions are marriages.

            And the ideal, natural marriages, ought to receive the most promotion & encouragement from the state–such unions are better for the state & its citizens in the long.

            AGAIN–the kids in alternative situations are not less valuable! Let’s do all we can for them!! Including being courageous enough to tell them the truth: “If you want to have children someday, give them the best–raise them love and never leave the one you made them with. That’s what we describe as a marriage.”

            You: However, when asked for studies that show same-sex parenting as being detrimental to children, the only studies presented have been studies that compared children raised by both a mother and father to those who were raised by single or divorced parents. As I said above, these studies clearly show that children raised by both a mother and father fared better than the other groups.”

            Me: This comes as no surprise of course. The history of our species makes this reality as clear as day. Conduct studies all you want, but do we really need them for verifying something so obvious? Of course not. Such studies are tantamount to studying the sun to determine if it is hot or not.

            You: “But do note that these studies did not show that same-sex parenting was detrimental, because the studies did not even look into same-sex parents raising children together.”

            Me: So why experiment on our most precious resource: our children? Why not admit, all things being equal, that the best environment for a child is to be raised by its mother & father?

            Now of course, due to death, divorce, abuse etc., the best cannot always (indeed, way too often) be experienced by the child. So we do our best with extended family, adoptions, step parents, foster homes, etc. I’m not impugning any of these; I’m not labeling them as inherently “crappy by default” as you have repeatedly concluded even though I’ve never said such a thing. We ought to encourage them to be the best they can be!

            I’m not even saying that a SS couple are by nature “crappy” in terms of parenting skills. Surely people with SS attraction are like anyone else in this matter: somewhere along the continuum of awful to fair to excellent vis-a-vis their parenting abilities & skills.

            But it does not follow that a SS union is the same as union between a man and a woman. Since both are things in particular, it is justified (and commonsensical) to describe them as different things.

            And please hear me on this: the individuals in either union are not intrinsically more valuable as human beings than any of the others, SS attracted or opposite sex attracted. This is where they are all equals.

            I’m on vacation for the next week and taking a break from all things technological where possible, including online discussions, so I hope to resume with you in a week or so. I really value our discussion and thank you for it!

            Have a great week!,

            Rocky

            P.S. I’ve heard of but have never read the Regnerous Study. You’re analysis is quite thoughtful. Eventually I’ll get around to it but I’m in no hurry since you, like one of my best friends, seem to have made a reasonable case against it’s flawed methodology. Thanks for taking the time to break it down. But again, do we really need such as study as I’ve commented above?

          • Monimonika

            Forgot to add another aspect to my loooong reply.

            How does a ban on same-sex marriage logically help children being raised by married opposite-sex parents? Does same-sex marriage harm the children of married opposite-sex parents?

            I’ve already pointed out direct, logical harms due to unequal treatment of children of unable-to-marry same-sex parents. What harms do you say are prevented when same-sex marriage is banned? Saying that it harms the upholding of the “ideal” parenting formation (man & woman) is not a good enough reason.

            It is quite clear you are applying a double-standard in regards to who should be able to get married. You give very few restrictions for opposite-sex couples to marry and refuse to apply your “ideal parents for children” scrutiny to any of them. But for same-sex couples this “ideal” suddenly becomes very, very, very important and is the cornerstone of your argument to ban same-sex marriages.

            Basically, your arguments demonstrate that the “children” part of marriage does not matter to you at all, and it’s the genitalia of the couples that most concerns you.

          • RockyC

            I think my just-posted (and more lengthy) prior post answers these assertions.

  • BraveEnoughToQuestion

    I have a general question for the church:

    When they say “defend traditional marriage”, which traditional marriage are they referring to? The polygamous marriages which are the most traditional, or the marriages that the church defined as “one man and one woman of the same race”? When one looks into American history or church history, there is no “one man and one woman of any race” anywhere. Interracial marriages are relatively recent.

    The point: the traditional marriage premise is false. Also all of the terrible things that the church says about same sex marriage sound very and suspiciously similar to their (past of course) objections against interracial marriage.

    And why would god be racist any way? Why deny blacks the priesthood at all? There is no excuse. Racism and cross burning do not belong on the resume of a supreme being. This tells me that the church is made up, god was a racist and thus does not deserve to be worshiped, or he is an even bigger idiot because he had no clue at all that his black creations were equal to his white creations, even though he designed and created them in the first place.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X