The Right Thing To Do

The Right Thing To Do July 3, 2015

Christians should support same-sex marriage - Chuck Queen quote

Christians should support same-sex marriage regardless of what one personally believes about marriage because treating same-sex couples with dignity and respecting their rights to have equal protection under the law is the right thing to do.

– Chuck Queen

The quote comes from an article in Baptist News on “Why Christians can and should support the Supreme Court decision on marriage equality.”

"Wasn't Egypt a province with a very special status as property of the Emperor himself ..."

A Case from the Border
"There was a tradition that Jesus was gifted in his understanding of Judaism at a ..."

Love, Doctrine, and Mystery
"I think so. There were many expert players in the history of hockey, but comparatively ..."

Love, Doctrine, and Mystery
"Isn't that a variant of "the more you learn, the more you appreciate how much ..."

Love, Doctrine, and Mystery

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • As a Christian who believes in the bible which may or may not be inerrant, where is ‘dignity and respect’ bestowed to same-sex couples?

    • John MacDonald

      Matthew 7:1-3 New International Version (NIV)

      Judging Others

      7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

      3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

      • John MacDonald

        Another good passage is 1 Peter 2:17 New International Version (NIV)

        Universal Respect

        17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

        • Good stuff. I’m a believer.

          • John MacDonald

            It’s all part of The Golden Rule: Matthew 7:12 English Standard Version (ESV)

            The Golden Rule

            12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

    • Kubricks_Rube

      Fred Clark makes a compelling case for Acts 10:1 – Acts 11:18.

      This story teaches us that appealing to biblical law in order to declare another person or group of people as “profane or unclean” is not legitimate, even if we think we can make a strong case for interpreting the law in this way. The biblical laws regarding circumcision were not ambiguous or optional, yet such clear commandments regarding Other People’s Genitals were not to be allowed to exclude the uncircumcised from being baptized.

      Let me be clear on that point: God commanded Peter to disregard those laws, commanded him not to allow those laws to exclude others. Peter wasn’t told that he now had the option of welcoming those who had been excluded. Peter wasn’t told he might maybe kind of sort of “tolerate” these people as second-class members of the community, “as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed” the gift of the Holy Spirit.

      No, Peter was told that he must welcome them, fully and openly as equals. “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” Anything short of full acceptance would itself constitute disobeying a command from God.

  • John MacDonald

    If we are to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:39), should we not also love Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgenders, because they are our neighbors? If we are to love our enemies (Luke 6:27-36), how much more should we love Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgenders, who are not our enemies?

  • I don’t think many homosexuals wanted marriage for themselves in the first place (especially gays), and I definitely don’t think the old “one man one woman” definition violated the equal protection clause simply because it didn’t give polygamists, siblings, or homosexuals the privilege to marry.

    • David Evans

      “I don’t think many homosexuals wanted marriage for themselves in the first place ” Do you have any evidence for that? I have seen gay couples of both sexes crying with joy at being at last able to get married.

      Furthermore, so what? An unjust law is unjust irrespective of how many people it affects.

      • Strangely, I haven’t seen any recent articles on the actual number of homosexual marriages since June 26. If the number was significant, I’m sure the liberal media would write some up.

        Though the various restrictions on homosexual marriage in the U.S. may or may not have been unjust, they weren’t clearly unconstitutional.

        • David Evans

          You would hardly expect a rush of weddings this soon, since so many officials are expressing their intention to defy the Supreme Court on this matter. But I do have a number for you. 71,165 legal same-sex marriages in the US (i.e. in the 11 states where it was possible) since 2004. Is that significant, do you think?

          http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/26/how-many-same-sex-marriages-in-the-u-s-at-least-71165-probably-more/

          • No. Assume 3% of the U.S. adult population is homosexual. Assume the U.S. adult population is 200 million (close enough). Then, we should expect the number of homosexual marriages to be in the lower millions, not the tens of thousands. So less than 2% (and maybe less than 1%) of the homosexual population in the U.S. is married.

          • David Evans

            That presumes that everyone who wanted to marry was prepared to go to another state to do so, knowing that it would not be recognized in their home community. Would you do that? I think I would say “I’ll wait until my own community accepts me.”
            Also note that my data for most states comes from periods of only 2 or 3 years.
            Also that the law is not the only deterrent to same-sex marriage.
            And after all that, is it your contention that an unjust law is acceptable if it only affects 71,165 people? In that case let’s confiscate the property of the top 0.03% and make life easier for the rest of us.

        • David Evans

          It’s not difficult to find some. I used Google. Here are two lists:

          http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/27/same-sex-marriage-first-couples-marry-states

          http://www.newsweek.com/meet-first-gay-couples-who-got-married-after-scotus-decision-347618

          Though I must admit, one couple in the first list is not actually married yet, because the Governor of Mississippi put a 25-day hold on licenses. So if you really want to know how many couples wanted to get married, come back next month.

          • Better next year. Weddings in America are often planned months in advance. I still will be very surprised if the total number of homosexuals married at any given time in the U.S. ever goes above 200 thousand.

            Edit: it already has. Very surprised.

          • David Evans

            Be surprised. Be very surprised. The Census Bureau estimated last year that more than 700,000 U.S. households were headed by same-sex couples and that 200,000 of them were married.

            http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-census-still-doesnt-know-how-many-same-sex-couples-there-are/

          • I am, indeed, very surprised.

            I quickly realized I was wrong by closely looking at the Pew table more closely, from which I could see that the actual upper bound on the number of homosexual marriages in the U.S. in the future at any given time was close to 1 million.
            Otherwise, there was data such as this:
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/04/28/heres-how-many-gay-marriages-the-supreme-court-could-make-way-for/
            In any case, confiscating the property of the top .03% would make it
            harder for the rest of us. The hedge-fund managers
            would flee to Hong Kong and lots of investors would be frightened out of
            their minds. And where’s the future tax revenue going to come from? The
            top 1% (by income) already pay more than the bottom 90% in taxes.

            If
            the expropriation of the top .03% didn’t have these ripple effects,
            that is, if the rich didn’t matter, then I would find it difficult to
            care much more about it than I presently care about the far more
            numerous victims of eminent domain over the years.

          • David Evans

            You make it sound as if the ultra-rich are our benefactors. I am more impressed with the fact that from 1978 to 2013 the median income of workers went up 10% while the median income of CEOs went up 937%.

            I was not being totally serious about confiscation, just trying to get a handle on why you think the number of gay marriages is relevant to the justice of their case.

    • Andrew Dowling

      “I don’t think many homosexuals wanted marriage for themselves in the first place ”

      And you know this how?

      • As you could see downthread, I admitted I was wrong on this one.

        • Michael Wilson

          I think predicting response wouldn’t be easy. I joked when I attended a marriage celebration in town square the day it was announced gays could marry that it was all lesbians and that queer men, being men, would never consent to marriage. From my experience and from what I’ve read, many gay men accept affairs from their partners in ways few heterosexual couples will. Their often commited to each other, but sex is just getting off. Still, some married straights are swingers, so there you go…