It’s good to be back from vacation, friends!  My family and I had a great time in Bandon, OR.  Sorry for not posting during that time, but I’ve gotten a lot better about making vacation a true vacation over the years …

Since the last subject I preached a (full) sermon on was homosexuality and the Bible, and the subject while I was away was Affirmation 7 and the separation of church and state, I thought it might be appropriate to post the article that Dr. Jim Keck (First Plymouth, Lincoln) and I wrote in the editorial section of the Omaha World-Herald last April concerning the Iowa Supreme Court decision on gay marriage.  It speaks to both topics!  By the way, I’ll be teaching a class on the Bible and homosexuality in September – one version on Sunday evenings at the church and another version theology-on-tap-style at Myth Lounge in the Old Market on Wednesday evenings.  Sign up at the Information Station on Sundays or call the church office (402-391-0350).  Now here’s the article:

An April 8 World Herald editorial regarding the recent ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court concerning gay marriage urged readers not to let debate on the issue “devolve into … ugliness and angry stereotyping.”  It also asked some important questions of Omaha’s clergy: “How will clergy advise their membership on how to deal with this? Will they be accepting of gay couples, or will those church or synagogue members need to go elsewhere to worship?”

As the pastors of large churches in Omaha and Lincoln, we thought we would take this newspaper up on its query.  This is how we would advise not only our congregations but any student of the Bible and the US Constitution:

According to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  Contrary to popular assumption, Christians overwhelmingly supported the adoption of this amendment, as they believed it to be vital for the protection of religion even more so than protection of the state.  By and large, we in the US have tried to hold true to this principle in all areas except one: marriage.

As opposed to certain European countries, where marriage is kept strictly separated into a civil function and a religious one, we combine them in the US without batting an eye.  For many couples in Europe, if they wish their marriage to be recognized by both the church and the state, they must receive a certificate of civil union issued by the state alone, and undergo a service of “holy matrimony” performed by the church alone.  For those with no desire for church or other religious recognition, the civil union certificate is all they need.  This arrangement recognizes that the state has an interest in marriage only in so far as it furthers civic interests, and that the church has an interest in marriage only in so far as it furthers theological interests.

In the US, where no legal differentiation exists between a civil marriage and holy matrimony, we place our clergy in the odd (and dare we say, unconstitutional) role of determining which relationships are in the state’s interest and which are not.  Similarly, the state is given implied authority to determine which relationships are blessed by God and which are not.

Consider the problem posed by Cal Thomas, whose column appeared on the same day as the World-Herald editorial.  In making his case that gay marriage is a “dangerous precedent,” he states that “the problem with the Iowa Court ruling is that it vitiates a standard that defined marriage as between two people of the opposite sex, which was God’s idea, not government’s (see Genesis 2:24), while failing to substitute a new standard.”

The fact that Genesis 2:24 makes no comment on the legal institution of marriage, and the fact that many God-honoring churches and synagogues in the US are in favor of gay marriage, are minor problems raised by his assertion, compared to the problem it raises for government.  Is it the government’s role to discern the mind of God?  And shall it pass laws based on its discernment?

The reason why debate on gay marriage tends to break down so quickly is because by failing to distinguish between the civic and religious functions of marriage, we give religious institutions and the state powers that do not properly reside with them, which they do not have the means to adequately arbitrate.

Realizing this Catch-22, some have suggested that gay people receive “civil unions,” reserving “marriage” to heterosexuals.  Yet while this solution at least recognizes the problem of mixing the functions of religion and government, it actually reinforces the problem.  The reasons for separating gay and straight relationships into civil unions and marriage remain strongly theologically based.

Until or unless the US adopts a stricter separation between civil and religious marriages that apply to all couples across the board, the best route through this issue is to allow states the ability to marry gays and religious institutions the right to marry or not marry them depending on their theological commitments.

This arrangement at least respects the fact that the First Amendment’ requires the free exercise of religion.   It recognizes that, assured of this freedom, some religious institutions will marry gay people and some won’t.  And by granting marriage licenses to both gay and straight couples alike, the state is protected from having to determine which marriages are blessed by God and which are not.

We feel the Iowa decision should be applauded by all religious people, regardless of their theological views on marriage, for it at least rebuilds a section of the wall that protects not only the state from religion, but religion from the state.