A Baptist Response - Part 3

***
WHEREAS, The Marriage Amendment will also prevent granting a legal status to or legal recognition of marriage substitutes, such as domestic partnerships or civil unions.

RESPONSE:
One of the concerns of opponents of the amendment is that it restricts basic rights –and not only the rights of homosexuals. According to the amendment’s wording cohabitating heterosexuals would also be denied legal status, which might result in the denial of partner/spousal benefits for insurance, or the transfer of benefits in death. In several settings I have heard proponents of the amendment vigorously deny that such actions will occur. They simply insist that the amendment will NOT be interpreted in this way. So I find it humorous that NC Baptists take the exact opposite tact. Not only might the amendment deny status – it should, in fact, do so! They see this as one of the strengths of the amendment! And this seems to me a sad admission of the Church – having lost the battle discouraging/prohibiting cohabitation, the Church now turns to the State, hoping the state will legislate a morality that the church cannot attain through the personal commitment and conviction of its members.

***
WHEREAS, marriage being a man-woman institution structured for procreation is a universal social reality regardless of religious affiliation, Christian citizens defending marriage in secular law are defending what is best for everyone and not merely what we prefer for ourselves.

RESPONSE:
Procreation seems intrinsic to NC Baptists' definition of marriage. It simply should be acknowledged that neither is marriage required for procreation nor procreation required for marriage. I have no issue with the defense of marriage. We should defend and promote and protect and celebrate marriage. But an amendment to a state constitution to define what constitutes marriage cannot and will not do this. The fact that homosexuals cannot procreate makes them no different in this regard from the many Christian heterosexual couples who cannot or choose not to have children.

IN CONCLUSION:
The resolution from the NC Baptist State Convention lacks convincing logic, and it contains language that alienates and offends any who fall outside the statistical “norm” (such as heterosexual Christian couples who cannot have children). Should the amendment pass, while changing nothing regarding gay marriage in the state, it will potentially jeopardize the safety and security of children, and will create an atmosphere which will foster the persecution of homosexual persons.

Since Southern Baptists are still fighting against women’s roles in church and society it should surprise no one that they also oppose an inclusive view of the homosexual’s role in church and society. But time, and the slow march of truth, will not retreat for Christians who hold these views. I appreciate the strength of Southern Baptists’ conviction, their dedication to their views – but a cursory view of human history should be enough to convince them of the fallacy of clinging to a past which was once understood as divinely instituted. To sound that drum again, the subjugation of women and the oppression of blacks are just two of the recent, sad examples of the Church defending as “ordained of God” a view that the progression of time and truth proved erroneous. I intend to be part of a Church that is inspired by God’s always-progressive Spirit, a Spirit that is forward-moving and forward-looking – ever open to new light that God will continue to reveal to us and through us. Defeating the so-called “marriage amendment” would signify a movement in this direction.