Rush Limbaugh, several conservative GOP United States Senators as well as some Congressmen and women have stated that the legalization of “same sex marriage” is inevitable.
That doesn’t mean they agree or disagree with it but rather they recognize where the country is moving.
Even famed Michigan Mega church Pastor Rob Bell came out in support of “same sex marriage” as a means to control immorality and monogamous marriage.
As someone who has been both a counselor and pastor of gay men and women over the years as well as having friends and relatives of both genders who are gay, I have always supported equal rights in every situation; even legal civil unions to protect gay couples in the same way marriage protects straight couples.
My problem has always been that of the definition of marriage and not the legal union.
Traditionally and Biblically, marriage has always been accepted and defined as a covenant between one man, one woman and God for life.
But is it really?
Anyone who is a legitimate theologian and historian knows that in reality, traditionally and Biblically it really wasn’t one man for one woman.
Even God instituted the practice and decree of divorce through Moses; so there goes the covenant for life idea.
In fact many men especially from Old Testament times practiced polygamy (multiple wives at the same time) rather than monogamy (only one wife at a time).
These men included Moses who had at least four wives and almost all of the kings of Israel who had multiple wives including David and Solomon.
Moses had at least three or four wives including two cousins and possibly a sister and some theologians have speculated he could have had upward to fifty wives based on his combined Egyptian and Israelite upbringing.
1 Kings 11:1-3 actually tells us the number of Solomon’s wives, “seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines”; although theologians continue arguing over the possibility of the exact number.
Regardless, Solomon had allot of wives.
These men of notoriety and supposed moral and ethical character and fortitude not only practiced polygamy but also had untold numbers of mistresses (such as Solomon with three hundred) and it was seen as completely acceptable and even admired by the culture of the day.
Really and culturally you say?
There is also the matter of the “eunuchs” mentioned throughout both the Old and New Testament.
It is the naughty little best kept “in the closet” secret of the great kings and warriors of Israel and the Middle East; they openly practiced bi-sexuality.
Who knows where they got the idea from; many believe it was a carryover from their time in Egypt.
The Egyptians practiced every kind of kinky marriage and sex one can imagine; including marriage to siblings and children.
In the Middle East during Biblical times, when an enemy was conquered, it was customary to take the fairest skinned, young attractive men and perform complete castrations on them for the purpose of having multiple male partners for kings, government leaders and generals.
Of course there is the attempt theologically to tone down the eunuch process as simply a means by kings to control servants or develop a choir of singers and all kinds of sorted responsibilities.
The reality however is that the word “eunuch” in its purest form in the Hebrew means “chamberlain” or “bed keeper”. The eunuch was an asexual being who was to be available for sexual interaction with the king at a moment’s notice.
They were also used for the purpose of having bi-sexual encounters with their other wives and mistresses.
There is in all probability the reality that the great prophet Daniel as well as his fellow young male Israelites were captured by Nebuchadnezzar and taken into captivity back to Babylon where in all probability they were made eunuchs and yes probably lived out their lives as gay and bi-sexual men.
Nobody wants to talk about this because Daniel and the prophecies he is credited with are considered extremely sacred by Christians, Jews and Muslims alike.
Of course Levitical (Leviticus 18:22)and Deuteronomical (Deuteronomy 23:1)law/code forbids same sex sexual encounters but the Israelite Kings of the day could justify their involvement with the eunuchs sexually because they weren’t seen as male or female.
They were “asexual” and since there wasn’t anything about that in the law, they were practically considered “inhuman” and not allowed in sacred areas; so in their mindset of the day, it must have seemed sexually justifiable and permissible.
There are many Biblical quotes including Jesus himself who went to some detail to explain who eunuchs are and this was in response to a question asked about marriage, “ Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Matthew 19:11-12.
The bottom line is that marriage is a matter of faith.
It should not be a decision for the government to decide who marries and who doesn’t.
It has only been since the mid nineteenth century that the government got in the business of certifying marriages with licenses and certificates.
Supposedly the reason was to control sexually transmitted diseases and birth deformities but also to make a bold statement to the Mormon Church about polygamy; that is the government found a loophole to control their religious beliefs and freedom.
Many politicians also saw a golden opportunity to generate revenue for their states and communities.
Prior to that, only the church legitimized marriage or if a couple lived together for a stated period of time, some states and local municipalities actually recognized the couple as married.
This writer believes the Ron Paul approach should be taken on the subject by returning marriage to the church.
There are enough churches today such as Episcopal, some Lutheran, Presbyterian and even certain sects of Methodism as well as the predominantly gay Metropolitan Churches of America which marry anyone.
As a result, there is simply no need for marriage to continue to be in the hands of government.
One of the key problems with government controlling who can and who can’t marry is it will ultimately infringe on the freedom of religion; not to mention it often prevents many seniors from full pension and retirement benefits.
The legalization of same sex marriage could ultimately shut many churches down or at the very least eliminate ministers from the freedom to determine who based on their faith and conviction they should unite in holy matrimony.
Syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor, Dr.Charles Krauthammer has stated that “the gay marriage case before the Supreme Court could be the first step to an “assault on religion.”
As said previously by this writer and others, if the traditional definition of marriage is overturned, then the door is opened for polygamy, incestuous marriage, as well as marriage to pets and inanimate objects such as computers.
This article should not be perceived by fellow Christians as either condoning or condemning of the gay lifestyle; it is a lifestyle decision made between individuals and God.
There are many heterosexual marriages and practices not pleasing to God (or the state) and to which many believers simply let slide by so let’s not easily dismiss the union of gay couples.
My responsibility as a Christian pastor and counselor is to love and listen to everyone and not to throw stones.
Gay marriage has many benefits for gay couples to be sure; especially those with legal implications.
Interestingly enough however, many gay people I know do not support the government’s involvement in their private lives.
Our government might do well to listen to leaders like Ron Paul and others and filter out all the noise being made from many radical groups and listen to the real voice of the people both gay and straight.
Let’s get government out of the church and our marriages; all of our marriages.
© 2013 Dr. Lee W. Outlaw III