Why I Voted for Amendment One (And Other Related Musings)

Considering the last two posts to my blog, some may find it odd that I did in fact vote for Amendment One. It was not something that I was particularly passionate about, but, granting the system we live in and that I already had a ballot in hand because I was voting for Ron Paul, I found myself in general agreement with the amendment and bubbled in “FOR.” There are plenty of things that I do not like about the present system regarding marriage (and a thousand other matters), however, it is the system in which we live, and, as a citizen within that system, I will support legislation based upon natural morality when I can.

On the other side, opponents of the amendment have and still are railing against the will of the majority to “suppress the rights” of the minority. Their chief tenet is that all unions, be it between a man and woman, a man and man, a man and three women, a mother and son, a sister and brother, a goat owner and goat, etc. should receive equal benefits under the law.

Well, maybe not.

I doubt that even the anti-amendment community in all of their “tolerant” glory would support the legalization of marriage within immediate families, polygamy, or bestiality. Or maybe they would. But assuming that they would not, would they not be the new bigots against the Oedipuses and the goat-lovers of the country? What would give them the right to withhold marriage benefits from the sister-wife / brother-husband community or from unions between adults and consenting children? Even those who support legal unions between homosexuals would draw a line somewhere beyond themselves, effectively stripping the “rights” of those who do not fit into the comforts of their hetero/homo marriage model.

And while everyone is talking about rights, who gives anyone the right to do anything? The problem when anyone starts claiming that he or she has a right to something, whatever it is, he (whether he knows it or not) is appealing to some source or Being that is greater than him who has given him those rights. Thomas Jefferson knew this, for, though he was not a Christian, he wrote that we as humans are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. Rights are endowed, given, granted, bestowed, etc. Therefore, to claim a right, one must be given that right.

As far as the homosexual marriage debate is concerned, I scarcely doubt that any against the amendment would look to God for those rights, for most do not believe in a specially revealed God, and, if they do, they would be hard-pressed to find religious writings that do anything but condemn homosexuality. Perhaps they could appeal to Nature, but, then again, Nature also preaches against homosexuality.*

What about government? Government could indeed confer rights upon individuals, and even (against God and against Nature) grant the benefits of marriage to homosexual unions.

But in the state of North Carolina, government did not.

The homosexual community has appealed to the state for rights, but those rights were not granted to them. Therefore, no one has taken rights from anyone. The rights of marriage were not their rights to begin with, so maybe we could all drop the references to “rights”? Probably not.

Personally, I wish that marriage did not have secular benefits or consequences. I wish that marriage was strictly a religious institution and the state had little or nothing to do with it. If these things were so, this would never be debate. Yet, these things are so and are likely never to change. And as long as these things are so, I will never lose a night’s sleep over a group of people not having rights that neither God nor Nature has granted to them.

* Imagine if everyone in the world were homosexual, the human race would be extinct in one generation. Also, the equipment it incompatible. Have you ever tried to plug a 3.5 mm female cord into the female headphone jack on iPod? Spoiler alert: you won’t hear your music.

Categories: Miscellanies

Tags: ,

7 replies

  1. Where is the scriptural backing for this sort of vote? If you are willing to turn people away from Christ (and a lot of non-believers are turning away from Christ because of Christian Conservative advocacy like this) you better have a sound Biblical reason. I, as a Christian, am appalled by these shortsighted political fights when there are people to be won.


  2. 1Tim. 1:8-10–Context is good here.
    (1 Tim 3-7)"3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work—which is by faith. 5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm."
    This is clearly about the law of God and not about civil law.
    1Cor. 6:9–Homosexuality is a sin. I agree. This doesn't explain the necessity or wisdom of Christian involvement in legislating against it.
    Jude 1:7–This is God's punishment. It has nothing to do with civil government.
    Rom. 1:26, 27–Homosexuality is a sin, I agree. See 1 Cor. 6:9.

    I guess I was hoping for a more robust answer. If you cannot give one that is fine, but do you know someone who can? I'd prefer if you explained yourself though as you have a somewhat sizable following. My frustration is that this issue does immense damage to the Christian witness and for such little gain.


    • Lynn, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Did you even read the post in its entirety or just the title? Let answer your question by asking you a question, "Where would you draw the line as a Christian voter?" If there were a constitutional amendment in favor of legal unions between a brother and sister, would you vote against it? Between a parent and his child? Between an adult and a young child? Between a man and an animal? Following your logic, I would presume that you would vote for such unions for "the sake of the Gospel."

      And what exactly is this "witness" you are afraid of damaging? How's having legislation against sinful behavior a deterrent to the Gospel? If anything, a secular that actually points out sinful behavior as illegal aids in pointing to the fact that a Savior is needed. What if there was no reprimand on homosexuality whatsoever in the States and twenty years from now you're sharing Christ can save a person from their damning life of homosexuality, and they respond, "Homosexuality a sin? I don't believe in a God who would condemn homosexuality. Look the whole country and government disagrees with you."

      Nevertheless, I believe that the Gospel and our witness (which is to Jesus Christ alone) is as powerful as the Spirit of God makes it, not how we as Christians tip-toe through the world trying not to burst anyone's particular bubble.

      So, no, I'm not apologetic for how I voted. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and I don't really see why I have to explain to a Christian why I voted in affirmation of that.


  3. I was actually thinking this very same thing today. I mean, where does it all end? If a man can marry another man and vice versa for a woman, why can't a man marry multiple women, or children or animal's or whatever else we can think of? And yet, were legislation to be written up legalizing these practices, the outcry against them would be quite large and united. On one hand there are cries for equality, on the other, people still follow the social taboo's that nobody can seem to explain or even understand. So, that's my rant for the day, thanks for posting on the matter Matt.


  4. I think what Lynn is getting at is this: You seem comfortable with the notion that Christians can advocate to change certain government policies even when that advocacy turns non-Christians off, hindering the great commission. I guess the question is, what is your scriptural basis for Christian political advocacy against gay marriage? Why rely on the government to prevent gay marriage when we might be more effective spending that time, energy, and money to reach out more fully to non-believers?

    I could be totally wrong about Lynn's intentions but this is a question I have after reading through a few of your posts.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: