Lisa Cumbie/Art Editor
PRO
BEN TEXTER
Contributing Writer
Many civilizations of ancient Mesopotamia, classical Greece and pre-Christian Rome adopted relatively tolerant policies toward same-sex relationships. On the other hand, the Roman Empire allowed for a galvanized unpropitious view of homosexuality to surface. In fact, Byzantine emperor Justinian published a law in 529 B.C. that allowed for the execution of persons engaging in homosexual acts.
Centuries later, we are again confronting homosexuality within the context of a legal framework. With the recent approval of gay marriage by the California legislature, the modern gay rights movement is at a pivotal point. Since the 1970s, when the contemporary gay rights movement arguably began, same-sex marriage has never had so much support or opposition.
Religion has played a major role in the current same-sex marriage debate, resulting in the blurred line between religion and politics. In terms of same-sex marriage, too many are not respecting one of the most intrinsic and valuable laws set forth by our Founding Fathers – the separation of church and state. To the dismay of some, “Jesus hates queers” and the sanctity of marriage are not formidable arguments within our legal structure – so please spare the Scripture.
Generally speaking, the government is forbidden to endorse so-called Christian morals regarding gay marriage. The legislature should instead defer to the societal and economic benefits of same-sex marriage. Some include increased monogamy and commitment among homosexual men, an increase in the number of families available to adopt and expanded civil rights.
A more “secular argument” against homosexual marriage is that homosexual marriage does not further a “compelling state interest.” Some believe that marriage between men and women encourages procreation and thus ensures reproduction. Here, gay marriage falls short. However, how can we be sure that more children are needed to ensure a state interest?
Realistically speaking, Sean Safford in “The Economic and Social Case for Homosexual Marriage” notes that increases in population could be a detriment to both our society and our economy as life-expectancy rates increase and society becomes more efficient.
Instead of prohibiting gay marriage, it may be wiser to outlaw divorce, considering its unbelievably high rate. Why would any thoughtful American want to limit the number of individuals making mutual vows and promises to one another?
For those who argue for tradition, let me remind you of the miscegenation laws that have plagued our country during the past century. The U.S. Supreme Court did not repeal its ban on interracial marriage until 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. Even more frightening, Alabama officially overturned its ban in November 2000 without unanimous support. Over the past century, many judges have supported the ban on interracial marriage by reaffirming America’s three-century tradition of anti-miscegenation laws. I would be hard pressed to find a person of depth to argue that point today.
Opinions and views change with time, and some traditions are forced to adapt. California’s same-sex marriage bill is a perfect example of this natural evolution of law.
Despite Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneg-ger’s disapproval of the bill, progress has been made. For the first time in America, the people have voiced their opinion about same-sex marriage vis-à-vis their elected representatives. The beauty of the situation in California is that for the first time, opponents cannot pull the judicial activism card. This was a choice made by the people by means of a representative democracy. This American ideal is what we are supposedly fighting for in Iraq.
Committed same-sex relationships have been around since the beginning of time. It’s now time for us to cast aside intolerant views and extend governmental benefits and obligations to same-sex couples in the form of marriage.
Despite the slim probability of Schwarzenegger actually approving the bill, as an openly gay male, I’m glad to know that I won’t be executed unless Pepperdine chooses to adopt new Justinian policies.
CON
RACHEL JOHNSON
Perspectives Assistant
Let’s get one thing straight (no pun intended): I am not a fundamentalist Christian. I firmly believe in loving and accepting others without regard to status, ethnicity or sexual orientation.
The foundation for Christianity is based on the unconditional love and grace Jesus showered upon all individuals despite their deviation from social norms. I, too, hope to demonstrate a similar devotion to those backgrounds different from mine.
That said, however, does not mean that I agree with gay marriage, nor do I believe that it should ever be instituted as legal.
I have come to this conclusion, not with a political or humanitarian view, but through my beliefs and views of homosexuality as written in the Scriptures.
In no way does the Bible ever imply that bisexuals or homosexuals should be treated differently because of their sexual orientation. Rather, it is a core component of Jesus’ message to belittle oneself to servitude to effectively better the lives of others.
While the Bible does not condemn homosexuals as individuals, it does not condone the act of homosexuality either, labeling it as sin.
The implication that a marriage is designed for the union of a man and woman first begins in the book of Genesis. The common cliché, “The Lord created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve,” in part holds true based on passages found in the Old Testament.
God, seeing that Adam was lonely without human companionship, created Eve from one of Adam’s ribs. It is written in Genesis 2:24 that “this explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.”
God envisioned that a marriage would consist of a man and woman who depended upon one another to fulfill their basic human needs, as well as their need, for love and adoration.
Genesis 19 illustrates the immorality of same-sex relations. In the passage, the male citizens of Sodom intensely pressure the Lord’s servant, Lot, to allow them to sleep with the male angels who had come to stay in his home. To change their ways, Lot offers his virgin daughters to have sex with the men, rather than have them commit homosexual acts with the angels.
Though the passage is not about marriage, it still implies God’s favor in male-female relationships over same-sex unions. The extreme measure Lot took in his willingness to allow his own daughters to sleep with the men indicates how greatly homosexuality was looked down upon.
Sexual immorality is discussed in greater detail in the New Testament book of 1 Corinthians. Chapter six equates homosexuality to wickedness, claiming that these individuals commit sins similar to those ranging from adulterers, idolaters, thieves, male prostitutes and slanderers.
Additionally, chapter six discusses sexual immorality by generally implying that while the cliché “anything goes” may be a permissible mantra for an individual, this personal philosophy is not necessarily beneficial to one’s spiritual development.
So it goes for homosexuality and marriage. Sexual orientation is an individual preference that, varying from person to person, may or may not be acceptable. Whatever the person chooses is ultimately up to them.
However, as 1 Corinthians indicates, this type of action does not allow for spiritual growth. Again, God has created marriage for man and wife to encourage each other spiritually: Gay marriages can inhibit this growth.
Because someone is gay in no way means that he or she shouldn’t be active politically, socially or otherwise, but warranting his or her right to marriage seems to violate Christian principles.
As much as society disagrees, our country was founded on biblical ethics. To permit gay marriages would blatantly disregard the Christian morals with which our Founding Fathers created our nation.
09-22-2005