Unless you've been living far away from radio, television and the internet for the past week and the first thing you've seen, heard or read from any electronic media source is this very blog (in which case all I have to say is, "HI, GRANDMA!"*) you have know doubt heard that President Obama has come out of the closet...as someone who personally believes that gays should be allowed to marry.
He also stated that if he were in a position where he could affect policy he might actually take some steps to make that a reality, but alas he is in no such position so tough luck, guys! OK, I made that last part up, but it is rather silly to announce his personal views in such a dramatic fashion unless he's actually making a policy move that will actually affect lives. Instead we get a statement that, while interesting to many people, is really no more significant than my announcement, right here, right now in this blog post, that Cadbury Creme Eggs are the most marvelous candy ever to have existed and I personally believe that they should be available year round. But no. Instead we get no actual policy position, but media of all varieties would have us believe is the most significant thing ever until we are all distracted by the next shiny objec--Ooh! Would you look at that! It was so significant that Newsweek put this on its cover:

And really, speaking seriously here, that cover is stomach-churning. The offensiveness really has nothing to do with gay marriage or the rainbow colors or homosexuality at all. It's about the blatant idolatry on display. Even though this is a nominally "Christian" nation, ours is one of the most idolatrous, and that the idolatry has so intertwined with politics in recent years is especially troubling. But that's a discussion for another time.
The trouble with Obama's announcement of his personal preferences isn't that he's come out in favor of gay marriage. There are secular arguments as to why it might be preferable to allow gays to marry someone of the same gender. But Obama didn't make a secular argument. He made a religious one, speaking from his Christian "faith". I put faith in quotes because while he obviously believes himself to be a Christian and he may very well be sincere, the argument he makes here, as well as others, have left me with the impression that he doesn't actually understand his professed faith very well. To quote the President:
And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.
This is a more benign justification than some. It is a misapplication of the Golden Rule, a dopey idea that doing good to others means encouraging behavior that is so clearly against the teachings of Scripture. But again, it does fit the neofundamentalist style of this President,l deciding what he thinks is right, and then reaching back into Scripture to find justification for it. One should instead allow oneself to be taught by Scripture, deciding what is right in wrong based on how the Word informs.
I should clarify that the issue I have with the President is not that he supports legalizing gay marriage. Not every vice can or should be proscribed by law. And there may be something to the argument that legalized gay marriage encourages those who are determined to engage in such relationships to choose more responsible, stable relationships. These secular reasonings don't offend, but trying to twist the words of Scripture to justify what it clearly prohibited do.
But like I said, this justification is more benign than some, more of a dopey misapplication than a deliberate twisting of its meaning. There are some who go farther than the President has, to try to say that the most obvious interpretation is wrong and somehow the Bible actually condones and commends homosexual relationships. This is obviously false. It is true that the Levitical laws do not apply to Christians** but there are plenty of prohibitions in the New Testament against homosexual behavior.
There are some that try to argue that what Paul and other writers of the epistles doesn't matter and that the words of Jesus overrules them. This is an odd argument because Jesus never addressed homosexuality directly (that we are aware), but supposedly that he never addressed the the issue directly means that he fully supported same sex relationships. But an understanding of history and the cultures of the First Century indicates a more plausible reason why Jesus didn't address it directly: Jesus preached in Judea, Samaria and Galilee, so when he spoke he was addressing an almost exclusively Jewish audience. And in those days Jewish culture had a very strong taboo toward homosexuality. Therefore while that culture had plenty of issues that needed to be addressed, especially the legalism of the Pharisees, homosexuality was not one of them. As the gospel spread into cultures that were more accepting of gay behavior, writers of the epistles found need to address the issue.
There is one place where Jesus does indicate what position he holds. When some Pharisees thought to test his knowledge of the Mosaic Law on divorce, he gave them much more of an answer than they bargained for. In Matthew 19:3-6, he answers,
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” [Emphasis added]
Unfortunately for the revisionists, this flies in the face of the notion that Jesus held anything other than a heteronormative, complimentarian view on marriage. In other words, Jesus believes that marriage was between one man and one woman. Again, this is not an argument to enforce that view through the rule of law. But that argument must be made on secular terms because, contrary to our what our neofundamentalist President might say, there is no support for it in Scripture.
* I really shouldn't make fun of either one of my grandmothers, both of whom are lovely, remarkable and wonderful women.
** An argument for another time, but for now suffice it to say that this is actually a major theme of the New Testament. One would have to throw out much of the Bible to arrive at the conclusion that the Levitical laws do apply.
Chatboard (9)