Resolving "Prop 8 The Musical's" Uninformed Assertions

First, let me candidly express that I thought that the following video is one of the funnier things I've seen online. Its clever caricatures border on stereotype and then tumble so far over the edge that it's obvious that this is a lampoon meant as a polemic of sorts, mocking itself while exposing some truths in the process. I really enjoyed watching it:

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

But although the video is a funny poke in the eye of both sides of the gay marriage amendment issue, it also brings up a couple of things that I believe to be misconceptions about Christianity. This happens when Jack Black's Jesus character appears in the middle of the argument to divulge a long list of things that the Bible tells us "not to do." Things that are obviously not taboo from most westerners. Shrimp Cocktail is first on the list (in the Old Testament, Moses writes that the people of Israel are separated to God and therefore aren't to eat shellfish). He then proceeds to postulate a number of other forbidden things, all of which are contrary to the lifestyles practice by the conservatives that are so hard and fast against gay marriage. The point, he tells us, is that if we're going pick and choose anyway, why not choose love?

It would be a good point, except for one thing...

Although God in the Bible does cast a pretty narrow set of rules and regulations in the Old Testament regarding what people can and can't eat, say, wear, sleep, how they should act, and what punishments coexist with rule breaking- many, if not all of those commandments were only for the people of Israel at that moment in time. When Jesus arrives on the scene, He points out that the rules aren't what saves people- they're merely a way for us to realize that we need saving in the first place. Later, Peter receives a vision from God that basically clears out a lot of the "Jewishness" of Christianity and invites them to engage the world, not just their little nation in the middle east. With this engagement, a lot of the former regulations on circumcision and diet and dress were lifted as well.

This is not to say that Christ followers were free to do whatever they wanted. They were still instructed to follow the rules set down by government and to live as good citizens (one would assume that meant that they refrain from killing each other, stealing from each other, and many of the other 10 Commandments). They were instructed to follow hard after the example of Christ and pour themselves out as an offering for the world.

So, do we pick and choose what to believe? In one sense, yes, we don't follow all the mandates of the Old Testament. But the reason is that many of those commandments were for a specific people at a specific time. Since then, the burden of the law was removed by Christ's sacrifice and we live under grace rather than rules.

So, if that's the case, should Christians give grace to homosexuals? Absolutely. But should they allow homosexuals to marry? Possibly not. You see, the problem is that marriage for many is a religious symbol rather than a legal action. For Christians, especially, it's a representation of Christ and the Church- the eternal bride and groom.

For everyone who isn't religions, it's mainly just a legal process. It's one that unites two people together legally. It gives them rights to each other and about each other from the State. Does it involve love and commitment- absolutely. But, it's not particularly religious. It's not symbolic of God, or if it is, it's not symbolic of the Christian God most of the time.

What Christians need to understand is that there are legal issues at stake here. It's absolutely not fair to deny someone the legal benefits of marriage on the basis of gender (or race, or religion, or disability). And as Christians, we should be working to lift the oppression of the law and seek to enable anyone, regardless of gender, race, religion, or creed, to enjoy the legal aspects that come from the State.

But what advocates of gay marriage need to understand is that the very word MARRIAGE means something different to those who are religious than those who are not. And while it's true that my marriage should not be defined by someone else's commitment (as advocates of gay marriage proclaim), at the same time there's something special about the religious verbiage of marriage that I should not be forced to share with someone who doesn't actually want "marriage" in the way that I define it.

The answer, I believe, is by making a disctinction between marriage and civil union. But since there's a stigma attached to civil union- I'd even be willing (as a Christian) to give up the word marriage and cleave to another word, like "covenant" or something like it if it meant that we could maintain some sort of distinction that my relationship with my wife isn't just a lifelong commitment of love- but also a deeply spiritual commitment that's symbolic of something else.

I've ranted and raved about this before. I hope that we can eventually come to a clean understanding that allows everyone to understand each other plainly. That religion isn't trampled, nor the rights of those without religion. Gay, straight, white, black, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist- we all need to treat each other respectfully, without forcing the other to bend to our will.