Why I am against Amendment One

I imagine it's been obvious, for anyone who's followed me on Facebook or Twitter the past few weeks, that I am opposed to Amendment One - the proposed change to the North Carolina state constitution that would read as follows:

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be validated or recognized in this State. 

This amendment, a staple in pretty much every other Southern state, was put on the ballot by our state legislature and has garnered tremendous attention over the past few months leading up to the May 8 vote.

Yet I realized the other day that, while I've done a pretty good job of expressing my opinion on the matter, I haven't really explained why.  And while there are many reasons why I oppose it and voted against it in early voting last week (see picture above), there really is only one true reason why I oppose Amendment One.

Amendment One is poorly worded and, in its attempt to prohibit gay marriage, would create all kinds of legal messiness for those who don't fit the narrowly-defined  "only domestic legal union" equation - namely, unmarried couples, domestic partners, children of those partnerships and even domestic violence victims.  It's bad that these folks have been unwittingly dragged into the fray, but it is not THE reason I oppose Amendment One.
 
Amendment One is 100% unnecessary, as there is already a law in North Carolina prohibiting gay marriage.  Proponents of the amendment say it will prevent "activist judges" from overturning the law at some point in the future.  This kind of flawed logic suggests that we need to create constitutional amendments to back up all "important" state laws, much the same way my Time Capsule backs up my Macbook every hour.  The latter is completely necessary (as evidenced by the demise of my computer harddrive last week); Amendment One is not.  But that is not THE reason I oppose Amendment One.
 
Amendment One is discriminatory.  Again, defenders balk at the use of this word because, in their mind, they are simply defending "traditional marriage."  And yet, the word "discriminate" means: "to make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, sex, or age."  This is precisely what Amendment One does for gay and lesbian persons - it deprives them of something everyone else has.  Besides, constitutions are about guaranteeing people's rights, not restricting them.  And yet this is still not THE reason I oppose Amendment One.
 
I have a cousin who is gay and currently in a loving and committed relationship (that in no way, I might add, adversely affects my marriage or endangers my two children, as some insist).  They've surrounded themselves with friends and family who love and support them, including mine.  Still, I know they are subjected to ridicule and scorn by those who can't see the person beyond the orientation.  Amendment One has the feel of kicking someone when they're down, heaping more burden on a population that has suffered enough already; almost to the point of cruelty.  But that is not THE reason I oppose Amendment One. 
 
No, the primary reason I oppose Amendment One is because of my Christian faith. 

I know, that sounds strange, doesn't it?  We're used to Christianity being used as a reason (if not the only reason) for supporting the amendment.  We are told, for instance, that the Bible says gay people shouldn't get married and marriage is between one man and one woman.  Which is some selective reading, I might add, since it never actually says that (as I've pointed out to the Genesis 2 crowd, Adam and Eve weren't married); and since the predominant model of marriage in the Bible is one man and multiple women (try King Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines on for size).

So while I can't change the fact that pro-Amendment folks try to claim exclusive rights to the Christian mantle, what I can do is claim some of that mantle back and draw attention to the increasing Christian voice against Amendment One, including myself squarely among its ranks.  And make no mistake - it is a strong and legitimate voice, and it is growing.

In a Letter to the Editor I submitted last week to the Winston-Salem Journal, I pointed out that, while there are at best six to eight verses in the entire Bible that are commonly used to denounce homosexuality (with, I might add, questionable interpretation), there are literally thousands of verses calling the faithful to love their neighbor, care for the “least of these,” tend to orphans and widows and most vulnerable, seek justice for all, use governmental power wisely and compassionately, and not mistreat the foreigner in their midst.  It's like an NBA All-Star team stacking up against the woeful Charlotte Bobcats' second string - it's not even close.  When it comes to the sheer weight of scripture, the message of love triumps in a landslide.

And when we look specifically at Jesus as he's presented in the gospels, what we see is a man who didn't just tolerate the oppressed and outcasts, but actually sought them out.  He made a point of hanging out with them, dining with them, immersing himself into their lives no matter who they were or what others thought of them.  It drove the religious authorities nuts.  And for all his talk about loving neighbor and self, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality or gay marriage.  Not one.

So when I look at the scriptures and Jesus' life, I see an overwhelming portrait of Christian tolerance, acceptance, non-judgmentalism, and unconditional love - none of which square with Amendment One.  Because make no mistake: there is nothing loving about Amendment One.   There is nothing loving about legislation that would have all the negative consequences mentioned above.  You could possibly argue that it's "principled" or consistent (in relation to the state law already on the books), but you can't say that it's loving and compassionate in the spirit of Jesus.

I realize there are folks who disagree with me, and I'm okay with that.  I will respect their right to believe something different and hope they will return the courtesy.  It's the wonderful and sometimes frustrating thing about being adherents of the same faith - we can see things differently and still be brothers and sisters in Christ.  I will say this: if I am in error, if I've totally got my signals crossed, then I am fully content with erring on the side of love, rather than on the side of legislation that I feel pretty certain Jesus himself wouldn't be in favor of. 

And that is ultimately why I voted against Amendment One - because I believe, with all my heart, that Jesus would have voted against it too.

We'll see what Tuesday brings.  If it's defeated, I'll give thanks to God and be proud of the state I've lived in all my life.  And if it passes?  I'll be disappointed, but I'll move on with even deeper convictions and a better sense of my voice in the matter.  I'll be enthused by the wide spectrum of folks - people from different generations, different backgrounds, and even different political parties - who have come together on this issue in the spirit of Christ's love and in defense of all of God's children.

And most of all, I'll keep on loving like Jesus, the best that I can.  Thank God that is something that needs no legislation.

Comments

[Chris Hughes]

Thank you for sharing Steve. I'm at the Baptist church right down the road in Elkin. I can only imagine this is tough as pastor and I think this is very courageous!

[Old Jean]

Steve, you the man! Is this ever good! One of the best statements I've seen, and I've read lots of excellent ones. Even had a much shorter one myself in the Gbo N&R last month, noting that the NC Council of Churches is opposing this Amendment as well. My argument, and that of the Council's, falls into line with yours: discrimination, inequality, against the state Constitution's principles, etc. etc. Yay for you. We'll know fer sher next Tuesday evening when the votes are all counted. Holding my breath . . . but I'm so glad to know you as a colleague and person of fine words.
Jean Rodenbough -- Salem Presbytery

[bill]

You are so right, that love is Jesus' message! However, please do not confuse tolerance and love. Yes, Jesus showed love to the prostitute at the well, he showed love to the tax collector when he dined at his house. But concerning their sin, he forgave them and told them to SIN NO MORE. He did not say go and live in any manner that you feel like.
I, like yourself, am a sinner. I confess and do my best to not repeat my shortcomings. therein lies the distinction; acknowledging sin and asking forgiveness vs. "redefining sin" to suit mankind. The bible warns of moral decay and specifically calls out love of money and sexual immorality as two biggies. Yes - homosexuality is identified as sexual immorality.
This proposed Amendment may be redundant, and I don't know that it is necessary, yet to defend your stance by citing Jesus's message of love ignores his sheer hatred of ALL sin. While I am more concerned about my sin and overcoming it, disregarding biblical standards is not love.

[Steve Lindsley]

Thanks for your response, Bill. My only comment to yours is that I would disagree with your assessment that love of money and sexual immorality are the "biggies" of sin in the Bible. As I mentioned in my post, just by the sheer number of verses, the more significant sin is reserved for those people of faith who fail to tend to the "least of these" and ignore the plight of the oppressed and vulnerable in our midst. I imagine we'll continue to disagree on this, but I'm glad that we are unified in the message of Jesus' love. Thanks for your thoughts!

[Chuck L]

Bill, if you think there is even the slightest chance that this Amendment is redundant or unnecessary, you should vote Against amending our constitution--that would be the case no matter what the issue. I believe in all constitutional amendments, the burden of proof is on the "Pro" side to **prove beyond the shadow of a doubt** why changing the constitution is necessary, prudent, and the right thing for the state (or country). This amendment fails that is so many ways: it is legally vague; the wording is poor and refers to "domestic legal unions" which are not used anywhere in case law, and the bill that led to this was rushed through the Legislature one morning last September with no public comment allowed. And yes, the part about same-sex marriage is redundant.

So I hope you will vote Against (or at least abstain from voting FOR) this amendment despite your beliefs. It is a LEGAL, not RELIGIOUS matter, and only civil unions (between same-sex and opposite-sex couples) would be affected. Regardless of the outcome, gay marriage will remain illegal in NC.

[Pat Paschall (Cathy McCluskey's Mom)]

Thank you, Steve. You've said it perfectly. this amendment just drives another wedge between people instead of bringing us closer together in God's love.

[Lauren]

Very courageous, thank you for sharing. I'll be sharing it with my friends.

[Lauren]

You know, my big question is, where are all the people demanding their churches quite allowing divorce and remarriage, because Jesus DID speak to that as a threat to marriage. People seem to like to choose the sin they didn't commit (at least not that anyone knows) and decide that's the "worst" sin.

[Ashley Wood]

I am so happy to hear someone tell it like it is. Thank you for your common sense and your love for your neighbor.

[holpopov]

Steve,

You have a unique way of interpreting the bible, but I disagree with your interpretation. Yes, we need to love everyone the way Jesus loves us. The problem I have with this is that folks like you are passionate about causes personal to you only. Folks like you condemn illegal immigrants and do not see them as brothers in the gospel. Instead off supporting their plight you profess deportation. perhaps I'm wrong and you also have a Hispanic in your family. I hope you stick your neck out for them as well.

[Jennifer]

Thank you so much for this message of compassion and love. I was raised in the church and am now an atheist. The Christian community needs to be aware that nonbelievers are paying close attention to the hatred and intolerance roiling out of the church right now. Would the Jesus I was raised to believe in support homosexual marriage? I don't know. But I do know that the Jesus in the Bible wouldn't cross the street to cast a vote if there was a sick person to heal, a hungry person to feed, a sorrowful person in need of comfort. I just don't see that Jesus leading a get out the vote campaign! Do Christians who support Amendment One even know a gay person? Have they wrapped their arms around that person and loved them as they love themselves? What's a more effective way to address the sin in the sinner - loving them or stripping them of legal rights? So much of what I hear just plain disgusts me. You do good here, Steve.

[April Valentine]

One of the problems I have with what you are saying, Steve, is your focus on Jesus' love. How about His stance on sin. If Jesus tolerated what the Scriptures clearly have to say about sin, He wouldn't have had to die to save us from sin. Yes, we should love the sinner, but we are to hate the sin as God obviously does. Let's not confuse Jesus' love with tolerance of sin.

[Cris Putnam]

While its chocked full of emotional appeal, this is essay reveals some pretty sloppy thinking. When Jesus associated with the outcasts he called them to repentance. For instance, with the woman at the well he brought up her promiscuity. On the same sex "marriage" issue, the argument from silence actually works against you. Jesus did not say anything about bestiality or incest either did he? . Does that mean he thought it was acceptable? No -- of course he didn't he didn't need to, the Torah already had and Jesus affirmed the moral code. If Jesus had meant to overthrow the basic morality code, he would have made a special and specific statement, his silence works against you - it means he upheld it. The NT unequivocally recognizes it as against the creation order and is very clear that it is prohibited as grave sin (1 Cor. 6:9, Rom 1:24). It is not loving to endorse behavior that leads folks to hell. It also has nothing to do with equal rights.

Same sex couples have equal rights already, they have the same rights as everyone else. I do not have any rights that they do no t have. If they want to marry a person of the opposite sex they are free to do so. We have exactly the SAME rights. No one is free to marry anyone they "love" - we exclude all sorts of love relationships from marriage- for instance one may love their daughter or mother or pet parakeet but that doesn't mean we call that a marriage. If one's claim to "love" is the standard then what's to keep us from endorsing polygamy, incest, bestiality or anyone else's claim? After all they just want to marry who they "love" too -- right?

[Tracy McCown LaFon]

so wonderfully written and expressed! I tried myself to express why I would vote against this, especially as a Christian, but took some other paths. What you wrote I will share as your words but with my feelings as well. Nicely done.

here are the thoughts I tried to express on this matter.

http://icedkarmacoffee.blogspot.com/2012/05/sexuality-gender-marriage-no-family-is.html

[Steve Lindsley]

Thanks again for all your thoughts, both those who agree with me and those who do not.

I am sure at some point the comments here will subside, but right now they're coming in fast and furious. So let me just say that, as the person in charge of this blog, I reserve the right to remove any comment that does not express its opinion in a thoughtful and respectful matter. This goes for both "sides," if you will. I will not remove a comment simply because of the opinion it expresses, but will if it doesn't do it - surprise, surprise, in the loving spirit of Jesus.

So far the comments have all been respectful, and I greatly appreciate that. Just wanted to get this out there before the fact. Thanks for sharing.

[Damond]

Jesus wouldn't have voted. Jesus was not of this world.
And if you'll use Genesis as a backdrop, ask yourself why did God create Eve in the first place. On a lark, or whim ?

[Matthew]

Great post, Steve. It's quite sad when "Christians" are the first to judge and also the first to condemn judging. I don't think the writers of the Holy Bible had intentions of people using it as a weapon. However, that happens often; it's a sad thing. Jesus expressed love - not hate. Why do his follows enjoy speaking of his love but also using it to spread hate? I will never know the answer to that.

[Eddie Bailey]

Sir I am all for you expressing your opinion as to why you do not support the amendment but how dare you use the bible and faith as a reason to be against it. That is not only an affront to our Lord Jesus Christ but an outright blasphemy of His Holy written inerrant word. That flies totally in the face of every part of scripture and you have allowed the world to taint your view in the name of political correctness.. You speak of Jesus being an all inclusive and all loving being...but what about the parts where HE hates sin...where he overturned the money changers table because they were mocking the Temple...Sir you are also mocking the word of God by using it as a basis for your argument.

Eddie Bailey
www.facebook.com/thebaileycrew
www.furiouslongings.blogspot.com

[Tracey]

This morning I am saying a prayer and thanking God for you - and for your ability to so eloquently put into words what has been in my heart and mind for the last several months. God bless you, your family and your ministry in Mt. Airy. This Christian, heterosexual, Republican female will join with you in voting against Amendment One.

[Jessamyn]

This is the most courageous and accurate defense I've read. You, sir, give Christians a good name.

[Calli]

Thank goodness we were all given the ability to 'free think'. There will always be a full spectrum of reasoning for anything called into question. God knew this from the very beginning with his 'experiment' called Creation. Answers were not meant to be had in this life, which is why there are so many interpretations. Being respectful of the differences and diversities is what makes it beautiful, but ultimately, pretty sure that God wanted to see if Humankind could put aside their differing opinions and be able to all co-exist as 'creations' of God.

[April]

Steve, Thank you for being human! To all of those on this post that have put Steve down I have a few questions and inturn answering them for yourself may open your heart! First question: Who created hermaphrodites? If you are not aware of what a hermaphrodite is I'll put it in layman's terms! Feel free to not trust me (as you should study to show thyself approved) and do your own research! A hermaphrodite is someone born with both male and female sexual orientations whether by having both male and female external organs or internal!Also ask yourself just because I cannot see it and do not have proof does that mean it does not exist? So in answering who created them let's ask the"Christian favorite" Does God make mistakes? Then let's ask this on, Throughout the course of our lives we say,do,don't do etc. a lot of things but when you are on your death bed leaving and you have something you want to say is it what you did in life that matters or the message you are now conveying as you breach the veiled threshold from thid world to eternity? We all know that if we(or someone you love is) are dying and struggling to speak that what they are saying will be the last words they ever leave for us this side of glory and that those words must be extremly important! Important enough to sum up their entire earthly life into few mortal words! So my question is now What were Jesus' last words to the world as he struggled for breath,going in and out of consciousness,between the veil of this world and eternity? In answering these questions also ask yourself whom God says will give account? And then it is your duty to search your own heart,not the heart the church says you are to have,not the heart that may have been beat into as a child but that still small voice that is not angry but longsuffering,the turn the other cheek voice and ask what shall I as a human do?

[Trey Ragland]

Steve, I don't know if you remember me. We used to play together back when we were in elementary school (at Lacy, I believe). I am against the Marriage Amendment because I am against any action that would make anyone feel unwelcome in our faith. Jesus Christ excluded no one, nor should we. When we actively seek out people and attempt to pass laws against them, we resemble Sadducees and Pharisees more than we do Jesus Christ. I fear that your opinion may get you in trouble with your community, but I appreciate your bravery in the face of this controversy. --Trey Ragland

[Eddie Bailey]

Steve. This is your exact words from above Thanks again for all your thoughts, both those who agree with me and those who do not.

I am sure at some point the comments here will subside, but right now they're coming in fast and furious. So let me just say that, as the person in charge of this blog, I reserve the right to remove any comment that does not express its opinion in a thoughtful and respectful matter. This goes for both "sides," if you will. I will not remove a comment simply because of the opinion it expresses, but will if it doesn't do it - surprise, surprise, in the loving spirit of Jesus.

So far the comments have all been respectful, and I greatly appreciate that. Just wanted to get this out there before the fact. Thanks for sharing.

yet you have repeatedly erased my comments over and over and I have yet to say anything hateful or disrespectful..I have mainly asked you to defend your position based on scripture after I have posted actual scripture..So you only want the opinions that agree with you and are afraid to deal with what Jesus actually said..You ought to be proud because your blog has spawned one of my own dealing directly with you and I challenge you to let it stay here and not be deleted and allow folks to draw their own conclusions without you silencing the opposition..but I doubt you will since you have deleted now 4 comments and not one comment in your thread is against your position..Suppose that is how you win the argument, by silencing the opposing view

http://furiouslongings.blogspot.com/

[Robin Reaugh Dorko]

Yes, Steve. Yes to all you said.
I believe there is one God, but we were sure all taught different ways of approaching Him.
I choose to believe in a God of love and gentle guidance, not a God of condemnation and fear.