Jesus would ALLOW same sex marriage

As you most likely know, last week the New York legislature passed a law legalizing same sex marriage.  Within two days, a gay parade was streaming through the streets of New York, with Governor Andrew Cuomo leading the way.  Now, this may strike those of you who follow my blog as strange, however, I understand the argument that gay marriage does not hurt anyone. Gay marriage does not kill anyone (with the exception of the increased risk of AIDS).  Gay marriage does not make me want to be gay.  Gay marriage does not affect interest rates or currency in the U.S.  In fact, gay marriage seems harmless in most ways.  I believe Jesus would allow laws for gay marriage.  My problem with gay marriage is the "after affect" and the issues that get forced  upon individuals and institutions.  Let me explain.

Shortly after legislatures enacted the law allowing gay marriage in New York, the Catholic Church, through it's bishops,  issued a statement.  It read:

"We strongly uphold the Catholic Church's clear teaching that we always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love, but we just as strongly affirm that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman in a lifelong, loving union that is open to children, ordered for the good of those children and the spouses themselves," they said. "This definition cannot change, though we realize that our beliefs about the nature of marriage will continue to be ridiculed, and that some will even now attempt to enact government sanctions against churches and religious organizations that preach these timeless truths."  I agree with 99% of this statement, however, the bishops are wrong about one thing - - the efforts to sanction churches for defending the truth will not be starting now, they have already started.  In a 2004 court case, (Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. the Superior Court of Sacramento County) the liberal establishment twisted the Constitution and used the government  to force churches to act against their own moral teachings.

In the Catholic Charities case, a six-to-one majority of the California Supreme Court upheld a law enacted by the California legislature that required Catholic schools, hospitals and charitable organizations to provide prescription contraception coverage for their employees if they purchased any prescription drug coverage for their employees at all.

It did not matter to the majority in California's legislature, who passed the law, and then Gov. Gray Davis, who signed it, that employees of Catholic organizations were free to buy any kind of contraceptives they wanted -- with their own money. These politicians wanted to force the Catholic Church to buy contraceptives against its teaching.

The Catholic Church argued that it deeply believed and clearly taught that artificial contraception was wrong. The church also said it believed it had a moral obligation -- as part of its duty to treat workers justly -- to provide prescription drug coverage for its employees.

The liberals behind California's contraceptive law no doubt relished putting the Catholic Church in this box: force Catholic authorities to choose between upholding their church's teaching on artificial contraception or upholding their church's view of the just treatment of workers.  They wanted to force the Catholic Church to choose one wrong or another. It is hard to imagine an uglier or more tyrannical impulse in a politician.

The church resisted. Catholic Charities of Sacramento sued the state, seeking to protect its own and everyone else's freedom of religion, asking a very simple question.  "Under the Constitution, does the state of California have the right to tell its citizens how to practice their religion?" Some Protestant churches joined in the fight.  A brief was filed that stated, " The state proposes a rule of law that forces a church institution, in violation of its own self-identity and constitution, to pay for something in its own workplace that the institution holds and teaches to be sinful,"

The California Supreme Court's decision was bold and simple. It conceded that the California law demanded that the Catholic Church act against its own teachings.  "We do not doubt Catholic Charities' assertion that to offer insurance coverage for prescription contraceptives to its employees would be religiously unacceptable," said the court.

But it concluded that the state's interest in eliminating "gender discrimination" trumped the Catholic Church's freedom of religion.

Laws not allowing gay marriage will not make our nation better.  Only when the hearts of men and women in America are changed, will we start to see fundamental, long-lasting, and meaningful change.  I personally see the law enacted last week in New York as a symptom of a select few elitist ruling class lawmakers enacting their personal agenda.

I stated in the first paragraph that Jesus would allow laws allowing gay marriage.  My point is that He would allow an individual to choose whether or not to follow His laws and principles.  He would not force someone to believe one way or another. God allows choice. I simply hope that our government will allow me the opportunity, the choice, to treat my homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love, but to also strongly affirm that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman in a lifelong, loving union that is open to children, ordered for the good of those children and the spouses themselves.

I am afraid I will not be afforded that choice in the future.