Gay Civil Unions and the Baby Moses Law

I sent the following email to my state senator, Kyle Janek M.D., who is a friend from church from before he got elected.  I've edited it a bit.

Hi Kyle -- [my wife] and I read the other day that the [Texas] House has approved a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions. If the proposal comes up for a vote in the Senate, we hope you'll vote against it. 

Conservatives who regard homosexual activity as morally wrong -- [my wife] and I are not among them -- ought to view same-sex civil unions as the equivalent of the state's Baby Moses law.  It's a horrible thing for a mother to leave her newborn baby in a dumpster.  It's terribly wrong.  But in the real world, it happens, and the babies often die. It's always been that way, and it probably always will be. The State of Texas, wisely facing the facts, has provided a way to mitigate the harm: The Baby Moses law allows mothers to drop their babies off at fire stations, no questions asked. It's not a perfect solution, but it helps avoid the greater evil.

At the very least, same-sex civil unions do something similar:

• Civil unions can help discourage homosexual promiscuity, which can contribute to the spread HIV/AIDS -- and not just in the homosexual population.
• Civil unions could also reduce the likelihood that a homosexual might marry a straight person of the same gender, then later cause heartbreak all around by leaving the marriage for someone of the same sex.

Surely conservatives would prefer to see homosexuals in stable, committed relationships from the get-go, rather than inflict such harms on others.  Even though that wouldn't be a perfect solution (in their view), it would still mitigate what they might regard as the greater evil. 

See you Sunday,

Comments

[Michael Townsend]

You said: "Conservatives who regard homosexual activity as morally wrong -- [my wife] and I are not among them..."

What is the Biblical basis for you and your wife's approval of homosexual activity?

[D. C.]

Thanks for the question, Michael.

1. It's important to note that the opposite of "morally wrong" is not necessarily "morally right." There's also "morally neutral."

2. I don't categorically approve of homosexual activity, but neither do I categorically disapprove of it. I do think that homosexual activity between consenting adults in a monogamous relationship is morally neutral at the very least.

3. Your question, "What is the Biblical basis" for my opinion, seems to presuppose that the Bible is the ultimate test of someone's moral views. I don't accept that. The Bible is an important source of moral guidance. But each of us remains responsible for our own actions and inactions; we can't justify either by pleading that we were only following Scripture. For more on this subject, you might want to read some of my postings in the categories of Authority and Scripture (see the Categories list at right).

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

[frank]

I can see that you do not know Jesus or you would not even consider condoning that activity. Read your Bible or borrow one and you can see what the Lord says about homosexuals

[bls]

Frank, you'll have to refresh my memory: what did Jesus have to say about homosexuals?

Oh, that's right. Nothing.

[bls]

You know, I think this is the upshot of this dispute: Christians who believe that "homosexual activity" is wrong, and make this enforceable by fiat, will end up chasing most gay people completely out of the Church.

Is that what you think should happen? Gay people are simply not going to give up on the hope love for an entire lifetime; in any case, it's not fair to ask someone to do this, on the basis of a 5,000-year-old cultural code, and some iffy translations in the Epistles. (Not to mention - and I will mention it again! - that lesbianism is not condemned in Leviticus, and is - possibly, and ambiguously - mentioned a grand total of once, in Romans 1, which passage is clearly a condemnation of idolatry. So what the wholesale condemnation of "homosexuality" is doing, in effect, is creating idolators from Christians. I really don't think that's the answer.)

I should add that the term "homosexual activity" is not accurate, in the first place; this is NOT what this discussion is about. Gay attraction is emotional and spiritual, as well as physical; in this we are no different from anybody else. I'm sure you don't think of your own marriages as mere "heterosexual activity." But perhaps you mean just that: you believe the Bible condemns sexual "activity," something that doesn't involve the complex of "attraction." Well, I think we could probably come to an understanding on that point. Or perhaps you are seeing it from your own point of view, and you interpret this as meaning that heterosexuals shouldn't engage in gay sex, because for them it would be mere "activity." Well, again, I think an accommodation could be reached on this point.

[bls]

And let me just add that I have never once heard Gene Robinson, for instance, discuss his sexual "activity."

For all we know, there is no such "activity." He says he's gay and that he's been with his partner for 15 years, but I've never heard him discuss his intimate life. So how do we know there's any "activity" anyway? That was, in fact, the case for Jeffrey John in England; he said openly that he didn't engage in "sexual activity" with his partner of many years - and he was still asked to stand down from his appointment as Bishop. He was, in fact, the absolutely perfect gay candidate for the office, according to the "orthodox" position. So I'd say this is about more than condemning a certain "activity" anyway. Politics, anybody?

Being gay is about more than sex, as you can see. It's about who we fall in love with. Jeffrey John was honoring his commitment to the man he loved, and refused to leave him (which was another condition imposed upon him by the "orthodox").

In fact, I think this whole conversation could end if heterosexual Christians would acknowledge this point: that gay people need and desire love, like everybody else, and the Church ought to recognize and celebrate our relationships. If there's some issue with sex itself, we should have a talk about that - but as things stand now, relationships are also out. This won't work.

[daninbigd]

ALL the texts that deal with homosexual acts in the Bible, including the Leviticus texts, deal with homosexual activity in the context of idolary, serving/worshipping other gods besides YHWH, and we're denounced for that reason. (Read the paragraphs before and after each "clobber passage" and that will become clear.)

The Bible doesn't discuss monogamous homosexual relationships nor does it mention how Christians should deal with gay people.

And if one is going to use the Bible as a moral standard for civil law, shouldn't one start with all the divorced people who remarried for any reason other than infidelity? Christ called it adultery, which violates the 10 Commandments and St Paul said that the only moral options for the divorced are celibacy or reconciliation with their first spouse. (1 Cor 7:10-11).

Or should we only be passing laws against "other" people?