|
|
|
Amendment One: A Christian mom's perspective
Posted by Ailen Arreaza on Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:51 PM
I have thought long and hard about writing this post because I want to start by saying something I fear might not sit well with most of Creative Loafing's readers: I am a Christian. My family attends church every week; I teach Sunday school; my husband plays in the worship band. We believe in and are followers of Jesus and we aim to be more like him each day.
I hesitated to write this post because I felt like, once I told you I am Christian, you would assume other things about me - that I'm a Republican; that I hold a staunch, unyielding position against abortion; or that I voted in favor of Amendment One. And you would be wrong.
I hesitated because, sometimes, when I tell people I am Christian, I have to supplement it by saying, "but not the crazy-right-wing-nut-job kind," and that gets tiring.
But I need to write this post. As a Christian. As a follower of a Jesus who was a radical; a revolutionary who stood for the poor and the outcast. A Jesus who did not say a single thing about being gay or straight, but sure did say a whole lot of things about love.
I realized I had to write this post when I was talking to my son as we headed out to vote on Saturday. I was trying to explain to him - a not quite 3-year-old - what it means to be married. "Being married means loving someone so much you want to spend your whole life with that person. You want them to take care of you when you are sick; you want to go on vacation with them; you want to play with them every day; you want to cook yummy food for them and read bedtime stories together."
In that very basic, dumbed-down explanation, I realized just how very little marriage has to do with sex. And isn't that the whole big hang-up the Christian right has? Those two or three Bible verses that talk about a "man lying with another man"? (Bible verses which many theologians argue are poorly translated and taken out of context.)
So let's stop focusing on what happens in the bedroom and look at what marriage is really about: spending your whole life with someone; providing for and taking care of that person; loving him or her the ways Jesus asked us to: "like we love ourselves."
"We are going to vote today because some people want to control who you get to marry," I said to Luki as I buckled him into his car seat. "They don't want to allow some people to spend their whole lives with their best friends."
"That's not very nice," he answered with a frown.
No. Not very nice, indeed.
Please, get out and vote against Amendment One today.
Comments (56)
like
dislike
Mrs. Arreaza:
While I do not share your religious belief, I admire your moral position and recognize the courage it took to write this letter. I do share your position that Amendment one is wrong on many levels. Your eloquent description is so much better than anything I would have written.
I agree with what everyone has said. No matter what a persons religious beliefs, this amendment makes no sense, there is nothing positive that can come out of its passage, all it can due is hurt people. I thank you for your post and your thoughts.
Why can we not address the rights of gay and lesbian couples outside of marriage? Why is marriage the only solution? I think two people who share a dwelling for financial reasons, who are close friends, but who do not share a bedroom should have many rights they do not have. Such as being able to visit each other in the hospital like they are family. The same kind of rights that gay/lesbian couples want. We can give people rights without taking away the sanctity of marriage. God created marriage, not any government on earth. Man needs to stop trying to redefine marriage. We do need to legislate rights for all people, gay/lesbian and otherwise.
Now THIS is what it is to be a TRUE Christian! Thank you so much for taking the time to post this, but more importantly, thank you for teaching your son to see others in the way we were meant to see them...with love and understanding!
Actually, no, this is not what it is to be a true christian at all. It's much easier to bend to the wisdom of man, than to the wisdom of a loving God. You obviously know nothing about covenant, although you seem to be a caring person - you may want to check you mercy motivated response to situations like this, and understand the compromise you're teaching your son. Words like that are exactly why we have a generation of youth who live their life with the lines of sin and wickedness blurred. Exactly how the enemy wants it. And its funny how people want to toss the word "love" and tolerance around - meanwhile christians all over the world are being tortured, killed, raped, beaten, etc... but hey, as long as we are loving! Also, something to think about as well - I'm sure other "religeous" groups like say, muslims for example (who stone gays) were all for the amendment - for far less loving reasons than christians.
Either all of God's Word is true or none of it is true. There is no in between. Believing it is not an emotional decision, it is a life dedication that stands under the heat and the pressure of the masses. It is not subject to your intellect, it is grasped by your faith. To think that God should think the way you think and then and only then will He be right is far beyond narcissistic. But to decide that the creator of EVERYTHING including YOU may know and understand something you don't know and require you to trust Him - THAT actuality makes perfect sense. So the question is who do you trust more - you or the God who created you?
Nz writes: "Either all of God's Word is true or none of it is true."
Unbelievably arrogant of you, Nz! And that's the big problem with fundamentalists of ANY persuasion -- Christian, Muslim, or whatever. What you fail (actually, refuse) to acknowledge is that this is simply your opinion, your perspective on religion -- yours, not everybody's. You and other fundamentalists believe this, but that doesn't mean all Christians do. I know, you'll say people who don't believe this aren't really Christians. Well, I can say that, based on my reading of the Bible, you aren't really a Christian. And then we would go round and round and round in the circle game, as Joni Mitchell might say.
The difference between what you believe and what a more progressive Christian from Myers Park Baptist Church or Holy Covenant United Church of Christ believes is that you insist that your belief is the only correct belief. News flash: just because you believe it doesn't mean you and your fellow fundamentalists are right, even if you ARE absolutely convinced of it.
You're not. We're dealing with faith and belief, Nz, which by their very definitions are not based on evidence. So your sentence, "Either all of God's Word is true or none of it is true" makes absolutely no sense.
On the other hand, what Ailen wrote in her ending paragraph -- "So let's stop focusing on what happens in the bedroom and look at what marriage is really about: spending your whole life with someone; providing for and taking care of that person; loving him or her the ways Jesus asked us to: "like we love ourselves" -- that's neither true nor not true, but simply moral.
I think we're assigning too many definitions to one term here. As far as I'm concerned, a civil union is what happened when my husband Drew and I signed a marriage license - it's a contract between the two of us and the state. It allows us to file our income taxes jointly, guarantees that either of us can visit the other in the hospital and make any necessary medical decisions, and guarantees that Drew and any children we may eventually have are covered under my health insurance. All that and more in two signatures to one document. We don't have to worry about setting up half a dozen powers of attorney to cover every conceivable situation - that one document covers it all. Marriage is what happened when we told each other 'I do' - that is a contract between the two of us and God. That doesn't mean that I think only Christians should be permitted to use the word 'marriage', though Drew and I are both Christians. It doesn't mean that I think only theists should be permitted to use it. The word marriage is every bit as valid for an atheist as it is for a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindi, or *insert religion here*. It is valid for both religious and atheist; for gay and straight; for red, yellow, black, white, and everyone in between. But the word denotes a lifelong emotional commitment to another human being (and any applicable deity or deities), not a contract with the state involving tax law.
Under the first amendment (the Federal one, not the one recently passed in NC) we are guaranteed freedom of religion. That means that the state cannot go up to a church and tell them 'you see these two men right here - you HAVE to marry them.' However, neither can the church go up to the state and tell them 'you see these two men right here - they absolutely MUST NOT be permitted to enter into a civil union, intrinsically and legally ensuring them the benefits regarding tax law, insurance law, et al that married couples take for granted.' Nor can the state go up to a religious group that allows gay marriage (ie, some Christians, most pagans, and probably others I am not aware of) and say 'you see these two men - you CANNOT marry them.' The state can't force Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville NC (that one whose pastor has gone viral for advocating child abuse from the pulpit) to officiate a homosexual marriage, but neither can it prevent First United Church of Christ in Northfield MN from officiating that same homosexual marriage. Freedom of religion means freedom of religion, not freedom of MY religion.
The state has no business in the religious sacrament of marriage (regardless of the religion or lack thereof involved), but the church has exactly the same amount of business in the secular contract which is a civil union. IE, none. Why is the church so danged concerned about tax law, anyways? Two signatures. One document. It shouldn't be so hard. When a law strips the intrinsic guarantee of tax law, of insurance protection, of parental rights from what is a SECULAR contract, separate from but unfortunately tied up in the religious word 'marriage', it has gone too dang far. Because this post has it right. In mid October 2010, Drew and I signed a document which, once witnessed, straightened out tax law and guaranteed us hospital visitation rights and insurance protections, among other things. On October 23rd, 2010, we told each other 'I do'. I said it for many reasons. Tax law was not one of them. I said it because I want to be there with Drew when he is sick, I want to laugh with him when he is happy, cry with him when he is sad, share the good times with the bad. I want to wake up next to him every morning for the rest of my life. And you can't legislate that.
This is how I visualize "Christ-like". God loves us all and he created us all!! Jesus tells us that the greatest commandment is to Love one another.." Not JUDGE one another. Amen!
Thank you for a beautiful post!!!
BTW, I am a heterosexual, married,Christian mom of 4 and I whole heartedly agree with YOU!
Very good post and a great read. Only part I disagree with was that you had to hesitate writing this and saying that you were a christian we would judge you. I know many christians who are gay, christians who support their gays friends and family, and christian leaders who support their gay followers. So please don't think that we assume all christians are nut cases who want to take our rights away. We know to be a good christians means to love everyone. Thanks for writing this.
Ah, Brian! Glad you brought up an interesting point - truth. What is faith or belief if there is no basis of truth in it, correct? I'll share something with you that I learned not that long ago from a very sharp man, which changed my outlook on many things. Oh, and not to worry – I have no intention of changing your mind – that would be futile, as I do not have the power to do so. So rest easy. You seem like an intelligent person, and so I do hope you will indulge me!
Many people regard truth as something which only exists in relation to their consciousness, their conscience or their convenience. They operate on the premise that truth cannot be known, so all one can say without risking “arrogance” is "I believe." The universe does contain more truths than we can know. The fact that we cannot know everything does not mean we cannot know anything. Yet, it remains a popular notion that "nothing is real but what is felt or believed" and that "reality will always remain unknowable".
Another prevailing idea in our culture can likewise undermine our explanation of the gospel, and that is the post-modern tendency to see truth as relative. Experts in reaching postmoderns (such as many people reading this and clicking “dislike” –lol) with the gospel have advised us to avoid absolute truth claims because it may alienate those who are searching for answers but reject the idea of absolutes. If we follow this advice we find ourselves facing the same problem as with the consumerist mindset. The gospel becomes subject to a cost/benefit analysis along with all the other religious ideas being proffered. Will it work for me? What do I get? We know that truth is not relative, but we may be tempted to be too delicate about the issue when talking to those who see it differently.
Absolute truth is a reality, in fact THE REALITY. It exists without reference to or dependence upon those who may or may not believe. It would exist whether or not anyone benefited by it because truth does not exist to benefit people. It simply exists. Jesus said He is the Truth. That is not to say there is no benefit to following after Jesus. Jesus said He is the way to the Father, to life more abundant, to having the light of life, to living forever. But most people are not willing to trade temporal and material pleasures for these more lofty realities.
The gospel shatters the preconceived ideas of the me-first spirituality prevalent in our culture of consumerism and post-modern relativism. The gospel doesn't address the question of what we can get, it points to the reality of what we need, and the grace that is our only hope to meet that need. The gospel doesn't provide a self-indulgent spiritual, or physical fix but calls us to turn from our sin to the only One who can truly save. It calls us to deny ourselves, take up our cross daily and follow Him.
I understand that this gospel message is counter-intuitive to the mind-set of our present-day culture, because our society places a premium on pursuing the greatest degree of personal comfort and benefit possible. Hence the question, "What do I get," motivates many people's choices today, not only in the physical, and political realm, but in the spiritual realm as well.
You stated in your last paragraph that something can be, “neither true nor not true, but simply moral.” I would ask you this; what truth does morality depend upon for its foundation? What causes morality to be – moral?
Who the hell are you, Nz, to tell me what my understanding of god requires? I have total faith in my spiritual outlook, and guess what? It ain't nothin' like yours? The nerve of you and others telling me and others about the "wisdom of a loving God"! You paternalistic bastard!
God's word? Those two words themselves are man-made. If your god is truly transcendent, it certainly doesn't have "words" and it didn't write a book -- and you certainly don't "know" anything about it. You have faith and belief in it, based on your reading of your text. And you have covenants, based again on your beliefs.
To many theologians throughout history, however, the Christ fetish modern fundamentalist Christophiles have would be considered downright idolatrous. Why? Because in the pre-modern world, faith also depended very much on the symbolism, myth, mysticism and philosophical ruminations at the core of most holy texts. Nowadays? You just believe it all -- lock, stock and barrel, contradictions and contemporary knowledge be damned. And that's dangerous -- at least to me it is. Because what you end up doing is picking and choosing what you want to focus on, and that often depends on where you live, what your social class is, what your race is, what your political beliefs are, how fearful you are of others, how threatened you are about your power and status in society. We've lost the nuances of symbolism. And with that loss comes very scary and problematic views of religion.
So Nz, when you ask: "The question is who do you trust more - you or the God who created you?"
My answer is: I do not trust YOU or the god of your understanding. I trust my own understanding of god. Because whatever created me has not once spoken words to me nor written a book for me to read, although the god of my understanding does reveal itself in many books, many words and many other ways.
Oh, and Nz -- thanks for the nice, paternalistic CS Lewis lecture. :)
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce
In 2010, more than four in ten births (41 percent) were to unmarried women.
Please explain this "sanctity of marriage" that you are defending.
Mrs. Arreaza:
You were worried about us judging you because of your faith. If you read all the comments you can see who is judging you.
I wrote this post and wanted to thank you all for chiming in. I have a few comments:
Cuulblu: What do you mean by, "address the rights of gays and lesbians outside of marriage"? Do you mean giving them the same rights married people have: visitations in the hospital, joint taxes, health insurance, etc. and just not calling it marriage? That sounds to me a whole lot like separate but equal... and we all know how that experiment turned out!
Nz: I'm a little confused by your comment. Can you specifically point out the part in which I'm not being a true Christian? Also, you take issue with my "throwing around the word 'love'" and you mention that Christians all over the world are being tortured, raped, killed, etc. What exactly should a Christian's reaction to that be? To torture, rape, and kill back? Is that what Jesus would do? Because he was tortured and killed and... what is it that he said? Oh, yea, "father forgive them for they know not what they do." Also thank you for being the only one to acknowledge the most important thing about this piece: how ADORABLE my son is!! :-)
Allison: Your comment resonates the most with me and my viewpoint. But, I keep coming back to the same question: is this all about the word "marriage"? Is it really all a matter of semantics? I know you said that the paper you signed with your husband was a civil union as far as you're concerned, but it's actually called a MARRIAGE license. Do you think that if the state of North Carolina stopped calling them "marriage" licenses and started calling them "civil union" licenses for everybody we wouldn't be in this mess?
I would like to think that, but I grew up in Fayetteville, now of Berean Baptist fame, and I'm not quite that naive. But I think separating out the secular details like tax law and insurance coverage for everybody might at least get the hyperconservatives to open their eyes a bit more and see the necessity of giving everyone the same basic secular rights regardless of... anything, really. I think a part of the problem is that most religious individuals do see the word marriage as a religious thing, and that encourages them on some level to try and restrict it to those who their religion deems worthy. But there is nothing religious about tax law. I think if we could strip away the religious connotations from these inherently secular benefits it could go a long way towards ensuring that all couples have access to said benefits.
That is of course only half the problem. The other half is getting said hyperconservatives to understand that some religious groups do freely practice homosexual marriage, and that they have no constitutional right to enact legislation preventing them from doing so. That is probably the more difficult battle.
Nz, open your eyes. You and I both see absolute truth in the Bible, yes. My buddy at work, Mohammed - yeah, he sees it in the Koran. My high school friend, she sees it in the Torah. My pagan college roommate from freshman year? Well, I'm not sure wear she sees it, but she sees it. Because if each of these individuals, despite believing very different things, was not convinced that they knew the one absolute truth of the universe? Well, it wouldn't be much of a faith, now would it?
That's what faith is - believing what you cannot see, and cannot prove, but nonetheless know with all your heart to be true. I'm a scientist. I prove things every day. I can prove, with absolute certainty, that the chloroform sample coming in is 99.9% pure. I can prove that the production group's reaction did not initialize for the 3,5-Dibromobenzaldehyde, and yes we have no aldehyde, we have no aldehyde today. I can't prove that the world was totally flooded and creation was saved by putting two of every kind into the ark. I can find you some geologic evidence that supports that theory, sure, but I can't prove with absolute certainty that that's what happened, because I wasn't there, and that isn't the only potential explanation for that geologic evidence. But that's okay - I don't have to prove it. Because I already know it. I know it with all my heart, and all my mind, and all my soul, and nothing I coulf possibly come up with in the lab could ever make me believe it any more than I already do. And that is what faith is. I can't see it. I can't prove it. But I know it. And you don't have a monopoly on that.
Aarreaza:
Unfortunately the word “marriage” carries significant religious attachments to it. Allowing the gay/lesbian community to use the word marriage for their unions is a slap in the face of the Christian community. Addressing the rights of the gay/lesbian community outside of marriage to provide the same benefits as being married is a form of being separate but equal. However getting the Christian community to stand down and allow marriage equality might be impossible. The ideal solution would be to remove marriage from the government granted domestic union contract, for everyone. Call it a civil union or whatever terminology is most acceptable to everyone. Then allow marriage to be ONLY a religious union that is legally non-binding in any way. This will cause a great uproar too, but in the end could be a more acceptable way to make changes.
Cuulbu:
And not allowing the LGBTQA community to use the word 'marriage' is a slap in the face to the Pagan Community, various subsets of the Christian community who allow homosexual marriage, and all-around human decency. Freedom of religion is NOT' freedom of my religion; yours is permissible only to the extent that it doesn't offend me - void where prohibited'. If we do not protect freedom of religion for all citizens equally, NONE of us are truly protected. Do I think the Church of Body Modification (yes, it exists - google it) is weird as all get-out? Frankly, yes, I do. But they are doing no one any harm, and they have the right to live and worship as they see fit, regardless of how weird I may think they are. Do I fully understand Hinduism, Paganism, or other polytheistic faiths? No, I don't. But they are doing no one any harm, and they have the right to live and worship as they see fit, including performing homosexual marriages. That is their right, under Amendment One of the US Constitution, and as Voltaire said, I may not agree with everything they have to say, but I will defend unto death their right to say it. Separate but equal... isn't. We proved that a long time ago. You do not have a monopoly on the word marriage. Get over it.
Allison Rose Warn:
I am not saying anyone has a monopoly on the word marriage. I am saying the best solution is to take it completely out of the state and federally sanctioned union of two people, for everyone including Christians. I don't agree with the current politically correct thoughts of the separation of Church and State, but in this case maybe separating the Religious word of marriage from the State contract would solve some issues. Two people can be married in the eyes of their belief system without a contract from the government. We can have a contract from our government that gives everyone the same rights without using the word marriage. Leaving the word marriage for religious ceremonies without any legal contract, ceremonies of any religion or belief system, will change the legal view on this argument.
Ailen, I find it hypocritical on your part to call Christians whose views differ from yours: "crazy nut jobs", all while condemning intolerance. How is that comment any less discriminatory? I, for one, didn't vote for Amendment 1 and even though I agree with some of your points, the complete and utter double standard I see all over, including here, really turns me off to the overall message. So this message of love and tolerance doesn't include these other Christians? You talk about respecting how others want to think and live their lives, but how are you doing that by disrespecting their right to vote as they choose and based on whatever belief they choose? This is supposed to be a free country, after-all, and the people of NC have spoken.
Showing 1-25 of 56