Why Gay Marriage is Not a Matter of Christian Conscience

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently did something shocking (and no doubt Mark Joseph Stern will say disgusting) and upheld gay marriage bans in four states.  I haven’t read the opinion yet, so have nothing to say about the legal reasoning.  The Supreme Court will let us know later this Spring, anyway.  However, it offers up another reason to re-think the debate that has been swirling around in Christian circles the past several years.

Much of the ongoing discussion among Christians centers around whether the biblical admonitions against homosexual conduct really mean homosexuals in committed relationships are in sin.  Whatever else is clear, no passage of Scripture points to homosexual behavior with a positive outlook.  That’s why so much of the debate has centered on whether the biblical writers understood homosexuality in the same way we understand it today and, therefore, actually were proscribing some other form of conduct.  It occurred to me that perhaps we haven’t been really analyzing this the right way.

Paul talked much about the idea of conscience – 1 Corinthians 8, 9 and 10 all have something to say about this notion.  Christians are not all bound to behave in the same way, even under the same circumstance in matters of conscience.  In pondering this truth, I wondered why more gay “Christians” haven’t argued this more directly, instead of spending so much effort on mental gymnastics about the language and context of direct passages regarding homosexual behavior.  Perhaps some have, although I haven’t observed it.

It dawned on me that we never talk about things like adultery, murder, or thievery as issues of conscience.  There is no Christian liberty to commit adultery, for instance.  It’s just wrong.  Christian adulterers aren’t coming out of the woodwork trying to explain why when Moses brought the Ten Commandments down from the mountain that those were for a different culture, a different time, a different people, with different understanding.  The Christian adulterers aren’t arguing adultery is really okay, especially when your spouse isn’t living up to your desires. Even the most craven atheists rarely so bluntly suggest adultery rises to the level of a social good.

We all recognize adultery and murder are wrong, even by Jesus’ more tightened standards (don’t look lustfully, don’t think angry thoughts).  Interestingly, there is no passage in Scripture suggesting adultery or murder is acceptable.  Regardless of context, or biological understanding, the Bible never provides a safe harbor for homosexual conduct, either.  Wouldn’t that, then, suggest that homosexual behavior, much like adultery, murder, thievery, or other biblically prohibited conduct isn’t simply a matter of conscience, since no passage allows for its acceptance?

Paul, who so many in the gay community abhor because of Romans 1, among other passages, suggests in 1 Corinthians 10:23 that “everything is permissible but not everything is helpful.”  Yet, I don’t see gay advocates running to this passage as support for their position.  Why not?  Doesn’t “everything is permissible” mean that homosexual sex is okay?  Doesn’t it mean that gay marriage is acceptable?

Well, no.  It can’t.  Why not?  Because Paul certainly isn’t suggesting that Christians have liberty to commit adultery or murder, since such acts are clearly prohibited by Scripture.  So this puts the gay “Christian” advocate in a conundrum.  Conscience is an insufficient argument, despite its obvious and tantalizing appeal, because Paul simply can’t be saying that or he undermines much of what he had just said earlier in the same letter!  Even gay advocates who seek an otherwise Christian life have to recognize that “liberty” can’t mean open to anything or Christianity crashes in on itself. 

Does this not then suggest that homosexuality cannot simply be a matter of conscience about which Christians can agree to disagree?  If it were so, that would be fine with me.  I harbor no ill will here.  However, doesn’t the biblical text have to mean the same thing across time or lose its inherent value?  In other words, the Bible can’t mean one thing yesterday but something new today, can it?  If it does, then doesn’t that mean we just need to wait a while until adultery, murder and thievery become acceptable?

Ultimately, the Bible cannot be read as if it is a human legal document, subject to the whims of those in power.  While the Supreme Court may, or may not, uphold the Sixth Circuit later this spring, Christians have to stand firm on what the Bible says.  Since the Bible never condones homosexuality, Christians simply don’t have latitude to make this a matter of conscience.  The Supreme Court can manipulate man-made law all it wants; Christians don’t have that luxury when it comes to the Bible.