A moral imperative

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” “Love your neighbor as yourself.” “Love your enemies.” Revolutionary words from a revolutionary man – Jesus Christ. As Christians we are called to be Christ-like and reflect him in our everyday lives. Through our actions, people will be drawn to him.

Unfortunately, some of the more recent Christian visitors to our campus have been decidedly un-Christ-like in their hateful appeals and admonitions. It never ceases to amaze me that followers of the same man who said, “Judge not, lest ye be judged” are some of the most judgmental people I’ve ever met. One group even went so far as to say “God hates you.” One would think Jesus had never come at all.

“Instead of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, conservative Christians are seizing the chance to change the law.”

Gay people are my neighbors, too. I’m not gay, and I would certainly never engage in homosexual behavior, but it’s not my responsibility to judge people and control their behavior. God gave man free will, and only He is capable of judging perfectly. I leave it to the Holy Spirit to convict people of their sin. People need to be able to come to God on their own terms.

When we as Christians enter the domain of public policy, we should enact laws for the benefit of all people regardless of their faith. Some Christians hesitate to put aside their personal views when it comes to public policy, but I view this as a natural extension of God’s command to love one another. Formulating policy that is fair and just for everyone is an act of selflessness and love.

Jesus also said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” In this country we live under a Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion. “Do unto others” – what if it weren’t Christians in power? The same principle that protects the rights of non-Christians protects Christians as well.

Thomas Jefferson in 1777 wrote in Virginia’s Statute of Religious Freedom that “no man shall … suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief” and that these beliefs should “in no (way) … affect their civil capacities.” But where Virginia was once a beacon of civil rights at the time Jefferson penned those words, our reputation has since fallen in the world, to say the least.

Yes, Virginia, we once had policies against miscegenation because marriage between couples of mixed race was viewed as “unnatural.” The same argument is being used to limit the definition of marriage to exclude same-sex couples today.

There are laws already on the books that ban gay marriage and civil unions while preventing Virginia from recognizing such unions performed in other states. But these laws fly in the face of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection under the law and “full faith and credit,” the latter of which requires states to recognize the laws and statutes of other states.

On Tuesday’s SGA-sponsored debate on the Marshall-Newman amendment coming up on this November’s Virginia ballot, the closing arguments for the pro-amendment side emphasized that “nothing will change” if the amendment banning gay marriage is passed into law. But this begs the question: why change the constitution?

The answer is simple: rather than submit to the law and wait for it to be carried out to its logical conclusion, conservatives are making an end run around judicial review by writing discrimination into the highest law in the land. Instead of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, conservative Christians are seizing the chance to change the law.

Why now? In an election year, hot-button issues drive voters to the polls. But as Mother Jones magazine put it in May 2004, “gay marriage opponents have another reason to push for a (national) constitutional amendment now – their supporters are dying off.” According to their analysis, while 75 percent of those aged 64 and over opposed gay marriage, only 45 percent of those aged 18 to 29 did.

The fact that younger Americans are more open to same-sex marriage is revealing in this regard – whatever Virginians decide Nov. 7, gay marriage in some form will be a part of the future. A constitutional amendment, while an interesting political experiment, will not stop the march of history. But if it passes, it will be another mark of intolerance on Virginia’s past.

Regardless of our personal feelings on marriage, it is more than just a religious institution; it is a civil institution. Not all religions prohibit gay marriage, nor do all religious people oppose it. Government should draw the widest definition of marriage possible to allow people of all faiths to decide the definition of marriage that is right for them. Religious freedom demands it.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply