Moral legislation not limited to same-sex unions

As a Christian, I have asked myself questions in abundance concerning homosexuality and marriage. Many such emerged as I watched screenwriter Dustin Lance Black accept the Oscar for Best Screenplay earlier this year for the film Milk , a picture about gay rights activist Harvey Milk. I was on edge when Black brought God into the speech, but what he said resonated with me: "If Harvey had not been taken from us 30 years ago, I think he’d want me to say to all of the gay and lesbian kids… that no matter what everyone tells you, God does love you." It is a fact that if this were not true, Christianity would not exist; then why, when Jesus spent so much time on Earth with those condemned by the world, have we Christians portrayed condemnation instead of love? How do we consider it more pertinent that we "prevent the biblical standard for marriage from being violated " than that we effect the same heart as Christ? It was he who said, " You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye." (Matthew 7:5 NAS). As if the log of uncalled-for judgment is not big enough in our church’s eye, our standard is incomplete! How can we oppose gay marriage when we have left the door open for the legislation of divorce and allowed pornography to infiltrate our culture with little opposition? I don’t believe that every Christian has acted in this heart, but it seems that some have left the door open for the sins they find personally attractive while finding a sense of self-righteous validation in the condemnation of temptations they are not given to. The church’s attitude seems to say, "It doesn’t bother us too much if people violate God’s marital standard unless it is in a homosexual nature." And we wonder why the people of the country hate us for our attitude towards homosexuals? It may seem too late for the church to credibly say a word on marriage, then, but I believe if the church would simply obey what Jesus called the greatest commands, to love one another as he did and love your neighbor as yourself, the church would be able to stand firm on what God has decreed in the same love that he has decreed it in. This is solid thought, but what are the political implications? So far I have established a fundamental of the Gospel: that all have sinned. But why should we legislate against what God has declared sin, why haven’t we until the gay marriage movement, and, most importantly, why should those who don’t believe the same as I vote against these things? The answer is, “For fear of downfall.” The downfall of Rome, Athens, and Carpathia, not to mention Sodom and Gomorrah, have been shown to have occurred with the rise of rampant homosexuality. Homosexuality alone may not have caused these, but it was the final indicator of moral decadence under which none of these cities could stand. We would be wise to evaluate the sexual climate today and realize, according to history, that our country is in danger of downfall (sound like the economic forecast?). It must be understood that with the proper heart, a Christian intends a vote against gay marriage as a protective measure. It may seem a hateful measure, but if one believes in consequences for action, he must act on that! Penn Jillete, an atheist, has correctly identified it as hateful for a person not to act on such a thing, whether or not it is correct. And this is much more than just a crapshoot “here’s what I believe” matter, but one with compelling evidence worthy of consideration and action. Considering all this, it is hard for me to determine where moral conflict and legal matters separate. I understand that “marriage benefits” can be understood to be discriminate in the current situation, but I question why they exist to begin with. Since when was marriage entered for the benefit of oneself? Isn’t the definition of love that it gives? It seems a problem that the government has entered marriage when it needs not do so. If marriage is stripped of all legal affiliations and made strictly a religious institution, it will not die out; it will thrive! If legal aspects are our concern, we have missed the point; this is about our country’s moral integrity, which engenders its prosperity, as the preamble of our state’s Constitution states. We must uphold and purify marriage if we will continue as a country, with a full vision and an iron will. We must not stop with the prohibition of same-sex unions, but must legislate against our previous misdeeds in order to restore the vibrant thrift of our great state and nation, and we must not wait.