The gay marriage fight continues on. I've posted on this before, and really don't have much else to say, but I am interested in the ongoing drama going on in Kentucky. An elected clerk in the courthouse has decided that she cannot issue marriage licenses to gays because of her faith, and even as the courts have ruled against her, she continues to resist. Now she says that she will not issues licenses to anybody.
The question of conscience has now become the new battleground in the fight over homosexual rights. Should those who sincerely feel that homosexuality is sin (I am one of them) have to do things that go against their conscience? Should bakers have to bake wedding cakes for gay couples? Must Christian adoption agencies have to place children with gay couples? It's a hard question: on the one hand, it does seem 'hateful' to deny somebody a service that would be offered to other couples. But on the other hand, are we 'blessing' a sin by helping somebody carry out that sin, no matter how small?
As a preacher I would feel compelled to say no to any gay couple that asks me to do their wedding. I cannot think that it is right to take part something that I feel to be sin. Maybe it will come to a point that I cannot do any weddings so as to be 'non-discriminatory', but I do know that people will always be able to be legally married, whether in a church or in a courthouse. Life and marriage will go on without me.
But as I have said before, because the legalities of marriage are dependent upon the state (e.g. inheritance rights, visitation rights in hospitals, custody rights for children), I do believe that gay people should have a legal right to be married and have that marriage recognized by the state. To deny them the same rights as straight couples seems to be an unlawful form of discrimination. I may not like or approve of what it is that they are doing, but as one who still has a libertarian bias, it is not in my power to say whether or not they can be married. I know of many straight couples that I think should not have been married (for various reasons)...but that's not in my power to contest from a legal point of view.
And so when it comes to the Kentucky clerk who will not issue licenses, here's my belief: she should either resign or be removed from her position. She does not have to like the law, but if she is an officer of the state, she has to carry out its policies or resign. If her conscience cannot allow her to do what the law requires, then she should step aside and let somebody else should do the job. Imagine a police officer who is Rastafarian: his religion tells him that drug enforcement of cannabis users is wrong. Should we keep him in his job? Or imagine a soldier who decides that he cannot kill for any reason based upon his understanding of Scripture. Should he continue to be a soldier?
Perhaps the laws were different when she was elected; too bad. Laws change, and even if as Christians we do not like the change, it is our duty to accept it in society, and officers of the law are compelled to carry out that law. If they cannot carry it out, then resign your post. When it comes to a law we do not have to like it, promote it, or affirm it. In our democratic form of government we might even work to change it. But accept it as law of the land we must.
Here's the thing about this story that most amazes me, though. The woman who will not allow gays to marry has been divorced and remarried three times. From a very literal understanding of what I read about divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, then she should not have been allowed a marriage license, either, for her current marriage! But the law of the state seems to be that somebody can be divorced and remarried as many times as possible; what of a clerk who held that she could not issue licenses to anybody with a previous marriage on their record? We would not tolerate that, would we?
