The Hypocrisy of the Church’s Stance on Gay Marriage

Considering my previous post, you might think that, given the subject title, that I’m trying to call the Church out for hypocrisy in how it handles divorce. That’s only half-right, really.

Relevant Magazine recently published an article by Kathryn Malczyk about the dichotomy between the Church’s position on gay marriage and divorce. An excerpt:

While tripping over themselves to passionately protest gay marriage, Christian conservatives are neglecting to fight a much larger threat to the sanctity of marriage and the institution of the family. Divorce has already completely altered the family as we know it, and its consequences continue to infect the nation. Christians turn out en masse to protest the legislative approval of gay marriage, but no one is saying much about the divorce rate. If Christians are truly concerned about preserving marriage and the family, they need to take care of the plank of heterosexual divorce before worrying about the speck of homosexual marriage.

[Emphasis mine.]

I’ve often [though perhaps not clearly] stated my position on gay marriage: fine in the secular world, wrong in the sacred world. You might not agree with me, and many in the Christian mainstream do not. That’s fine.

I may disagree with my Catholic brothers on many things, but their attitudes toward divorce are to my liking. I had a Catholic friend who married a once-divorced woman—she had been Protestant—and they spent a long time trying to get married inside Mother Church. I believe that they finally ended up getting married as Protestants just so they could be married; it seems to me that I did hear from a mutual friend that Mother Church did eventually end approving the annulment of her previous marriage.

Anyhow, I think the basic points of the Relevant article are very much worth reading and understanding, whether you’re Christian or not.

[Hat tip to Michaela.]

4 comments

  1. The separation of civil and religious beliefs is a very tough area to get into. I actually have to separate for both gay marriage and for abortion.

    In both cases, I believe them to be a sin, and very much wrong. On the other hand, I have to ask where did our government get the right to impose my beliefs on people who do not share those beliefs.

    I think it was Vermont that has put forth Civil Unions as an alternative to allowing homesexuals to ‘marry’. Yes, this is just a game of semantics, but it makes me feel better about it all, and it doesn’t weaken the meaning of the word. If you’d like to see an example of a word that has been weakened over time, take a look at the history of ‘gentleman’. (see Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis for full argument)

  2. You’re not the only one that separates political and religious beliefs. I’m pretty dissociative, mainly from enough time spent in politics teaching me that a secular society has to develop its own moral bases by collective opinion.

    This probably puts us in the minority of American Christians, but that is fine. One look at the Hebrews tells us that following the law does very little to save a soul.

Comments are closed.