Today, the Supreme Court, that illustrious group of nine veritable geriatrics, voted in favor of gay marriage. My liberal friends are haling it as a great victory for love, the majority of my conservative friends are despondent, yet most are not answering the most important question that rises immediately…what’s next?
Ask most supporters of gay marriage this question and they will give you a blank stare. They might stammer and say, “Well, nothing, this is what we wanted.” And, I suppose, for many, this is true. But legally, today’s ruling sets a precedent. It not only legalizes gay marriage, but will be used now to argue that all marriages are valid. If I want to marry my father, or my son, or, shoot, all of my sons, it’s perfectly acceptable. But not just because of the legal ruling. (If you doubt that, spend some time reading polyamorous and pro-“genetically attracted” blogs and websites or, better still, tumblr.)
You see, we now have no universal basis for sexual morality. In our highly pornographic culture, anything goes. You can have sex with anyone and anything you like and the rest of us must turn a blind eye, regardless our opinions. (This, btw, is due to the fact that each pornographic encounter weakens the effect and you need more and more stimulous…which is why most porn-viewing men are impotent.)
This is a serious problem, though most don’t see it, yet. Those who raise the questions are shouted down as Bible thumping religious nuts, or, the ever popular insult “Nazi.”
As for the opposition, there is a mixed bag of people. The worst of which are, of course, the people the media are always touting as speakers for those opposed to gay marriage. They are as loud and obnoxious as the gay rights activists who enjoy attacking Catholic churches and flinging around…well, maybe I’ve been shocking enough for one day.
This level of malice is not indicative of Christian faith, it is, as hatred always is, proof of fear. If perfect love casts out this sort of fear, then why are we going after people who are gay or who support gay marriage in such a way?
There are others, however, who have simply prayed. They have reached out in love to their friends and relatives who are gay, and why shouldn’t they? We welcome an uncle and his live-in girlfriend to Christmas dinner, why not our mother and her girlfriend? Seriously, it’s all the same, people.
Which is, sadly, my point. As soon as we allow one form of sexual deviancy, we must allow all. We have no right to say to our son, “OK, I’m not happy that you’re living with your girlfriend, but I guess I have to love you and accept your choice,” and not say the same if our son reveals he has a boyfriend, or two girlfriends, or a girlfriend and a boyfriend, or, well, you get the picture, I hope.
The problem then is: Where do we draw the line? And what right do we now have to draw a line?
I’d love to say it’s as simple as loving our friends and family who are gay the same as we do those who co-habitate, which is what I have done and continue to do and want to continue to do. But now I’m in a quandary, when can I say, as a Christian, or even as a citizen of Earth, enough already? Is it when I have to love my neighbor with three wives? Is it when I’m told to love my other neighbor who is in a sexual relationship with her father and brothers?
Unlike the Dred Scott ruling, which I usually like to point to in order to remind people that the SCOTUS has a long and disturbing history of opinion based rulings, the churches (the ones not spewing vitriol) seem to offer no right and wrong here. Slavery is wrong. Treating a man or woman created in the image of God like an animal is wrong. There is a side to come down on in Dred Scott. But here, even the church flounders with no true answer, because, like the supporters of gay marriage, we’ve thought little of what happens next.
So, what do we do? Is this really as simple as “love your neighbor?” And what exactly does that love look like? Is it silent in the face of sin? And, if it is, of what use is the Gospel?