The dangers of a blog

Many times words on a blog can come back and haunt you because it is an imperfect medium. People can read things and without knowing context assuming things about your beliefs. Recently, a post from a year and a half ago on my other blog has caused people that I respect as brothers and sisters in Christ to believe that I supported gay marriage and other things that are not true. it is an honest misunderstanding, but I thought it should be clarified because two sentences have been pulled out of one of the largest, stat-filled posts I have ever written.

Here is the link to my discussion of the Federal Marriage Amendment. The quote in question is:

"I would also encourage states desiring to change marriage to try civil unions first. I would encourage all states to allow couples of any kind (gay couples, sisters living together, lifelong friends) to go through some type of process which allows more rights for the two of them (visitation, inheritance, etc.).”

Wow! That looks like I support gay marriage or at least civil unions and possibly even cohabitation. I'm even "encouraging" states to pass civil unions. But that quote does not include the entire context of what I was saying. I was trying to defend traditional marriage to a purely secular audience, so I did not quote from the Bible because they don't recognize it's authority. I recognize and submit to the supreme authority of God's Word over my life. Atheist liberals and agnostic gay men don't and that was my audience.

My full stance on the issue is better fleshed out when you look at the whole quote. I mention "DOMA" which is the Defense of Marriage Act. You can get more information on it here. This is the entire quote:

This may change next year or even next hour, but as of now this is how I would deal with the issue of gay marriage. I would strengthen DOMA, while allowing states to decide on their own. At the same time I would encourage states to preserve the institution of marriage as the traditional definition. I would also encourage states desiring to change marriage to try civil unions first. I would encourage all states to allow couples of any kind (gay couples, sisters living together, lifelong friends) to go through some type of process which allows more rights for the two of them (visitation, inheritance, etc.)

Since that time, because of the further shifts in culture, I am more supportive of a Federal Marriage Amendment. My initial trepidation was not because of a support for gay marriage, but because of a hesitancy to change the Constitution unless it is absolutely needed. I also do not want to attempt a change and fall short. That will embolden those who desire to change marriage and will cause us to be further away from our goal.

My argument was from a heart of someone who loves the institution of marriage and believes it should be protected at all costs. I was advising states (like they care about my opinion) to do anything, try anything before you throw the traditional definition of marriage out the window. If you are going to make a change, at least go with civil unions, which while it does legitimize homosexual relationships, it does not force states (and churches) to acknowledge anything other than one man, one woman as "marriage." Many states were at that time, and still are, wanting to change what marriage means. It was a plea to not rush to change an institution that has been established since the beginning of time.

It is similar to Jesus' teaching on divorce. Yes, Moses did allow for certificates of divorce, but that was not God's plan. He desired one man, one woman for life. That's His design. I was saying, "If you must, go with civil unions instead of changing marriage." That's not the desired path, but it is better than marriage losing its meaning forever.

My support for "some type of process" was a poorly worded position similar to Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family. He supported a bill in Colorado that would allow for various people to apply for some extended rights: such as hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. The bill would have made no discrimination based on sexual behavior, as it would make no mention of it. It would have not have given any special rights to specifically gay couples, but would have made those rights available for them and many others such as a widow having her sister-in-law move in with her to help with her children.

I don't know the perfect political solution to this issue, which is what I was discussing. I do know the Biblical standard for our lives and the one we should support wholeheartedly is one man and one woman marriage.

I enjoy blogging and getting to share my thoughts and feelings with various people, but sometimes it can lead to misunderstandings and mischaracterizations that are unfortunate. All of us most live with that fact. If Jesus, the best communicator who ever lived, was misunderstood, those of us who are very imperfect communicators will have to deal with our words not meaning to others what we think they say. I pray God will make me a better communicator of His timeless, unchanging truths.