Saturday, October 28, 2006

Another Heresy

I'm not sure which heresy Jeff was talking about, so I'm just gonna pick one. I recently suggested voting against all the Arizona ballot propositions except maybe 107. Now I'm reconsidering 107. Here's why. As I understand it, not only would the prop put language in the state constitution defining that the term marriage would refer only to one man and one woman, but would also forbid the giving of benefits to state workers who are not married. It's the last part that gets me.

You see, I would be fine if we could just agree that the term marriage already has a meaning, and let it alone. Devise new civil contracts that allow for more flexibility in defining how our money is managed. It seems to me that government's best role in this whole issue is to stay out. Just let each person decide who gets their money, whether in the form of inheritance or benefits. Let each company decide whether they will limit who can share in the benefits pool. As for inheritance, why not just let people give their money (most of which was already taxed as income) away to whomever they want without any taxes?

As a Christian, my problem with this whole thing is that we end up saying something I hope we don't mean when we adopt all of 107. We are saying that one sin (yes, I am calling homosexuality a sin) must be separated out and made unique. Now I understand that in some way we have been forced into this position by those who demand that we accept what is essentially a private matter in a very public way. And I react powerfully against such pressure. But the thing is, I know far more people who have been severely damaged by gossip, but we pretty much ignore that one. Or lying. Or petty thievery (taxes anyone?). We say with our actions that homosexuals are worse than other sinners. I have, as of late, become much more aware of where there is a tendency to sin in my life, and while I would like to find someone else whose sins are worse than mine, that's not how it works.

I'm still debating, but I think I may make it a clean sweep and vote against them all. If they will resubmit 107 with just the definition, that would be different.

For me, at least, it would be.


the-unintentional-blogger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
the-unintentional-blogger said...

It's very funny, because everybody I talk to who's on the fence about this issue is on the fence for different reasons.

My sister voted "no" simply because she doesn't believe that homosexuality is contradictory to biblical values (not that she was EVER on the fence about this issue. She's spoken on defeating the prop numerous times in Tucson). My dad voted "no" simply because he want the constitution to reflect 3 different levels of union; a religious marriage, a Justice of the Peace union (a non-religious marriage), and a common law "marriage". He was worried that if the constitution defined marriage just as a union between a man and a woman, it gives the same benefits to all 3 categories, and he didn't want that. I'm leaning towards "no" because there's no "grandfather clause". I have a problem with the state saying "OK, you can have these health benefits", and then turning away and saying "nope, now you can't". If it wasn't such weighty issues like health care, I don't think I'd mind so much. If they were to say "from now on, the state will not offer domestic partner benefits to those who are not married, but allow people who were already granted those benefits to keep them", I'd vote for it in a heartbeat. I think the fact that there are so many different problems with the amendment point to the fact that the amendment is terribly written.

Bad Methodist said...

Hey, I'm Scott's sister. Hope you don't mind me commenting.

Scott is right about why I voted no, but the reason I've worked so hard against this amendment is the reason you stated about the second half. And I was moved by what you wrote in your post about Ted Haggard as well, about how Christians have "ranked" homosexuality as somehow worse than my sins. That has always bothered me and has been the driving force in why I've gotten involved against this amendment. It IS badly and vaguely written and I appreciate how much thoughtful, prayerful consideration you've obviously put into this issue before you vote.