Coalition For Marriage: an open letter to fellow Christians

Hugh - thanks for the comment. I think I'd want to emphasise the first point, that marriage itself is something God does and not something the state does. In that case, marriage itself is not under threat so there's no need to seek to preserve it.

In terms of the legal definition, yes, if we want to argue that the opposite-sex definition is correct (and I do want to argue that), and that it's important for the law to enshrine that, then we should express the argument as something that flows from love. Hence my comments about protecting oppression for the vulnerable. But, to be honest, I'm not sure how to frame that argument. Do give it a try!

I think the loving thing to do for opposite-sex couples, Christian or non-Christian, is to persuade them that marriage (committing to each other for life) is a really great idea.

I think the loving thing for the church to do is to publicly uphold God's ideal for opposite-sex marriages.

But whether it's the loving thing to do to launch an aggressive campaign to protect the legal definition of the word "marriage", I'm not so sure. I think it's going to be much harder to reach the gay community now, for example.

Nat - thanks for the comment (sorry, it thought you were spam, but I've rescued you). I agree about the importance of marriage, and that it is best for a society if it values marriage. But that's not the same as that society having a legal system that defines the word "marriage" correctly - or even one that defines the word "marriage" at all. I don't expect that re-defining (or un-defining) the word "marriage" as it appears in our laws would make people value the true institution of marriage less. Do you think it would? How?

Paul - many thanks for your thoughtful comment. Responding to a couple of points...

Regarding the state, I too am concerned about how the state might attempt to promote its new view of "marriage", if the legal definition is changed. I don't think it should be part of the state's remit to seek to promote a particular view, but unfortunately my view of the state does not reflect the reality in the UK, where the state thinks its role is to educate children according to its values (rather than simply providing them with access to good education, and leaving it to the parents and teachers to pass on their own values). But I think we can over-estimate the influence the state has. I learned what "normal" family life meant through my own immediate and extended family, and through families of friends and neighbours. Even if my teachers at school had told me that some families have two daddies or two mummies, I would have found that very strange and quickly forgotten about it. The state's influence over the media is likewise not very strong. I think the strongest chain of influence is: media -> people -> legislation, not: legislation -> media -> people. In other words, if we want people's values to be shaped differently, it may well be futile trying to get legislation changed, so long as the media are pushing in a different direction.

I do agree that it is important for the church to speak out on these issues. But the emphasis should be on the arguments, not the number of people signing a petition or the strength of feeling. And the arguments seem weak to me. What injustices would occur as a direct consequence of either changing or removing the definition of "marriage" in law? How would the weak and vulnerable have reduced protection under law against abuse or exploitation if the word "marriage" was extended to include same-sex partnerships, or if "civil union" was the term used in place of "marriage"? The examples you give are indirect consequences - the kind of signals that would be sent into society, or other laws that might be made in the future.

Finally, in other countries (The Netherlands, for example), it has been the case for generations that all marriages must take place in the state registry office, but most Christians then have a service of blessing in their church. So even if what you say about church services does happen (and it might or might not), I don't think that would be disastrous. In fact, the current system does strike me as strange in many ways, with church ministers doubling as state registrars.

Andrew - there are plenty of immoral things that I think should not be illegal. I don't think it should be illegal to worship idols (as long as you don't sacrifice your children to them) even though idolatry is extremely offensive in the eyes of God. Nor do I think it should be illegal to lie to your parents, or to cheat at Scrabble. In other words, there is a difference between law and morality. Some immoral things should not be illegal.

Obviously the current debate is not about whether or not homosexual activity should be illegal. That debate happened a long time ago. As to whether we are called as Christians to take every conceivable opportunity to tell people that what they are doing is sinful, I think probably not. So I don't think we should oppose same-sex "marriage" merely as a means of telling people the truth.

There may well be good reasons for maintaining the status quo. For what it's worth, I am indeed opposing same-sex "marriage" (in that I don't want the law to define "marriage" in a gender-neutral way), but I think the best solution for our situation may well be for the state not to define the word "marriage" at all.

Ian - to be honest, I don't think the government will desist from redefining marriage, however many people object. But I'm not simply doing nothing. I'm suggesting an alternative.

Isla - many thanks for the comment, I appreciate that. I think one problem we have is that we expect the state to be responsible for everything, so there's no obvious place to draw the line. But if the state has a more limited role, it becomes easier. I would ask: what public injustice would occur if the state didn't act in such-and-such a case? I don't yet have much experience of political involvement, but I would definitely try to do that relationally. Political parties, at least at a local level, are very relational. So are campaigning groups. Or maybe what you are getting at is that people's hearts won't be changed by legislation? If so, I'd definitely agree with that.

Hi Isla - I haven't read Jesus and Politics, though it looks interesting. I think I'd agree with what you say