Did you see this story out of the Baptist Press:
Have you read the part of the Sermon on the Mount about homosexuality? If that doesn’t ring a bell, don’t worry. A lot of people are wondering exactly what presidential hopeful Barack Obama meant when he cited Jesus’ famous sermon as justification for his endorsement of homosexual civil unions. “I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other,” Obama said. “I don’t think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.” Russell D. Moore, dean of the school of theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, disagrees with Obama’s interpretation, yet sees hope in the fact that he cited Scripture. “Conservative evangelicals and other social conservatives should not see Sen. Obama’s statements here as necessarily bad news. He is acknowledging that his theological presuppositions affect the way he views governmental justice issues. We should be willing to engage that conversation, even when (as will often be the case) we have something very different to say.” [Baptist Press, 3/3/08, emphasis added]
Now, obviously, Obama should read his Bible a little more often, ‘cuz he’s a bit up-mixed. However, I do agree with his basic position. If our government wants to grant civil unions to homosexuals, I say let ’em. Actually, it seems about right for the US government to do such a thing. Fits with the character. And it doesn’t hurt me in any way…legally, socially or theologically. But marriage is a different case altogether.
First of all, the US government did not create marriage, God did, and it happened in Genesis. Second, marriage was not only instituted by God, but it was also clearly defined by God: It is intended to be between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Anytime this definition has been co-opted the results have been less than admirable. Just ask Solomon.
So, despite the seemingly impossible odds, I actually agree with Barack Obama…at least on this one account. Who’d a thunk it?
