This is the final proposition I’ll refer to in my blog. On November 4th we have the opportunity to vote “yes” on proposition 102 that would define in our state constitution a biblical view of marriage. The proposition states: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”
It is not hard to see the biblical view here. Again, because of limited space, I would encourage you to look at these biblical texts and make a decision if this proposition supports God’s view of marriage.
• Genesis 2:18, 24
• Mark 10:6-9
• 1 Corinthians 6:16; 7:1-5, 10-11
• Ephesians 5:21-33
• Hebrews 13:4
Why a state constitutional amendment? Two states have already redefined marriage and in those states the church and Christian institutions are facing legal challenges for living by the biblical definition of marriage. While we have an Arizona law that regulates marriage today, it is vulnerable to both legislative change and judicial tampering.
Will this constitutional definition deny civil rights to others? I do not believe it does and it does not require that anyone’s civil rights are denied. I don’t want any law or constitution to deprive any person of their legitimate rights. But I also don’t want the agenda of others to redefine marriage.
The matter of civil unions is another discussion. The state can decide the question of civil unions. But as a follower of Jesus and as a pastor, I can only see that marriage (not civil unions) is between one man and one woman. At Pantano, we will officiate marriage ceremonies that celebrate a man and a woman entering into a lifelong covenant of love before God. It is God who created and ultimately recognizes marriage.
This is an amendment FOR marriage not AGAINST others. I’m FOR marriage as God created it. I want to fulfill and support the command given in Hebrews 13:4 - Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
For almost 29 years Jolene and I have been married through good and bad (Okay, I was the source of most of the bad!). I still believe in marriage as God created it and as God wants it to be lived out. Roger will address this again when he teaches on Ephesians 5:21-33 next weekend at the E. Tucson campus and in two weeks in Sierra Vista via video.
Glen
Beautifully put.
My response to proposition 102 - An emphatic NO!
Partly because I live in the real world where I have seen and personally experienced Christians get out of control and become abusive of other people who do not believe what they believed. In this country we still have self appointed prophets railing against others who do not believe in their version of Christianity. Recently, the media has been full of them.
Also, in this country, where we have recently elected a Christian president who lied to the country and started an immoral war for his own self glorification and who became responsible for the deaths of over 4000 American soldiers and costing this country billions of dollars, thus again, demonstrating the fallibility of Christians themselves on a much grander scale, it is of upmost importance that we preserve the integrity of the separation of church and state granted to us in the Bill of Rights. That Christian president is going down as possibly the worst president in U. S. history!
Just as religious groups do not want the state to be making laws that control what goes on in their religious organization and imposing the will of the general public on them, neither can we have religious groups using the state to impose their religious will upon the general public.
God created the governments to protect the people since he knew that the world would pretty much be operating without a consciousness of God and we would all wind up destroying each other. Democracy is that form of government which best protects the rights of the individual against overbearing and abusive governments, regardless of how religious they may, or may not, be. And the democracy of this country, with its Bill of Rights, including the separation of church and state, is that form of government which, since it governs the least, governs the best.
Rita Reneé
I have only seen Rita, formerly know as Robert, treated with respect at PCC.
Rita, I respect and admire your courage for stating your opinion on this issue on this website. It must be difficult these last few years living with others you don’t agree with and who control so much (President Bush and his admin). I myself have also been in that situation for a few years (President Clinton and his admin). With this understanding, I would like to disagree with you about the marriage amendment. I personally stand by what I believe marriage was created for, and that was to have a simple, safe, healthy, orderly environment for us humans to procreate and multiply so the earth could be inhabited and cared for by groups of people in a way that would honor God. I believe any deviation from this (like marriage of two liked-sex people, or one man married to several women) upsets the simplicity of God’s intention, and opens the way for confusion,chaos,and distractions, which in turn leads to God’s intended purpose for this earth, and its people, being ignored or even violated.
Your right, the real world, based on a worldly perspective, is not safe and orderly. Things get confusing, abusive, and out of control. God’s standards are ignored and violated by people and laws. I vote for simplicity and God’s intended purpose for marriage. I feel safer (both emotionally and physically)
The only one we can completely believe,trust in, and feel safe with, is Jesus. Focus your eyes on Jesus, not other mem, or women, He is not only our Savior, He is our Lord.
Lastly, I believe the Bill of Rights was to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state. It only stands to reason, that men and women, who have a faith (church) in their hearts and minds, whatever that faith (church) is, would be influenced by it when deciding laws and actions, but it would be unfair for those men and women to pass laws, and take actions, that influenced(violated or contradicted) what our faith (standards) represents,(as long as that faith or standard does not violate God’s intention for human dignity and love).
I support the definition of marriage as proposed by Proposition 102 and supported–make that, commanded–in God’s Word.
Thank you, Glen, for sharing your position on this. I hope, if there is further discussion, that it will be limited to the merits of the Proposition or disagreement with same.
IN RESPONSE TO: “This is an amendment FOR marriage not AGAINST others. I’m FOR marriage as God created it. I want to fulfill and support the command given in Hebrews 13:4 - Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.”
Notice, The writer of Hebrews is talking to a group of believers. He/She is saying that respect of God’s Institution of Marriage is one of many forms of worship in God’s Kingdom. We see this because as Hebrews 12 Transitions into Hebrews 13 the author is discussing how we belong to a Kingdom that cannot be shaken. What ensues is a list of what is acceptable Worship from God’s Kingdom to God. The writer then lists the honor of marriage as a form of worship from the Kingdom to God.
The Issue we face is this: Is Proposition 102 threatening whether we can worship as a church? Surely we would see that this is not the case. If this is passed will Pantano Christian Church begin to marry same-sex couples and therefore compromise that form of worship? No it will not.
We can pretend to say that this issue has always been about “protecting what marriage truly isâ€, but Each of us knows that this whole conversation of “defining marriage†has ALWAYS been an attempt to somehow destroy the practice of same-sex marriage. This push has in fact been made for little to no reason in regard what is happening in our church. It has always been about changing American Culture as a whole so that it might reject homosexuality.
Sure the “definition of Marriage†proposal is worded so that it seems to align with section one of the 14th amendment. However, to think that this act would not abridge the privileges of United States Citizens (most of whom are not part of God’s Kingdom) is asinine. Do we just ignore equal protection of the Law? It is not our Job to change the constitution based on our moral obligations as a holy community (The church, Not America).
The suggestion I would offer is this: You are a member of God’s Kingdom and in that Kingdom you are called to live by a certain ethic. As Romans Chapter One makes clear we cannot think that homosexuality lines up with the ethic of New Israel. That is just a true fact. We can however, choose not go out to the ballots with some sort of anti-Gay agenda looking to ENFORCE the ethic of the Kingdom rather than letting those who are called into Christ SUBMIT to that very ethic. If we as a church stopped focusing our effort on opposing homosexuals and began by fixing our marriages then I think we could make some progress in the holiness department. Let us live as a holy community (as 1 Cor 3 says), as God’s temple. We shall pursue what is righteous and invite those to join us in this place. But why in the world are we expecting a secular world to somehow submit to Godly ethics as if that will somehow save them. Rather we shall go out into the world and call them to Christ, therefore bringing them into his Kingdom and there, when they accept Christ as King, they will be responsible for living with proper kingdom Ethics.
I send my greetings to all the saints in Tucson. May the strength of God live within you. May you seek holiness within your community. May you be a light in a dark city, spreading that very light instead of expecting the city to just simply cease to be darkness.
God speaks mainly to my conscience, at times challenging my intellect,knowledge, and feelings. I choose to listen through my conscience on this one, I vote “yes” on 102. I believe it is not an ENFORCEMENT, but a STATEMENT OF BELIEF, it does not matter what non-believing society thinks, sin is sin, I oppose sin (lovingly of course) no matter what others believe or intellectualize.
I agree with Tom T. (#6 post). I just think that amending our State’s constitution is not in line with “loving people to Jesus”. When has forcing our Christian world view on people ever really advanced the Kingdom? Isn’t that why so many non-Christians are opposed to hearing the gospel? We should be trying to reach people’s hearts for Christ, not imposing our will by force.
If same-sex or bigamous marriages were declared legal in AZ, it would not affect my marriage, but it sure would open up the mission field!
Thank you Ericka,
I cannot believe that anyone would ever contest the nature of this proposition. The enforcement that is sought after here is so blatant. tell me, would this ever be on the ballot if there were no homosexuals? OFCOURSE NOT. It is on the ballot for that reason alone.
If our vote in the U.S.A. (opposed to our action in the Kingdom of God) was the declaration of our beliefs as Christ followers wouldn’t we have more to alter than ‘who can legally be bound by law’? Wouldn’t we be eager for a legal system that seemed more like socialism (equaling wealth and not keeping the rich rich)? Wouldn’t we vote to
not engage in war anymore and become a pacifistic nation as new Israel is commanded to be?
It would appear to me that someone named Rita that was “formerly know as Robert” may have another reason for not voting for prop 102.