All Comments for: Iowa Churches: We Need to Be Clear on Same-Sex Marriage | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2009 > April (Web-only)

Christianity Today, April (Web-only), 2009 |

Iowa Churches: We Need to Be Clear on Same-Sex Marriage

But pastors disagree whether last week's court decision should mean more activism on the issue.

Jocelyn Green in Cedar Falls | posted 4/14/2009 09:57AM

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled April 3 that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, making Iowa the first Midwest state to legalize same-sex marriages. Iowa does not have a residency ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

John, Washington State

Posted: April 24, 2009 12:58 AM

People can strive to have it their way, but God is going to have it his way. Stay strong Pastors and don't let the devil find a soft spot in your heart for these people who seek death. Yes this decission will change the pressure on church leaders. Know that God does not leave the rightousness, and as Christians we pray for each other. Same-sex marriage will never be performed in REAL Churches, amen.

Chris

Posted: April 16, 2009 4:26 PM

As the country gets more and more secular, I see this as a loosing battle. I am against same sex marriage too but I think we may have already lost. Would this mean a sudden influx of people turning gay? I don't think so. God harden their hearts and let them lust after their sinful nature. It saddens God and His people, but we can only pray and preach. Their choice to believe or not has been set in stone long before they were ever born.

Steve Skeete

Posted: April 16, 2009 1:27 PM

"This decision has no bearing on the church whatsoever". What Pastor Jeff Gillmore should have added is "at this time". Any decision to put same-sex marriage on the same legal level as that of a man and a woman has a bearing on the church. The most glaring effect is that it seriously undermines biblical authority. It says to people that "a man leaving father and mother and cleaving to his wife" is just so much old fashioned and outdated religious talk that can be and should be ignored. And that is only the beginning, because it will further erode the freedom of believers in Christ and the bible to quote that same outdated old fashioned document. I mean, how can you say the bible says homosexuality is sin "or that "man should not lie with man" if the law has not only made two men lying together both legal and respectable. My fear, and I hope it does not come to pass, is that the gains of homosexuals will eventiually mean severe loss for believers in Christ.

Larry Craig

Posted: April 16, 2009 7:09 AM

I think we are missing the bigger issue. If gay marriage is framed as a civil rights issue and gays are allowed to marry other gays, so that it becomes the law of the land, churches will soon find that they will not be able to discriminate against gays in their hiring practices. Years ago, many churches believed in the separation of the races. After civil rights, they were forced to change their beliefs or their practices. This is next. Also, if it is a civil rights issue, it won't matter how many propositions, amendments, or laws we pass. The courts will find them all unconstitutional under the federal consititution.

ovidliving

Posted: April 15, 2009 9:19 PM


When Gideon needed an army, God used different ways to whittle down those who were totally committed. We are being whittled my friends. Be faithful...God will be.

Chuck Anziulewicz

Posted: April 15, 2009 11:33 AM

If anything, the comments from the pastors in this article underscore what those of us who support marriage equality for Gay couples have been saying for a long time: It will NOT affect anyone's church! Churches will not be forced to marry same-sex couples, any more than they have ever been forced to marry non-Christian couples. And anyway, it isn't the CHURCH that bestows the approximately 1,400 legal benefits and responsibilities on couples that marry: It's the state and federal governments. Church policies don't affect me, GOVERNMENT policies do. Scriptural objections notwithstanding, there is simply NO Constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the very same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken from granted. I'd rather not quibble over terminology; I don't care whether you call them "marriages" or "civil unions" or whatever, as long as Gay and Straight couples are treated EQUALLY under the law.

Dean McPherson, Glenwood, Iowa

Posted: April 15, 2009 11:12 AM

My wife works in the Pottowattamie County courthouse, and the word going around here is that it is the legislature's fault for enacting a poorly written statute, that couldn't help but be declared unconstitutional according to Iowa law. Yes, it may open Pandora's box regarding same sex unions, but in my denomination, (United Methodist) there is a prohibition against UMC clergy officiating over such unions, or having them celebrated in our churches. Although I wouldn't be surprised if some UMC pastor(s) would try it as an act of "ecclesiastical disobedience", the position of our church has not changed. Society, however, seems to be shifting, encouraged by some legislative activsm in the judicial branch of government.

Atilla

Posted: April 15, 2009 10:22 AM


Oh how blind we are. This is a "boil the frog". Satan never does 180 degree attacks. He does just a few degree off from the straight and narrow. Tomorrow a few more, and so on, until we think we are going the right direction, but in reality heading the opposite direction... Sad.

Dave Jones

Posted: April 15, 2009 10:04 AM


There are many more ramifications to this than meets the eye. For example; What happens to a church's tax exept status when Phil and Bill apply for church membership and are refused because of their marital status? What happens when they're refused enrollment of their children in the church's school?

Patrick Gann

Posted: April 15, 2009 9:01 AM

Anna -- again, see my comments. The state needs to acknowledge "civil unions" and nothing more, let religious institutions hold the word "marriage" and whatever meaning(s) it ought to have. Furthermore, your extreme slippery slope of "what's next" is absurd, and it's also false: there's no question in my mind that the next step will be to legalize polygamy, not bestiality or incest. Alan -- HETEROsexuals have been refused marriage in churches because the pastor did not feel comfortable marrying them, and there has never been a lawsuit in this regard. Though I worry your scenario could occur (similar to a Christian pharmacist refusing to sell morning-after pills), I pray it does not, and if it would, this would be where Christians would be within their rights to draw a line. Mark -- what's really shocking is your lack of understanding of scripture. I'm running out of space to respond, but I will say this: America is not a Christian nation! It does not exist to enforce righteousness!

Mark Eaton

Posted: April 15, 2009 7:51 AM


I am totally shocked. How could readers of a Christian site be opposed to standing up for marriage? Read your Bible folks!!! Not only is homosexually forbidden, it is was an offence punished by stoning. God is serious about sin, in our individual lives and the life of our country. We cannot go on disregarding the Word of God forever without His retribution. We will be judged for this sin.

Wendy

Posted: April 15, 2009 5:32 AM


stop worrying about your rights church and just "be the church". care for the widows and orphans, visit the imprisoned, heal the sick . . . last time i checked, writing new legislation was not in the bible.

Alan Maashe

Posted: April 15, 2009 3:35 AM

Patrick and Bill appear to be somewhat naive about the ramifications of legalizing gay marriages. Bill said "Churches are not threatened by the Iowa court's decision: they may still insist that a Christian marriage means only a male-female union". Yes... until they are sued for discrimination when they refuse to rent a chapel open to the public to a gay couple while insisting that only heterosexual couples can use it. Anything that deviates from the Biblical notion of marriage threatens and weakens marriage When adultery become not such a deal, it weakens marriage When extra marital sex (including fornication) becomes acceptable, it weakens marriage When a man and man or a woman and a woman are allowed to marry, it weakens marriage When the biblical notion of marriage becomes nothing more than one of the available options, it weakens marriage Maybe gay marriage is not the only or biggest threat against traditional marriage, but one cannot deny the fact that it cheapens it

Anna	Posted: April 14, 2009 10:53 PM

By letting the State define or change the definition of marriage you are opening up a can of worms. Once the State changes the definition of marriage to include two men or two women, the next step will be mother and son, father and daughter, stepfather and stepdaughter, man and young child, man and beast, etc. simply because all one has to say is well we love one another and are in a committed relationship and since that will be the new definition of marriage, equal rights will be inforced by the State. Actually marriage doesn't define that it be done in love or to even be two committed whatevers, it just demands man and woman, penis and vagina and it has been defined forever that way. How you do sex has always had limitations imposed. It's only been open sex in pagan societies and by giving the State the right to define marriage as an equal right anything will have equal rights and we'll be right back in a pagan society with children and women being forced into sex. Men always win.

Bill Ford, Iowa City, IA

Posted: April 14, 2009 4:52 PM

I agree with Patrick Gann's reading and approval of Gilmore's position. In a our democracy we pride ourselves on mutual protection under the law, which means the same rights for every person regardless, here, of sexual orientation. Churches are not threatened by the Iowa court's decision: they may still insist that a Christian marriage means only a male-female union; on the other hand, some churches, as Gann suggests, may feel and act otherwise, to bless same gender union as "marriage."

Patrick Gann

Posted: April 14, 2009 11:44 AM

I appreciate Jeff Gillmore's stance on the issue, as it is the right one. The ultimate solution, which I hope we as a country eventually learn to accept, is a true separation of church and state. The state should grant ONLY civil unions to *any couple.* That's right: if churches want to hold onto "marriage" as something sacred that they define in one particular way, they can have it. The government should grant "civil unions" to homosexual and heterosexual couples alike, and then allow religious institutions to use the word "marriage" on top of the "civil union" title, and let the various denominations fight it out as to who can or can't get married in their particular congregations. God doesn't say that we need state-sanctioned marriages for them to be legitimate. The church can handle that. And liberal churches can marry homosexuals, and conservative churches can hold to the traditional definition of marriage. Let's stop having the government tell us who can and cannot get married!

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment