Historically, marriage has been a relationship structure with a defining role in the idea of families. Particular definitions have varied within cultures where marriage has swung on spectrums between competing ideas of true love and political or economic goals. Marriage has generally been between only two individuals but has also found expression within a group of people where one man might have many wives (though there are some few cultures where women enter into polyandarous relationships where she would have multiple husbands). In almost all cases, marriage has been between a male and a female.

Married couples tend to seek forms of social sanction within their society. Marriage Ceremony and Civil Marriage are two distinct sociological categories. Ceremonies are often conducted by religious or other community recognized authorities. Civil marriage, as granted by the state, allows certain rights within the broader legal and economic environments. People who are married can, for instance, file taxes together, inherit each others' property, and make important medical decisions for their spouse. Some governments require the civil marriage to occur prior to the ceremonial marriage, though in most the order is not important.

Along with certain granted rights, marriage also binds individuals with a number of personal obligations. It can establish legal parental roles toward children; grant control over sexual services; establish financial responsibility toward childrend; establish relationships between the extended families; and set social boundaries around the individuals involved. For a number of religions, marriage is also a prerequisite for sexual intercourse.

The primary idea of marriage in Christianity is that it mirrors the relationship of Christ and his Church. The Bible encourages people to adopt a relationship of mutual submission. Husbands are encouraged to love their wives as Christ loved the Church and gave up his life for the church (Eph 5:25, cf Col 3:19). Wives are encouraged in return to respect their husbands (Eph 5:33, cf Col 3:18).

This is an important note: the New Testament DOES NOT prescribe marriage. Rather, it gives guidelines on how to be married. Unsurprisingly, it urges Christlikeness in marriage, as it does in all other areas of Christian thought. Paul himself recommended that people not marry (1 Cor 7:1, cf 1 Cor 7:8, 1 Cor 7:27) in order that they be better able to commit themselves to the work of God in the world (1 Cor 7:32). Sexuality within marriage is charactized by the body being "owned" by the partner, obligating both husband and wife to submit themselves sexually to the other. All these allowances for marriage are not commands, but rather a concession by Paul toward the institution (1 Cor 7:6).

As the Christian asks herself what should be her relationship to the topic of marriage, it could be summed up as so: Marriage is to demonstrate and experience the love of Christ. In particular, this is a model of how Christ loves his Church, but in general it is an expression of love and mutual self-submission intended to reflect the manner in which God loves.

Liberal Democracy, as an idea, is a democracy that is tempered by the preservation of certain rights. These rights include things like Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Press, and so forth. Specifically, a liberal democracy expresses itself as a form of representative democracy in which elected officials are promoted to positions of power where they can make governing decisions but are moderated by a constitutional arragement that protects certain rights and liberties. These rights are guaranteed through statutory laws and controlled institutions.

This model is designed to protect people from a pure majority rule which, at any given point in time, may or may not preserve freedom for the citizens. The words "Liberalism" and "Liberty" share the same etymological roots and have, at their core, the idea of "freedom."

Not everyone is convinced that a liberal democracy is the best form of government, as it is feared that it could lead to an oligarchy of some power-oriented makeup. However, it has, so far, an exceptional track record and tends toward increasing the boundary of freedom for its citizens.

The American experiment was an ambitious project that fleshed out these ideas. Certainly, the level of liberty within the United States has increased over time. Blacks and other minorities can no longer be claimed as property; all ethnic minorities as well as women are now allowed to vote; individual states can no longer enact laws that abridge freedoms widely granted (such as the right to vote, nor revoke claims to inheritance based on gender or race).

The role of the American democracy (as arguably the most prominent and successful instance of a contiguous liberal democracy) is primarily a system that grants rights and freedoms and makes certain that any one group cannot interfere with the affairs of another group.

In this sense, and to return to the topic that began this article, a liberal democracy, or better said, an American democracy, is not to be concerned with constitutionally defining marriage in such a way as to intentionally exclude homosexuals from entering into marriage relationships.

It is entirely out of bounds for a liberal democracy to devote itself to exclude a minority group from social institutions, a priori. The Constitution of the United States and its Amendments have no design or purpose in this direction.

Historically, Americans did once determine to limit the sale and purchase of alcohol (Article XVIII, ratified 1921). This was repealed only a few years later (Article XX1, ratified 1933). In reading this, we see that our history has a pattern of rejecting such constitutional extensions as they are also considered abuses.

As Christians, we are to be committed to the idea of Christ and his love for the Church. Broadly speaking, we are to be ambassadors of God's redeeming love within the world. Even though the practice of homosexuality is at odds with Christian moral tradition and does not survive a literalist biblical filter, never has it been God's plan for us to legally enforce specific moral standards in the lives of others. Our minds should instead be on the important work of sharing the good news of Jesus' life and death.

Legislating our morality in this particular sense distracts substantially from the veracity of the gospel. It bears repeating from a different angle that the new covenant does not commission people to enforce a specific Christian world view upon their society in the form of socially binding power structures. Doing so misplaces the locus of God's activity in society where he affects change from within. Articulating an amendment to the Constitution as representative of God's will inappropriately blurs the distinction between the fruit of the Holy Spirit within the Church and the World (kosmos) into which God has called us as ambassadors where we serve and heal. In this very important sense, supporting the marriage ammendment is both at odds with the gospel itself but also at odds with the full idea of the Christian life as it relates to instruction on how to interact with the world.

It is truly astounding that Christians, real Christians, honestly believe that proposing and ratifying the Marriage Amendment is an act of obedience to God. It is as if God himself were requesting as much. Although, perhaps it is not surprising that many Christians do not know the difference between the idea of "Christianity" and the idea of "Religion". This is too bad because they are very different, indeed.

Sometimes we read the gospels and are amazed at the groups of people, in particular the religious leaders, who seem to be continually at odds with Jesus' teaching. Well I guess I understand. If Jesus were here today, I scarcely believe our "religious" leaders would have much tolerance for him either.

Perhaps if you truly believe that Jesus himself, were he embarking on his ministry now, instead of some two thousand years ago, would be fully engaged in writing his senators, voting Republican, and rallying support behind this legislation, ....then perhaps you would strongly disagree. Sadly, that is a trite and pathetic view of the God of all creation.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.