Same-Sex Marriage… Do I agree with President Obama?

In the age of “inclusion” we have often found ourselves fearful of offending others not wanting to be labeled as bigots, prejudice or closed-minded. So those who have an opinion are silenced. They are silenced by the activists who are fighting for the underdog or minority even when their points might be valid. I haven’t ever been a person who was afraid to speak my mind as long as it is done respectfully.
The president recently came out with his support of same-sex marriage and created a lot of discussion. Some say his opinion was personal. C’mon though, if Robin Roberts referred to him as Barry, she would be seen as disrespectful. The president does not have the privilege of a personal opinion while addressing the public. His opinions are attached to his public servitude. Anyways, I digressed.

He is the most powerful person in the world. So who would disagree with the “king” of the land? So what we find in many cases is the king reigns while we hope his decisions are upright and of moral good. But what if the king is ill-informed? We hope he has good advisers and a good conscience but what if he doesn’t? I absolutely find President Obama to be a good person, from what I’ve observed, but that doesn’t mean we should arbitrarily agree with him on everything because he has made history, and continues to, for our community.

We will find people who once stood on the other side of his opinion moving over to his side because of the president’s influence. They are silenced by the benefits of being in his graces and being seen as an Obama supporter. If you disagree with someone’s position, it doesn’t mean you being unsupportive. I disagree with my parents at times, but I would still go to war for them.

So what’s my position on this? Sometimes I think we get distracted from the core issue. Where we went wrong is when the government got involved with the marriage institution and made it a universally applicable thing. Marriage was (and should be) a covenant between believers of God. That’s how it was originated right? Let me go further. Atheists and Agnostics are involved with steering the direction of marriage. In many cases, they are even citing “God loves everyone” (which is absolutely true) even when they don’t believe in God. I believe marriage is being hi-jacked by government (for political gain) and non-believers for tangible benefits. Remember, America was built on biblical principles and many of our early laws, rules, charters and constitution reflected such. When government decided to separate church from state, it also needed to understand that marriage needed to be separated from their reigns as well. But of course this didn’t happen because marriage is a money-maker for many counties and cities in the form of marriage licenses.

Government can be knee-jerk and often doesn’t think things out critically, or sometimes they do and just hope the voters won’t. When we don’t we wind up arguing the wrong points in a surface-manner not uprooting the true core as the bureaucrats laugh at our distracted vision. We want to be a people of benefits but not responsibility. If you don’t believe in God, if you want to separate church from state, then lobby for a similar but equal union-type but don’t call it marriage. If you want to call it married, then follow the rules of what marriage and what marriage was originated under. We removed God from the government buildings but allow judges to perform nuptials and divorces.

People, let’s see the root instead of just the leaves. I again, stand in the position that government should’ve never been involved with this issue if they continue to want church to be separate from state. I could care less what same sex couples do, live and what benefits they receive, but if we want to be honest with ourselves, same-sex marriage, in biblical terms (which is the only term there is if we are using the word marriage) is an oxymoron. There can be no such thing. This is like a stranger trying to hi-jack your legacy by legally changing their last name to yours and forcing you to give them the benefits of being in your family. That doesn’t biologically make them your relative nor entitled to the benefits, inheritance, etc. of being in your family.

Some argue that this is a civil rights issue and this requires the government’s involvement but I disagree. When interracial marriage was illegal, we were denying a man and a woman from marrying each other; clearly something the Bible says commensurate a marriage (a man and a woman). Its language doesn’t disqualify people by race but it does disqualify people by gender, the same way it disqualifies a person from marrying an animal. In addition, the civil rights movement was fighting for the Constitution to be enforced, not amended. However, my take on this still lies that the church should be the institution to amend what we have traditionally practiced, not government. Church will be guided by the moral compass that the Bible instructs. If the church decides that same gender is acceptable, my position will follow the church, as I see them as being the professional interpreters of the Bible and responsible for the body of people that follows it.

We must stay focused on the principle of what we are doing and how we can be offensive to others as we are working towards being inclusive of some. Let the churches decide, if you ask me. There is where marriage is shaped. The Bible is what lays out the covenant and the directives to marriage, not government policies or the Constitution. This may sound harsh to same-sex marriage proponents, but it is all about being honest. The government can recognize and grant EQUAL tangible benefits of marriage (tax breaks, citizenship, etc.) to same-sex couples by creating a union with a different name. If we use the word marriage, I believe…we should abide by, respect and honor the manual that sanctioned it…the Bible.

I raised my voice, now raise yours!

Devin Robinson is a professor and author of 8 self-help books. Learn more about him at http://www.devinrobinson.com.