A quiet word...

A quiet word is my proposition...(Duran Duran, Proposition)

Proposition 102, adding the following amendment to the Arizona Constitution:
"ONLY A UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN SHALL BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED AS A MARRIAGE IN THIS STATE."

Predictably, these words have proven to be anything but quiet.

So, let my words start with a sentence that will quite possibly disappoint, anger, or even infuriate some readers:
I do not plan to vote in favor of this proposition.

At this point I do not plan to vote against it, either, although that could change as I consider the ramifications of a "no" vote as opposed to "no vote." You see, I really don't care whether or not this proposition passes. It's not that I don't care about marriage. I do - very much. I've invested almost 30 years in my own marriage, and I wouldn't trade that for anything. I will happily invest it in the expectation of receiving a return of another year, or 10, or 30, or more, of marriage. So I am not casual about marriage. Just about this proposition.

Ask a supporter of the proposition why they plan on voting for it, and the common answer is, "to protect the sanctity of marriage." I'm all-for the sanctity of marriage. But I'm disappointed with this answer to the question of why vote for Prop 102. "To protect the sanctity of marriage" is a slogan, not an argument. And to me it makes little sense to vote for something on the strength of a slogan.

Let's think about how Prop 102 might "protect the sanctity of marriage." First, who sanctifies marriage? The Great State of Arizona? Mmmm, not so much. Any sanctity in marriage is a blessing and a boundary established by God, not by our state government. And to quote (or possibly paraphrase) my friend Glen Roachelle, "Do you really think you've got enough under the hood to upset the Ancient of Days?" I'd have to say, "no." In fact, if it isn't too odd a turn of phrase in this instance, I'd have to say, "HELL, NO!"

So, I think there is very little risk that God will be forced to disavow His sanction and sanctification of marriage in Arizona based upon the failure of our Constitution to contain these particular 20 words. If God does not now sanctify gay marriages, He will not be constrained to do so in the absence of Constitutional authority.

Another argument in favor of Proposition 102 is the possibility that Arizona's existing statutory ban on same-sex marriages, which has been tested in court, may someday be overturned by another judge. In this case, proponents argue, anyone who refuses to conduct a wedding ceremony for a gay couple may be open to civil or criminal action. I absolutely oppose civil or criminal penalties of this sort. If there is ever an attempt to enact or enforce such things in this state, I will happily rage against it. But at this point, Proposition 102 is fighting, at best, a windmill of an enemy.

Now let me suggest the real effects of Prop 102. Not the sloganized, nor the Quixotic, but the real effects.

First, I believe that the true reason most people support the proposition is that we, as Christians, prefer to live in a world where everyone acts according to our standards. We are uncomfortable when surrounded by people making life choices that we disagree with. So, the real purpose, and one of the only real effects of Prop 102, is to make Christians comfortable by taking away the "unpleasantness" of a society in which gays can legally marry. To truly "protect the sanctity of marriage," why not propose an amendment that would not allow marriage after a prior marriage ends in divorce? Because we're reasonably comfortable with divorce, for one thing, and because the huge number of divorced churchgoers would find good reason not to get behind such a proposal. If we can, by legislation, just erase the appearance of sin, then it's much easier for us to shirk our duty of spreading the good news of redemption.

But we cannot fight spiritual battles with earthly weapons! And make no mistake, opposing sin is a spiritual battle. The only weapon at our disposal is the work of Jesus Christ - nothing else can erase sin. If we are going to trust the government to enforce Christian behavior (and I'm not even going to discuss the marginal basis-in-truth of much that Christians attempt to make others do), then why not just go all the way? Let's pass an Amendment to the Arizona Constitution requiring that everyone must accept Jesus as their personal Savior on or before their 12th birthday. Problem solved.

The second effect of Proposition 102 has, unfortunately, already happened. People outside the church are asking why church folks can raise almost 7 million dollars to pass this proposition, instead of spending the money helping the homeless, hungry, poor, abused, and lost. And don't even compare that question to Judas' indignation at Jesus for allowing a woman to anoint Him with expensive perfume. This is a perfectly valid question. What if "the world" saw the church as a loving, giving, caring, self-sacrificing community? Then we would have something to offer when we share our good news. Instead, they see us - with good reason - as judgmental, hateful, uncaring, selfish and greedy. And the only thing they see us offering them is a list of "don'ts." H. L. Mencken, (A Mencken Chrestomathy) identified this fact in his definition of Puritanism - "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. " This is exactly how we appear to outsiders.

So, Proposition 102, in my view, is a selfish waste of time, energy and money, that has already succeeded in making it more difficult than ever for us to spread the good news. And this won't be persecution, folks, it'll just be what we asked for.

Having said all that, I also have to say that because this is America, people have the right to vote for their own comfort if they so choose. Please vote your conscience, and if it differs from mine, that's cool. We're in this Christianity thing together, no matter how we might bang heads.