This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

Gay Marriage Editorial, Washington Post, quotes CS Lewis

The man. The myth.

Gay Marriage Editorial, Washington Post, quotes CS Lewis

Postby Mary C. Barnett » December 15th, 2004, 2:20 am

Does anyone care to comment on this editorial, written by columnist William Raspberry for the Washington Post, and published on December 12, 2004? Thank you.



Sunday, December 12, 2004



C.S. Lewis, the British essayist, author and cleric, died 41 years ago, so he wasn't writing about same-sex marriage in America. No, his subject in his book "Mere Christianity" was divorce. Still, his observations might shed some light on our own "values" controversy today.
"I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused," he wrote. "The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question - how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws.


"There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."

Religious marriage, he was saying, is a sacrament, and the state has no more business involving itself in the rules that govern it than it has in such questions as the efficacy of infant baptism, the validity of kosher certification or the number of virgins a (male) martyr might reasonably anticipate as his reward.

But marriage isn't only sacrament. It is also the basis on which we decide who may inherit in the absence of a will, who may make life-and-death decisions for loved ones, or who is eligible for the advantages of joint tax returns. And because it has these secular implications, the state has a legitimate role in determining who is married and who isn't.

The church has no interest in joint filings, and the state no interest in declarations of love or religious affiliation. To the one, marriage is a sacred rite; to the other, it is the sanctioning of a contractual relationship. The church may care whether he is a philanderer or she a gold-digger, or whether there's too great a gap in their ages. The state's interests run to the validity of the contract.

And what has any of this to do with same-sex marriage? Maybe if we can get past such churchly considerations as God's will as expressed in the book of Leviticus, we can make peace with the bifurcation Lewis urged in his 1952 book: let the church handle the sacrament, the state the contract.

If we could get there, we might even calm down long enough to ask ourselves what would really be the risk in same-sex marriages. I mean, if our sexuality is pretty much hard-wired, how likely is it that legitimating gay or lesbian marriages would tempt straight people into homosexuality? On the other hand, keeping the status quo seems unlikely to turn gays or lesbians into straights. Maybe what we are principally talking about is the effect of marriage on couples who are already involved in sexual relationships. We believe it's a good thing for heterosexual couples to commit to fidelity. Do we think it's a bad thing for homosexual couples to do so?

Ah, but many of the advocates of gay marriage want more than the sanction of the state. They also want the blessing of their religions. And that makes opponents understandably nervous. The "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution is generally taken to mean that a marriage held valid by any state is valid in all states. One state, that is, could change everything. You see why some traditionalists wanted a constitutional amendment to keep the old definitions in place.

I don't know where Lewis might have stood on gay marriage. For all I know, the cleric might have opposed any marriage except between one man and one woman. He might have urged such a view on his church.

But he wouldn't have urged it on the state. His fear of government intrusion into matters of faith would have kept him from doing so; his proposal for "two distinct kinds of marriage" would have made it unnecessary. In his two-tier scheme, all couples would take the contractual steps necessary for state sanction of their domestic partnership. Those who chose to - and who could persuade their religious organizations to go along - could also obtain sacramental sanction of their religious marriages.

And we all could live happily ever after.

Sure.

William Raspberry is a columnist with the Washington Post. His e-mail address is willrasp@washpost.com.
Mary C. Barnett
 

Re: Gay Marriage Editorial, Washington Post, quotes CS Lewis

Postby Leslie » December 15th, 2004, 2:42 am

The author calls Lewis a cleric, which would make me suspect all of his research, if he quoted anything else.

But I basically agree with his premise. Most of my thinking about church and state starts with that same passage from Mere Christianity.
"What are you laughing at?"
"At myself. My little puny self," said Phillipa.
--Rumer Godden, In This House of Brede
User avatar
Leslie
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1814
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Gay Marriage Editorial, Washington Post, quotes CS Lewis

Postby Chris Ballance » December 15th, 2004, 7:46 am

I am a young member of a Presbyterian Church with a sizable group of Christian Progressives, so I have heard Lewis quotes used in such a manner to support various agendas. I’ve even had one of my Sunday school teachers insinuate to the class that it was ok to experiment with sexuality and drugs while teaching a lesson based on a chapter from “Mere Christianity.” The experience was so bizarre that I wondered at the time if the teacher was just seeing if the class was still awake.
Chris Ballance
 

Re: Gay Marriage Editorial, Washington Post, quotes CS Lewis

Postby Colleen » December 16th, 2004, 9:11 pm

Better is dry bread and fidelity therewith, than a house full of Turkish Delight with betrayal.
Colleen
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Dec 2000
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Moved from 'Ask an Amateur'

Postby Sven » December 16th, 2004, 9:34 pm

User avatar
Sven
 
Posts: 2883
Joined: Aug 1996
Location: Greenbelt, MD, near Washington DC

Re: Gay Marriage Editorial, Washington Post, quotes CS Lewis

Postby Guest » December 19th, 2004, 12:33 am

I would like to make a comment on the "sexuality is hardwired" bit of the article. Because of 'the fall' of man, every human being is now born into sin and when they accept Christ, they are 'reborn' in to the nature of Christ. Therefore, what is popularly called 'human nature' might more appropriatly be called 'sin nature.' Saying that living a homosexual lifestyle is okay because they are 'born' with it is like saying murder is okay, or lying is okay, because certain individuals were just 'born' with that trait. The truth is we are all born sinners and people living a homosexual lifestyle need Jesus as much as everyone else. Can homosexuals get saved? YES!! But if they grow in Christ, they will not continue their homosexual lifestyle. Because Christ changes people.

Now on this separation of church and state issue, personally I think it's Bull. If there is a God, which I know to be true, than you can't separate Him from anything.
Guest
 

Re: Gay Marriage Editorial, Washington Post, quotes CS Lewis

Postby Leslie » December 20th, 2004, 12:20 am

"What are you laughing at?"
"At myself. My little puny self," said Phillipa.
--Rumer Godden, In This House of Brede
User avatar
Leslie
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1814
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Gay Marriage Editorial, Washington Post, quotes CS Lewis

Postby Alan » December 20th, 2004, 12:09 pm

I'm sorry for me this is very clear cut.

As a Christian I have certain standards and values.

Do I have the right to impose these standards and values on my brothers and sisters who have different beliefs and lifestyles ? Absolutely not.

Provided someone lives their live within the laws of the land that are democratically decided then they should be treated with total equality by the state.

That means full state equality for everyone no matter what theur colour, religion, gender or sexual orientation. or any other blasted thing you can think of.
This product does not require batteries
User avatar
Alan
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Merrie England

Re: Gay Marriage Editorial, Washington Post, quotes CS Lewis

Postby Colleen » December 20th, 2004, 6:48 pm

Better is dry bread and fidelity therewith, than a house full of Turkish Delight with betrayal.
Colleen
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Dec 2000
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Re: a related editorial

Postby Colleen » December 20th, 2004, 6:56 pm

Better is dry bread and fidelity therewith, than a house full of Turkish Delight with betrayal.
Colleen
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Dec 2000
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Re: Gay Marriage Editorial, Washington Post, quotes CS Lewis

Postby Leslie » December 21st, 2004, 3:32 am

"What are you laughing at?"
"At myself. My little puny self," said Phillipa.
--Rumer Godden, In This House of Brede
User avatar
Leslie
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1814
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Gay Marriage Editorial, Washington Post, quotes CS Lewis

Postby Guest » December 21st, 2004, 3:35 am

Guest
 

Re: Gay Marriage Editorial, Washington Post, quotes CS Lewis

Postby Alan » December 21st, 2004, 9:46 am

This product does not require batteries
User avatar
Alan
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Merrie England

Re: Gay Marriage Editorial, Washington Post, quotes CS Lewis

Postby Guest » December 21st, 2004, 2:34 pm

Thank you Alan,
I like hearing your views, but of course must disagree to some extent. First, it is not enough to just live our lives in a Christ like manner and expect that to send the message of the gospel. Of course it is an intregal part, but not enough by itself. Jesus did not come to earth as a mute. He boldly spoke the gospel and was not afraid to tell people to stop sinning (Matt 4:17, John 8:11). And in fact one of the very last things Jesus said before ascending into heaven was this, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." The reality of our situation is too serious to live our lives quietly hoping some one will figure it out or ask us about it. In fact if we don't tell people about the hope found only in Jesus Christ, they may get a different message. There are a lot of people out there who havn't accepted Christ who seem to lead Christ-like lives. This may send the message that being "good" is enough. Furthermore our society today has taught us that we must be "tolerant" of all beliefs of all people. And by tolerant they mean, we as christians must accept and admit that what others believe as true may very well be true. "Tolerance" is one of the christain's many enemies in this world. It tells us we must take a passive stance when telling people the TRUTH. It is true that we are living in the time of grace... PRAISE GOD!! He is so good. But have you read the whole Bible? In the end there is no tolerance. It's God's way or the high way. All we have is NOW to tell people about Christ, we should not be apoligetic, we should not be passive. Instead we should be confidant in our God, and we should demonstrate God's love to others as well as tell them where our hope comes from. I agree that in a democratic society, it is important that everyone's views are heard, and I wouldn't want to stop that for anything, but just because everyone has a voice doesn't mean they should get to do whatever they want. We must stand up for what is true, we must stand up for God's principles! Marriage is not open to interpretation. It is a beautiful symbol of God's relationship to the church. Homosexuality distorts that image and distracts from the beautiful relationship God created marriage to be. God doesn't honor homosexual unions as marriage, the government shouldn't either. The fact is that that sounds like I'm being unfair, trying to force my beliefs on someone else, but the truth is, honoring homosexual unions as equal to marriage is a belief in itself and why is it okay for that belief to be forced on our government and not my belief?
Guest
 

Re: Gay Marriage Editorial, Washington Post, quotes CS Lewis

Postby Alan » December 21st, 2004, 4:01 pm

This product does not require batteries
User avatar
Alan
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Merrie England

Next

Return to C. S. Lewis

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 14 guests

cron