Lenten Discipline: The Gay Marriage Debate

            Easter is my favorite holiday. I’ve on many occasions asked myself why but have been unable to settle on any particular reason; I’m not sure if it’s the explicit religious significance, the contrarian in me, or the bliss incarnate produced by the fine people at Cadbury. I’ve used all three as my explanation from time to time, and only today have I stumbled on what I think is probably the truest and most accurate reason for my love of Easter: the season of Lent.

            I think it’s good to be hungry sometimes. I think there’s value in wanting something yet holding out until later to purchase or consume or experience it. I also think patience has lost its fans in this world, largely because discipline is not always, or even often, fun. Its very nature is that of self-denial, of directly identifying the easy route and yet taking another. Microwave culture does not find those things to be particularly virtuous. But Lent is the time in which we, in varying degrees of discipline, attempt to remind ourselves of the sacrifice and trials of Christ, the very one who took on unfathomable burdens and curses and indeed the sin of the world so that we might know what it means to be loved and to be liberated.

            It would be very easy at this point to launch into a tirade on the all-consuming, un-understandable perfection of grace. I’ve given up on trying to put it into words and instead endeavored to put it into practice. I fail constantly, as do we all, but I think the start of this Lenten season provides an excellent opportunity for me to soapbox about my two favorite common nouns in this world, grace and economics, and their roles in two of the hottest-button topics of our day: gay marriage and immigration.

“’Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

‘Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.’”



Luke 6:31-37. If that’s not discipline, I don’t know what is.

I think “tolerance” is one of the most misused words out there right now. To some, it means embracing a concept or action wholeheartedly and assimilating it into their daily lives; to others, “tolerance” is anything short of flat-out destroying the object one is supposed to tolerate. Right now, the (state’s role in) gay marriage is attracting a lot of both of these variations of tolerance. Everyone seems to have been struck with conviction that lands them firmly on the pro-or-anti gay marriage bandwagon.

Of all the many things in which I can’t understand the government’s involvement, I have to think marriage is at the top of the list. Right now, it can get you some tax breaks and survivorship benefits, but that’s really about it, governmentally-speaking. As people of faith, marriage is an incredibly more significant and powerful oath than any probate judge-issued piece of paper can indicate. Pardon me while I wax romantic:

            Marriage is not just a contract. It’s not something one ought do because it is conventional or convenient. Marriage begins with the acknowledgement and recognition of the virtues, values, and loves you hold most dear, and the presence of these in another human being. For me, finding this complement is what impels a person to marriage; I know I could not for one spare second know that such a person existed without finding revelry in the thought of spending the rest of my life with them. Marriage is a continuous commitment, a sacred pledge that in all things you will value this one person above all others, including yourself. In light of this, who on earth am I, or any person, to deny another individual this opportunity? Because my other half happens to be female (and quite a lovely one, at that), does that possibly change the reality for someone who finds theirs in a person of the same gender? Of course not. Marriage is not about physiology or picket fences; it is about the opportunity God can grant you to spend the rest of your life with the person with whom your soul longs to spend it.

I once heard a message at church in which the pastor said that taking the Lord’s name in vain is not just invoking God into a curse word or phrase, but rather claiming the mantle of Christ(ian) while not aspiring to live up to the message of the gospel. I think we’ve come to treat the sanctity of marriage is a very similar fashion; while many people consider homosexual unions to be the “God damn” of the institution, it is instead the very sobering fact that so many heterosexual couples fail to live up to the holy covenants they have made between their God and each other, whether it be through infidelity, abuse, divorce, or apathy. There is no true sanctity but that which resides in the participant’s heart, and the heart of a stranger is certainly not something which we can know. Wherever a person finds love, it is our duty as members of the body of Christ to nurture it and do all we can to fan its flame in hopes that others will recognize love in all its many forms. It is not our duty to use the institution of government to strong-arm our opinions onto others.

            To summarize, marriage is more than any government can make it. Whether a person believes their particular denomination or creed should recognize or perform same-sex marriages is not the argument that currently dominates the conversation; it is instead whether two people of the same gender who have chosen to dedicate their lives to one another can be granted the same recognized status and benefits that two people of opposite genders can. I don’t think anyone can with a straight face say that affording two people a given tax status will somehow make them more or less in love. Thus, denying two people the right to marry is nothing more than institutionalized bullying.

Lenten Discipline Continued: Immigration

            My argument for immigration is much simpler and less romantic. Let me be clear that I am not addressing legal/illegal immigration but instead the broader notion of people migrating from one country to another. While I disagree with their conclusions, I at least understand the logic of people who say that open borders make a nation less secure, or that illegal immigrants ought not be granted the same civil liberties (particularly voting) as natural(ized) citizens. But there is another very specific argument used by opponents of immigration that I’m sure you’ve all heard it before:

            “THEY’RE TAKING OUR JOBS!”

            It makes perfect sense if you don’t think about it. There are a certain number of jobs available, and increasing the population makes those jobs harder for any individual to get.

That would be absolutely true if immigrants were self-sufficient, needless automatons, but they are in fact not. Instead, it turns out that immigrants also like to go to restaurants, buy new clothes, and seek better job opportunities as they gain more experience. In other words, immigration does not simply serve to increase the supply of labor, but also to increase the demand for goods and services.

            Granted, I do not understand xenophobia. Maybe I’m just not proud enough of my country. Maybe I grew up in too poor a place to realize that an influx of low-skill workers makes everyone else worse off. Maybe I’m too sarcastic. But truly, I think it’s because I really, really love free-market concepts, whether it be as they apply to interest rates, labor markets, or even population.  I’ll be the first to admit that I am at times a cripplingly logical person; sometimes that puts me at odds with others because my brain is wired to place utility before emotion, making me appear callous. But if I hear one more person argue about how they just love the free market economy, then directly contradict themselves by advocating for economic protectionism (which is what closed-border policy really is), I might lose it.

            Even if you disagree with me and believe comparative advantage is stupid, a nation is only as strong as its manufacturing sector, and the American dream applies solely to people who were either born here or can spare years of their life and thousands of dollars, there is one thing that is not debatable: if any human being is valuable, then all human beings are valuable. If it so suits your politics to believe that every illegal alien should be deported tomorrow, so be it, but if you claim to know the God of grace and mercy, then be very conscious of how you treat people in the process. After all, if you believe that Christ died for us while we were yet sinners, and that all have fallen short of the glory of God, then it is nothing if not our entire calling to treat the people with whom we come into contact with our highest possible degree of grace and love, even when that may be the most inconvenient thing we can imagine.

Anything less is just taking the Lord’s name in vain.