Stop the presses – Christians have openly declared that they believe homosexuality to be against God’s plan for humanity. Leftists have yet again stepped in, begging for pardon from anyone who happens to still get offended by the things Christians have clearly, openly, and brazenly believed for centuries.
By now, many of us have heard of the notorious Nashville Statement, a statement released by The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood outlining their beliefs on marriage and human sexuality. While the content is not particularly noteworthy, considering that Christians as a whole have been steadfast in their beliefs on such topics even throughout the vast recent changes in the public consciousness, what is noteworthy is the reaction it garnered. Megan Barry, the mayor of Nashville, even tweeted in clear embarrassment that the Nashville Statement doesn’t represent the “inclusive” beliefs of the people of Nashville, violating the very principles of inclusivity in the process while also not acknowledging the differences between religious community and proximal community. People like Megan Barry are somehow still shocked that Christians are not backing down in their beliefs and won’t capitulate to government control over marriage.
Now, in order to tackle the problem with the Nashville Statement accordingly, we need to examine the equation that determines whether or not the support or opposition of the Nashville Statement even has a leg on which to stand. The most famous perspective on how the government handles religious issues is found within the Constitution, which declares, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Marriage, as we all know, was created and developed by religion and through the filter of religious belief systems. The nature of marriage, particularly as it concerns the Judeo-Christian West, is grounded in one’s deeply-held beliefs, regardless of whether or not someone is religious or believes in some sort of deity figure.
To drive home the point of marriage being grounded in morality, let’s play a fun game: to grossly oversimplify, marriage is a contract between independent people, entered into independently, for a specific and unique purpose wherein the parties involved could not bring about such a purpose alone. Historically it has often been to raise children, but it could also serve purposes for business, politics, or just because people want to commit their lives to one another. The fun part is that I could be entirely wrong about my oversimplified definition, and as such, all my examples would be just a few in an infinite number of possibilities. The point here being, I defined marriage morally as a union of independent commitment, morals being steeped in one’s abstract method for navigating life in the best way possible. Marriage is a morally-based, independently-entered and voluntarily-maintained contract.
So, where does this leave the Nashville Statement? The problems with the issues surrounding the Nashville Statement are twofold: first off, we violated the Constitution by permitting the government to take control of a marriage (a morally-based, independently-entered, and voluntarily-maintained contract) in the first place. This has made marriage as a concept very murky in the public consciousness since government control polices the independent and voluntary nature of marriage, making it difficult to discuss since we cannot seem to divorce one’s perspective on marriage legality versus morality.
Secondly, by having already violated the Constitution, the Right is now attempting to make sure that deeply-held beliefs are not being overlooked in our fast-paced, ever-changing, Leftist-dominated world. Marriage is a moral issue for the majority of people, and because of that it can be violating to see the basic tenets of such a union be tainted.
If it is not already entirely clear, the violation of marriage morality is the crux of the problem, and the entire reason why the government should not have control over marriage. For both the Right and the Left, marriage is a moral issue and as such we do not want to see the structure of marriage be violated. For the Right it is near blasphemous to see the celebration of homosexuality and transgenderism, and for the Left it is near blasphemous to see the discrimination of limiting marriage to only be between a man and a woman. We have encroached upon a major moral issue, and as such, nobody is truly correct because it is not up to the government to police moral beliefs, that is why the Constitution contains that noteworthy clause in the first place: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither the Right nor the Left are entitled to government protection or support when it comes to defending marriage, because marriage is inherently a religious and moral bond, and as such the government has no business being involved in it.
From this convoluted mess, we can simplify Nashville. Both the Left and the Right are exercising their entitlements to free speech, however, neither have entitlements to government protection to enforce their moral values. The Right could potentially be overstepping their bounds, considering that two individuals involved in the creation of the Nashville Statement are pastor Jack Graham of the Southern Baptist Church and Tony Perkins, president for the Family Research Council, both of whom are on President Donald Trump’s Evangelical Executive Advisory Board. The same could be said for Megan Barry, a political figure who represents the government for the state of Tennessee. While no aforementioned parties requested legislation to protect their religious beliefs, they do represent government and made clear statements of opinion surrounding a moral and religious establishment. This is why people are at odds with one another on the topic of marriage, and it is only going to continue until the government relinquishes their control over this morally-based, independently-entered, voluntarily-maintained contract.