St. Paul's Lutheran Church
Messenger

625 W. Gibson Road, Woodland, CA

 July-August-September 2008

PASTOR'S MESSAGE

Brothers and Sisters in Christ;

I want to talk to you about the issue of the redefinition of marriage recently written into law by a handful of the judicial branch of our State. What I write is my opinion from Scripture and History.

First. This is not a "gay" vs. "straight" issue even though people might want to divide people in that manner.

Second. This is not a "civil rights" issue. This is witnessed by the fact that two men or two women can not get "married" if they are brothers or sisters. The recent ruling still prohibits "incestual" (this will probably have to be redefined), polygamist, under aged, and other "marriages": along with other bans.

lf the court is truly concerned about civil rights why prohibit brothers from marrying? After all such laws were designed ro prevent birth defects and they are obviously not going to pass on genetic problems.

Third. The court, in its arrogance, refused a hold on the matter until a constitutional amendment was voted on and things went through the appeals process. I say this is arrogance because historically the court has always held implementation of ruling when there was a possibility of harm being done.

The issue of harm here is not that "same sex marriage" will destroy California. The harm is that honest caring citizens of this state may find the joy of their "marriage" dashed against the rocks after a complete constitutional / judicial review. This is not fair to our "gay" friends and neighbors. Yes, some may be willing to chance that for whatever reason. Yet most are being offered a security that hasn't been proven.

Fourth. This is not THE "defense of marriage" issue requiring the church to drop everything and rally. With an extreme divorce rate, cohabitation, domestic violence, and other matters; marriage needs to be defended on a multitude of levels.

So WHAT is the issue?

I have always believed historically that the state should not be involved in marriages. Historically marriage was a religious issue determined by what ever the religion believed. The state got involved for basically three reasons:
1) They could make money on issuing and recording licenses.
2) In order to sort out divorce, they had to have a legal contract to enforce.
3) In order to make money and have this legal contract they had to provide a means of   obtaining a licence and contract for those who were not "religious".

Had the "church" argued at this time that it was unconstitutional to regulate an expression of "religion" or that it was indeed an "establishment of religion" to define and regulate marriage we may not be in this situation today.

The state would still he faced with the above issues but we would have had to develop a system of "civil unions" without the court establishing and defining a religious principle.

Now you will note that I have not quoted Scripture for any of this. You know what the Bible says and quoting Scripture to those who do not care has minimum impact. So providing you with proof passages here is not going to advance the moral argument.

It is the official position of our church body to support the constitutional amendment on the November Ballot.

It is my position that this is a US Constitution issue regarding the establishment of religion and I believe that when all is said and done this will be brought up. Historically marriage never existed outside of a religious context. The state has the right manage contractual law (civil unions etc.) but not establish or define religion. Societies throughout history have somehow been able to manage these interests without arrogant American courts who forget they are not legislators nor have the right to redefine the US Constitution.

I intend to vote for the California amendment. I know, this conflicts with what I just said. If the state should keep its nose out of defining religious concepts then why vote to have them define said concept? Because it needs to be brought to a head.

The passage of this amendment will not settle the issue. The court, no doubt, will argue that even if 90% of the people voted to resume slavery it would be thrown out.

So is it a futile effort. NO! Not at all (dont listen to Gov. Arnold - no disrespect here Spell Check doesn't have Schw — er in it). With the courts overturning of a constitutional amendment the people would have status before the US Supreme Court and hopefully there it would be decided properly, on the basis of the US Constitution and not some lame attempt at social engineering.

Blessings, Pastor Scherer