Same-sex Marriage in the U.S.

I will detail a discussion with a friend. Her argument will be in bold-face, and my argument will follow. Feel free to leave any comments or join in. =)
I most highly recommend not skipping over the footnotes, for they expose a massive amount of information that is most pertinent to the essay.
I also hope I do not come off as harsh or un-loving. I do write this with utmost love.

The belief that marriage is a union between "one man and one woman" supposedly comes from the bible, right?
And thus, making the definition of marriage legally "a union between one man and one woman" would blur the separation of church and state.
Although, (I did some research) Jesus was all for Separation of Church and State.
When Jesus was asked whether Caesar's tax should be paid he said, 'Show me the coin used for paying the tax.' They brought him a denarious and he asked them 'Whose portrait is this? And Whose inscription?' 'Caesar's' they replied. Then he said to them 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's'" (Matthew 22:19-21)
So being against legalizing same sex marriage because "its unchristian" in itself not only "unchristian" but hypocritical, and wasn't Jesus' favorite insult "You hypocrite!"?
---------------------------
I personally don't think same-sex marriage should even be an issue of the federal government because they have bigger fish to fry (security, defense, economics, etc.). I think the decision should ultimately be left to each individual state to decide for its own.

But I digress; now on to your questions.

Every person has a worldview, or an overall perspective with which one sees and interprets the world. Most people would agree that one's religion plays a large role in determining one's worldview. An Atheist, for example, does not believe in God and would not base his/her life on this presupposition. Their moral convictions would be different than those of a Christian who does believe in God and, if he/she believes in the authority of scripture, will live their lives according to what the Bible says about character. A person's moral convictions are determined by their worldviews. The democracy we live in takes all worldviews (including the biblical worldview) into account and considers them all legitimate¹ for the formulation of moral legislature (such as same-sex marriage).
Contrary to what many people say, the Bible does speak directly against homosexuality². There are also at least two Bible verses that mention the marriage institution (or, biblically, the creation ordinance) and how it is to be only of a man and a woman³.

Concerning the separation of church and state, we seem to operate under different perceptions of what that means. It seems your definition includes the ideas that the state cannot force anyone to believe a certain thing, nor can they impose moral standards on the people that are based off religious beliefs. We also seem to operate under different definitions of what the proposed law of either allowing or banning same-sex marriage would entail. A lot of people, even those who are not Christians, view same-sex marriage as morally wrong; others view it as morally right. So the issue of this law is not only a church-based issue, but also a morality-based issue.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution speaks of the separation of church and state. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The implications I draw from this statement are only that Congress or the Government cannot prohibit a person from practicing their religion nor can they establish a national religion. This definition, the definition our country was founded on, does not prohibit the making of moral laws, or laws that are a based on a judgment of morality. Therefore, based on this definition, it is no violation of the separation of church and state, or the First Amendment, to make a law such as allowing or banning same-sex marriage, because it will be voted on according to the voter's personal moral convictions. If the majority of the people are convicted it is not wrong, then great! Legalize it. If the majority of the people are convicted it is wrong, then great! Ban it. Application? Vote for what you believe is morally correct.

The government has made many moral laws, examples being laws against murder and theft. I assume that most, if not all, Americans think it is morally wrong to take another person's life or to take another person's property. If it is necessary for the state, or the government, to make these moral laws, and your definition of the separation of church and state prohibits them basing these moral laws off certain worldviews, then your definition not only prohibits a necessary function of the state, but it undermines democracy by favoring one worldview over another. It would essentially create the very same problem you were attempting to solve; one worldview would be forcing itself on others without going through the democratic process. Applying this concept to same-sex marriage, all your proposal would do is favor a secular worldview over a biblical one, whereas the democratic process preserve them as equals and let the voters decide (based on their worldviews) what legislature ought to be passed with a majority rule.

Lastly, I think there was a misinterpretation of Matthew 22:19-21. You found an interpretation of that text to mean that the state has it's own dealings, and God and his people have their own, and the two shall never intermingle. Peter and I have done a lot of studying on these verses and have come upon an entirely different meaning. It is important to get the full context of the text, so we studied a bit further back and began at verse 15 and ended at verse 22.⁴ One should begin by questioning who the Pharisees and the Herodians are, why they are trying to entangle Jesus, and what benefit would be for them if they succeeded. The Pharisees were strict followers of the law of Moses on the outside, but were not truly concerned true righteousness before God. They also were bitter enemies of Jesus because he exposed their hypocrisy⁵. They were seen as self-righteous and prideful, and were often criticized by Jesus for being so. The Herodians were a group of Jewish men who were "all for" the Roman government, as opposed to a majority of the Jewish, who did not want to submit to Rome. When asking Jesus the question about taxes, they wanted to ensnare him, expecting him to say either to pay taxes, which would anger the Jews, or not to pay taxes, which would anger the Roman government. They wanted to either destroy Jesus' influence on people or have him killed for conspiracy or rebellion against the government. However, Jesus, noticing their malice, turns logic around and ensnares them. By saying, "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's", he is essentially saying, "yes, you should pay taxes, but above that you should give God what you owe him: obedience to his commands", thus presenting a valuable message to both the Jews who hated Rome, and the Pharisees and Herodians who were notorious for their hypocrisy and disobedience towards God. He showed the Jews that the two kingdoms are not at odds with one another; Jesus, himself, had no problem obeying the earthly kingdom by paying taxes. However, it is much more important to render to God what is God's than it is to render to Caesar what is Caesar's, because God is king even over Caesar and the consequences for disobeying him are much greater than for disobeying any earthly ruler. With this message, he put on display their hypocrisy of not showing obedience to God's commands but being more concerned with obedience to Caesar.
In conclusion, it is clear that this text did not speak to the issue of the separation of church and state. Instead, Jesus was giving a brilliant answer to a crafty question that teaches the relationship between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world.

----------------------

¹In order for there to truly be a solid separation of church and state, and in order for the government to not be completely tyrannical, all worldviews have to be legitimate.
²1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (This verse shows that, according to Paul, homosexuality is wrong, it is unrighteous, and one who practices this sin and does repent will not inherit the kingdom of God.) More verses: 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Romans 1:26-27, Genesis 18:20-19:28 (in the story in Genesis, when the men are expressing a desire to "know" the men inside the house, they are expressing a desire to have sex with them. Though Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for more than homosexuality, this story at least illustrates that God is displeased with homosexuality.)
³Genesis 2:18-25, Ephesians 5:31
⁴"Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his talk. And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, 'Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone's opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?' But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, 'Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax.' And they brought him a denarius. And Jesus said to them, 'Whose likeness and inscription is this?' They said, 'Caesar's.' Then he said to them, 'Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.' When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away." (Matthew 22:15-22 ESV)
⁵Matthew 23-27

of Peter

Lately, I have been trying to come up with an answer to the question, "What are the essential characteristics or qualities of being human?" For instance, a red ball has essential characteristics and it has non-essential characteristics. An essential characteristic is that it is round (with the exception of maybe a football, but for the sake of argument lets ignore that for now). However a non-essential characteristic is the fact that it is red. The ball would still be a ball if it weren't red and was instead blue, but the ball would cease to be a ball if it had a pyramid shape or if it was a cylinder. Taking that same concept over to human beings, what makes a human a human? What are the essential characteristics of being human? I think that this is an important question to ask for a number of reasons. Unfortunately though, because of time I have to neglect the reasons and leave this post at just the mere question for now. I would appreciate any comments that would help me think clearly about this question. I don't think that I have an answer to it myself at the moment so I could use all the help I can get.