AnglicanCharismaticChristian TraditionsEastern OrthodoxEvangelicalLutheran (LCMS)Non-DenominationalReformedRoman CatholicRound TableSeeking

Round Table: Same-Sex Marriage

Having just passed the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision and with the Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly’s recent vote, the issue of Same-Sex Marriage remains much discussed and oft debated in our culture. To help us think more clearly about this subject, we asked the Conciliar Post team and a few guest authors to offer their thoughts on some aspects of Same-Sex Marriage in a Round Table format.

Round Tables are where numerous authors contribute their perspectives on a topic or question, demonstrating the unity and/or variety of perspectives within American Christianity on that particular issue. In order to offer a true Round Table, where numerous voices are heard, we have asked that responses be both brief and precise (though follow up articles are a possibility). Accordingly, the statements below are intended as starting places for a civil discussion of this often uncivil topic.

Before anything else, we want to acknowledge that a lot of damage has been done by Christians weighing in on the same-sex marriage debate. If you have been hurt in the past as a result of this, on behalf of all Christians, we want to beg your forgiveness. You are an invaluable, unrepeatable, infinitely precious human being and you are unconditionally loved by God—a love we have not done a good job communicating to you. Forgive us.


George_Aldhizer_75pxGeorge Aldhizer

Author at Conciliar Post


I believe that followers of Christ are called to a distinctive way of being in the world, characterized by grace and truth. Too often Christians in America opt for a stunted public theology (and yes, our theologies must be public) that aims to proclaim a certain vision of the “truth” without first starting with grace. Grace in listening to those in and outside the church who are LGBTQ, grace in not believing there is a culture war to be won or an idol of “America” to be restored, and grace in responding in worship to a God of grace who loves those on the margins and seeks out us sinners.

Within this grace-full framework is where I believe the Christian proclamation of truth is to be found. It is under this framework where we can discuss and engage the relevance (or lack thereof) of biblical morality in a pluralistic democracy, the benefits of a strong marriage culture (what should that look like?) in society, the telos of human sexuality, marriage equality, the relationship of the church and Christians to society and political engagement, etc etc. What we see far too often (I’m speaking as an American Protestant) is a Republicanized, often-homophobic, and fear driven response to this question that doesn’t take into account the foundational starting point of grace for a Christian public theology.

George Aldhizer

Author at Conciliar Post


Amanda Barber_75pxAmanda Barber

Author at Conciliar Post


I do not support gay marriage for several reasons, not all of which are  wrapped up in the well-known account of Sodom and Gomorrah or passages like Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1. (Though, at the very least, these passages should provide a pretty good clue.) I will discuss two of these reasons. First, according to Genesis, marriage is not a social construct. Marriage is God’s original creation. We are obliged to follow His ground rules and see to it that our marriages fall within His good purposes. There are several purposes for marriage, but the topic of gay marriage points me directly to one of them—procreation (Genesis 1:28). Sexual intercourse is the means by which God gives children to a marriage. Though not every man-woman marriage is given God’s gift of fertility, the possibility of fertility is still there. (Genesis 17:15-19, Genesis 18:11-14, Genesis 21:1-2) God does open the womb in a man-woman marriage through sexual intercourse. He does not open the womb by means of sexual intercourse in a same-sex marriage. Gay marriage fails the litmus test on this count alone.

Secondly, in the whole of Scripture there is no precedent for anything approaching this recent idea of gay marriage. No where. (Not even in the New Testament.) If marriage had somehow undergone a change between the old and new covenants, it should have been clearly stated in the New Testament. The opposite happened right away in the book of Matthew when Jesus reiterated Genesis, “’…Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?’” (Matthew 19:4-5, KJV)  Even when the Apostle Paul speaks about marriage as an illustration of Christ and the church in Ephesians 5, marriage is still defined as a one-man, one-woman relationship. For these two reasons and a host of others that two paragraphs do not permit me to explore, I cannot support gay marriage in good conscience.

Amanda Barber

Author at Conciliar Post


Molly Bolton Picture_75pxMolly Bolton

Guest Author


My thoughts on same-sex marriage (or as I like to call it, “marriage”), eh? What to talk about, what to talk about. The ugly notion of “Biblical marriage”? The historic use of scripture to propagate discrimination? Religion, patriarchy, and the policing of bodies? The Christian fetishization of hetero-marriage? My head is spinning, I tell you, SPINNING! But you are smart people. And you probably know just by reading my bio (below) what I think about same-sex marriage. (Secret: I’m for it). And the good news is,most folks are with me. Philosophical, sociological, and scientific understandings of gender and sexuality have developed over time and culture has responded. At this point Utah (UTAH!) has same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage is a reality. So the more pressing question, it seems to me is: what are we doing to help people of faith in this changing environment?

Here’s my wild idea: Let’s talk about gender and sexuality in church. Let’s educate leaders of faith communities so they might, in turn, educate their congregants and community. The Religious Institute’s A Time to Seek: A Study Guide on Sexual and Gender Diversity is a good place to start. The cultural support of same-sex marriage seems to be a golden opportunity for religious communities to do some good ol’ fashioned soul-searching. The Church can no longer choose the “opt-out” option on the matter. It can no longer maintain the hetero status quo.  To attempt to do so is not only silly and archaic, but would dig religion deeper into the pit of cultural irrelevance. So here’s to same-sex marriage for forcing an issue! And here’s to more love, light, peace, hope, relevance, and divine diversity in the commonwealth of God!

Molly Bolton

Guest Author

Author at Holy Heresy: W@nderings of a Feminist Chaplain

Show Bio


Jody Byrkett_75pxJody Byrkett

Author at Conciliar Post


“Mawwage. Mawwage is what bwings us together today.” 1  I quote the Impressive Clergyman because the real question behind all of same-sex union/marriage talk is really, what is marriage?

Since the dawn of creation, marriage has been the joining together of one man and one woman, different in anatomical design, fitting together as one. It is two equally human persons who are complimentary (fulfilling, completing) to one another, being made one entity. A man and a woman joined together in body, soul, and spirit (now done under law), creates a single, unified entity called marriage. This cannot be the case with persons of the same sex. They might love one another and sleep together, but the joining of two of the same variety (same sex, not crossing the parameter of species) do not make a third thing, a marriage.

To reduce marriage to a legal statement misses the point. Marriage is not about tax cuts or even status. To reduce marriage to any conglomeration of persons, or persons and things, is not possible. Marriage is a much higher and more real thing than all of that. More real, I say, yet the paradox is that marriage itself is a shadow. Marriage is a symbol, a picture, of Jesus Christ and the Church. Bridegroom and Bride, fitted together as one, the marriage that all other marriages should seek to image.

View Sources

 Jody Byrkett

Author at Conciliar Post


Ben CabeBen Cabe

Editor-in-Chief at Conciliar Post


Marriage is a great mystery. We must acknowledge before we begin speaking about same-sex marriage, however, that the linguistic signifier “marriage” has already been distanced from that which it has traditionally been understood to signify. The signified reality (the mystery) has been traditionally understood by the Church to be an ontological and mystical reality—not a legal contract—between one male and one female. Members of the same-sex were precluded from this mystery, not because of civil inequality but rather, because of the ontological impossibility; the heterosex of a couple was considered by the early Church to be an essential property of “marriage.”1 These epistemic claims about the essence of marriage were considered to be the revealed truth of Scripture as interpreted by the Church. When the authority to interpret Scripture, however, was stripped from the Church and her tradition and given to the individual it opened the door to an epidemic of redefinition. As a result, marriage was taken out of its natural context: its sacramental understanding, its connection with the Eucharist (and the reality of the Eucharist), and the Church. Over time this lead to a collapse in mainstream Christendom’s understanding of marriage—this is evident by the rise of divorce among Christian couples. All of this laid the initial groundwork for the arena in which the same-sex marriage debate would take place. Today, marriage is primarily understood as a promise of fidelity centered around a legal contract and this, it seems to me, is where the debate is being hashed-out.

Christians should fight and defend the equal rights of all human beings.2 Same-sex couples should have the right to get married where ‘marriage’ is understood to mean a promise of fidelity and a legal contract. But same-sex couples do not have the right to the mystery of marriage as the Church understands it—as a sacrament—because rights are limited by what is possible. I cannot fight for equal rights with fish to extract oxygen directly from the water with my lungs. Even if I am legally granted a right to this it does not change the fact that it is impossible: the lungs do not work that way. The sacrament does not work that way. Regardless of what it is called or the ritual that is used two persons of the same-sex cannot be joined in the mystery of ‘marriage’—as the Church has traditionally understood it—not because they don’t have a ‘right’ to but rather because it is an impossibility. For me, the same-sex ‘marriage’ debate is not over equal rights; it is over the linguistic signifier, ‘marriage’. Traditionally this term has belonged to the Church but times have changed. So Is the term marriage worth fighting for? I would answer yes. Throughout history the Church Fathers fought to clarify, through terminology, the mysteries divinely communicated to the Church. In the legal sphere there is nothing wrong with ‘same-sex marriage.’ Same-sex couples should not be subjugated or marginalized. Could we compromise? Could we allow such legal benefits to same-sex couples but call it something else? I am not sure this would be considered a reasonable compromise—since the term itself, it seems to me, is that which brings the social recognition that is sought after. If, however, the church has any hope to clarify these things it has to get back to a traditional interpretation of Scripture—all of scripture—and marriage has to be returned to its natural context. Then, and only then, will we begin to have the ability to begin dialoguing about this issue.

View Sources

Ben Cabe

Editor-in-Chief at Conciliar Post

Author at BenCabe 


MicahCarloson_75pxMicah Carlson

Senior Editor at Conciliar Post


I would like to attempt a brief refutation of what I have found to be the most common argument against the legalization of gay marriage, as it is presented by many conservative Christians. The argument goes something like this: “The word ‘marriage’ means ‘the union between a man and a woman which is the foundation of the family unit.’ Therefore, by definition, two men cannot get married, and likewise for two women.”

Because this is a very brief treatment, I will focus on only one problem with this argument: the failure to distinguish between grammatical (or semantic) definitions and legal definitions (though it will be seen that both horns of this dilemma fail to establish the argument’s conclusion, I believe the wiggle-room provided by this ambiguity gives the argument its intuitive appeal).

If the argument is founded on the semantic content of the word “marriage,” then I don’t understand how it even gets off the ground. It is the very nature of words to change in meaning (collecting new connotations and losing old ones like so many busy little consumers in a capitalist market), eventually even coming to denote things very much different from their original definitions. While conservative linguists may bemoan the loss (whether supposed or real) of clarity through such semantic shifts, they are nevertheless happening all the time.

If, however, this argument means to ground itself on the legal definition of the word “marriage,” then it simply begs the question (that is, employs circular reasoning by assuming its conclusion in one of its premises). The argument would assume that the legal definition of marriage cannot be changed before the conversation even begins about whether or not to change said definition. You cannot enter a conversation about whether or not to change the definition of marriage with an argument which simply reiterates the current definition. It is like arguing that the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so. This doesn’t mean you have to agree with the institution of gay marriage in U. S. law, but I do think we would all do well to stay away from this argument; it is tired, and didn’t do much work even in the vigor of its youth.

Micah Carlson

Senior Editor at Conciliar Post


KathyDubs_75pxKathy Dubs

Author at Conciliar Post


That is a hard question. I have friends with very passionate views on both sides of the issue, and not a very strong opinion on it myself. I guess the one thing that I do worry about when thinking of homosexual marriage is that the moment the nation accepts gay marriage, we have to answer questions about children and adoption. A home that deliberately excludes adult representation from one half of the human race is not an ideal child-raising environment. If the child is of the gender excluded, it will be hard for the child to accept his or her identity without feeling like a failure to their parents. On the other hand, children of the accepted gender will find it hard to learn how to interact with the opposite one. If it’s wrong for straight parents to reject or attempt to change gay offspring, it’s just as wrong for gay parents to reject or attempt to change straight offspring. Statistically, it’s highly unlikely for gay parents to have gay offspring. This is a really complicated topic and it’s hard to fully discuss the intricacies with brevity. In conclusion, if the right to marry includes the right to adopt, I have to oppose homosexual marriage.

Kathy Dubs

Author at Conciliar Post


LauraE_75pxLaura Ehlen

Senior Editor at Conciliar Post


I struggle significantly to address the issue of same-sex marriage. My conservative upbringing and religious beliefs inform my convictions about the sanctity and fecundity of marriage. Same-sex marriage offers no such fecundity, brings into question natural law, and deviates from the Scriptures teaching on marriage and Church tradition. Yet at the same time, my own awareness of my sinfulness, coupled with compassion for the most quotidian ups and downs of human life, makes my heart ache a little for them. Overall, my conservatism weighs against this: even if they can marry in a civil ceremony, which my religious beliefs hesitate to even recognize as on the same level as being married in the church (whatever your denomination), they are not and cannot be married in the eyes of the church (again, here the word crosses denominational boundaries). Church marriage is a sacrament; civil marriage, whether between a man and a woman or a same-sex couple, is not a sacrament. I perceive a huge difference between states validating same-sex marriage and the Church permitting same-sex marriage.

When I think of same-sex marriage, what comes first to my mind is not a fear for the sanctity of marriage, nor a concern about equal rights, nor a reference to natural law. Rather, drawing upon the example of Pope Francis, when I first think of same-sex marriage, I think of how we must learn to both recognize and grapple with sin and treat others with compassion and freedom from judgment. Sin is a reality of each and every human life; it manifests itself in different ways, and in our pursuit of holiness, we must submit our will to God and battle against our vices. Even though we as Christians may fundamentally disagree with same-sex marriage, we must still treat the individuals involved as human people, made in the Image of God. In her mystical treatise Dialogue of Divine Providence, Saint Catherine of Siena urged for compassion instead of judgment: “you must not respond with judgment but with holy compassion.”1 Perhaps our great concern with same-sex marriage should not be the endless theological debates about it, but rather a concern for abstention from judgment. After all, Jesus himself commanded in the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, “Do not judge so that you will not be judged…Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own?” (Matt. 7:1, 3).2

View Sources

Laura Ehlen

Senior Editor at Conciliar Post


Charles Heyworth_75pxCharles Heyworth

Author at Conciliar Post


The popular divide over same sex marriage reveals an underlying problem with the definition of marriage. Divorce and premarital sex were early symptoms of this problem and by now certain Christians have found Biblical license for both of them. I am sure that given enough time we can also rationalize Biblical approval for most kinds of relational and sexual behaviors. Thus, the current debate over homosexual behavior was over before it even began. Now, the continuing battle to prevent people with same-sex relationships from committing to each other in marriage has more potential to damage the institution of marriage than to discourage certain kinds of sexual behavior.

The contemporary celebration of marriage for most people has nothing to do with the fact that the newly married couple will engage in sexual behavior, but that they have chosen to commit their lives to each other. People will express their sexuality as they choose, with or without a marriage covenant. The celebration and legalization of any marriage is not so much one of sexual expression as of the creation of a new, stable, cultural unit: a family. As such, Christians must be careful to keep the argument against homosexual behavior (which we have already lost) from becoming a fight against marriage itself.

If one good thing comes from the debate over same-sex marriage it will be a more clearly defined understanding that marriage is a commitment to pursue one-ness with another individual, not a license for sexual activity. The role of the church then will be to define the form of marriage that will maximize the potential of this unique relationship. Until we can discover and demonstrate a form of marriage worth pursuing, it will be difficult to limit its possible variations.

Charles Heyworth

Author at Conciliar Post


StuartKerr_75pxStuart Kerr

Author at Conciliar Post


The divide on same-sex marriage is deep, but there is one point where, I believe, there ought to be agreement: same-sex marriage should not be regulated by government. Note, I did not say that homosexual unions should be legalized, because there should not be a legalization process. Scripture confirms that marriage is an agreement between one man, one woman, and God.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh (Gen. 2:24).

Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth (Mal. 2:14a).

It is fairly obvious that in this definition I left no room for two men or two women, but notice what else is not present in this arrangement. There is no mention of government, of any sort, or of any level, that is a part of the marriage vows. Neither the bride nor the groom makes a pledge to love and cherish their Congressman or Senator, and the government’s interference is unnecessary in the issues that relate to marriage; taxation, inheritance, and legal guardianship of dependents can be handled without the state’s involvement in marriage. Protection of the bonds of holy matrimony belongs to the Church, not the state.

View Sources

Stuart Kerr

Author at Conciliar Post


JacobPrahlow_75pxJacob Prahlow

Managing Editor at Conciliar Post


In the space allotted here, I want to touch on three specific aspects of the current same-sex marriage debate: the continuing role of religious freedom, the place of emotion, and the need for Christian love.

First, as outlined by Ephraim Radner, formerly political discussions about same-sex marriage are quickly moving into the religious sphere. Therefore, we must quickly clarify to what extent the State may assert that those religiously opposed to same-sex marriage must affirm such unions. Proponents of same-sex marriage often talk about the rights and freedoms of the LGBT community; in discussing those rights, we must remain careful not to infringe upon the religious freedom of those opposed to same-sex marriage. As N. T. Wright notes, traditional Christian faith has affirmed for nearly two thousand years that “marriage” has constituted one man and one woman. Deeply concerning are international trends which dictate that Christian churches must allow same-sex weddings to which they are opposed.

Second, we need to seriously consider how emotions impact our thinking about same-sex marriage. Fully recognizing that social media does not provide the best insight into thoughtful discourse, it is nonetheless concerning to see the prevalence of “love wins”, “why can’t people be free to love?”, and other similar sentiments commonly expressed as the impetus for why same-sex marriage is morally right. I remain deeply suspicious that feelings and emotionally based claims about something important as marriage can be substantiated; how is it that doing something in the name of eros (desire) now means that action is necessarily moral and right?

Third, there is a need for love as we think about same-sex marriage, namely Christian love for all of humanity. Those in support of traditional marriage must lovingly state their positions and lovingly engage those opposed to their views (i.e., no more Westboro Baptist). Speaking in love does not mean abandoning the truth, but instead charitably and honestly engaging those with whom we disagree. In contrast to the “loving and affirming” mindset, we need to embrace a “loving and open” mentality. And above all else, we must not forget that no one, least of all myself, is free from sin. Timothy Ware speaks of this perspective:

“Still less can the Church give its approval to sexual unions between persons of the same sex. But in all specific cases of homosexuality we should of course seek to show the utmost pastoral sensitivity and generous compassion. ‘A brother who had committed a sin was drive out from the church by the priest. But Abba Bessarion rose up and when out with him, saying: ‘I too am a sinner.'” [1]

View Sources

 Jacob Prahlow

Managing Editor at Conciliar Post

Author at Pursuing Veritas


Jeff-Reid_75pxJeff Reid

Author at Conciliar Post


Same Sex Marriage is a contentious topic, in part, because it touches directly on the conflict between our desire for autonomy and the Bible’s claim for God’s authority. For the Church, this has lead to a new round of discussions regarding the Bible’s instruction on Same Sex Marriage. Consequently, this would be an excellent opportunity to review how we interpret the Bible (hermeneutics if you want to use technical terminology). I apologize in advance that this is a brief overview and lacking in nuance. At the same time, I hope it helps set a foundation for ongoing discussions concerning what Scripture says.

Towards that end, I’ll present the facets which make up the interpretation process and then briefly illustrate them in looking at the question of Same Sex Marriage. There are four basic facets in a person’s interpretation of Scripture, each of which can be characterized with a question:

  1. Clear meaning – what does a given text say?

  2. Internal consistency – how does the rest of scripture impact our understanding of the text?

  3. Historical context – did the authors use their terms the same way we do?

4.Historical interpretation – has the Church historically interpreted the text in a uniform way?

Applying these principles to Genesis 2:24, one comes away with the following conclusions. The text implies that marriage relationships are intrinsically heterosexual. This is confirmed by similar uses of terminology by Christ in Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:7-8, as well as Paul in Ephesians 5:22-33. There is no indication that the verbiage in any of these passages would have an other than normal meaning for their authors. Finally, this interpretation matches what the Church has historically concluded. Given this information, we would conclude that, Biblically speaking, marriage is a relationship that can only involve a man and a woman.

Jeff Reid

Author at Conciliar Post

Author at A Pilgrim Theologian


Michael Shelton 75pxMichael Shelton

Author at Conciliar Post


I view marriage as both a legal institution, a contractual union between individuals that bestows certain legal advantages (sometimes called a civil union), and a sacramental institution, God’s union of one man and one woman that serves as a visible sign of the invisible life of God and His Church. There is an overlap between the two since the latter often precedes the former, but I think they are distinct institutions that frequently share the same name even though they are not equal.

Much like divorce, I cannot reconcile same-sex marriage (or any such institution not between one man and one woman) with Scripture or with what the Catholic Church has said on the matter. Therefore, I do not recognize any claims to the sacramental institution by same-sex couples, even if they are celebrated by Christian ministers. However, without appealing to my religious beliefs (since I believe strongly in a separation of Church and State), I cannot honestly oppose legalizing same-sex marriage because I haven’t found any of the “natural” arguments against changing the legal definition convincing enough. In fact, in light of the Gospel, I think distinguishing the sacrament of Holy Matrimony from its legal form makes it that much more special.

Michael Shelton

Author at Conciliar Post


ChristSmith 75px

Chris Smith

Author at Conciliar Post


The issue of same-sex marriage has deeply divided American Christianity over the past decade. Before offering my own perspective on this issue, a little personal background is necessary. I come from a very small tight-knit family consisting of my mother, one brother, my grandmother, and my aunt – who just so happens to be gay. My aunt was always around during my childhood, living with us part of the time, other times babysitting my brother and I or taking us to the movies. Because of this, I have known and interacted with gay people throughout my life. Based on these interactions over the course of my thirty-six years on this earth, I firmly believe that some people are born gay. For me, this is the starting point for any pondering of issues pertaining to homosexuality. To be sure, I see the issue of homosexuality as more complex than the choice vs. nature debate. There are definitely some who choose that lifestyle and, I would argue, many that do not. Thus, I support same-sex marriage for those who cannot change who they are.

This is not an issue I push very hard on. I have no desire to divide the Church any further on this issue. Furthermore, I refuse to condemn Christians for opposing same-sex marriage or call them “bigots.” I also will continue to support any responsible legislation that protects the rights of small-business owners (bakeries, photographers, florists, etc.) who do not wish to participate in same-sex ceremonies on religious grounds. The day is coming when same-sex marriage will be legal across this nation from coast to coast and those who remain opposed must have the freedom to live out their faith as they see fit. I only ask that Christians who oppose same-sex marriage offer me the same respect by not accuse me of capitulating to culture, surrendering to moral relevancy, or not “believing” in the Bible. As a Christian, I do not affirm non-monogamous relationships of any type, gay or straight. Nor do I affirm polygamy, “sleeping around,” or bisexuality. I also continue to believe in the virgin birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as outlined in the Bible. My support for same-sex marriage comes from my deeply-held conviction that some were really “born that way.”

 

Chris Smith

Author at Conciliar Post

Author at Reimagining Cordoba


Nicholai Stuckwisch _75Nicholai Stuckwisch

Author at Conciliar Post


I want to focus on what I feel is the most pressing issue of the debate and the compromise/suggestion that I’ve personally reached. In addition to fighting for general acceptance of their lifestyle and beliefs, the homosexual community wants to see same-sex marriage legalized because of the benefits the law provides married couples, These benefits include jail and hospital visitation rights, social security benefits, tax benefits, and family rate insurance discounts, among other things. All of the above are legal rights that don’t directly relate to a biblical definition of marriage at all, but can have a significant impact on the financial and personal lives of our country’s citizens.

Despite the fact that I cannot condone homosexuality with my faith, I do not think it is fair or in line with the philosophy of our country and a proper separation of church and state to deny these rights to same-sex couples. I do believe the marriage is ordained by God to be a union between one man and one woman, but homosexuals and homosexual couples are still human beings, for whom Christ died upon the cross, and citizens of this country, whose rights were paid for by the blood of the men and women in our military.

The only solution that I have been able to comfortably reach is the legal rights currently afforded to married couples should extend to any couples who have chosen to live with each other long term. This would obviously include married men and women as well as same-sex couples, but I could easily see it including heterosexual adults friends who have chosen to live celibate lives in the company of a friend. My primary concern is that God’s law is upheld to the greatest extent possible in this fallen world and that the church continue to cling fast to His Word, but I am also concerned with ensuring that the legal, political, and human rights of others are not infringed upon or taken away.

Nicholai Stuckwisch

Author at Conciliar Post


NOTE ON COMMENTING

As noted above, these perspectives are intentionally brief, and are intended as starting places for serious, faithful, and civil discussion about same-sex marriage. We ask that you remember this in your comments. Please keep comments on topic, civil, and as specific as possible. When addressing a specific perspective, please indicate at the beginning of your comment who you are addressing. Thank you in advance for your questions, insights, and for honoring Christ through your dialogue.

Various

Various

Round Table discussions offer insights into important issues from numerous Conciliar Post authors. Authors focus on a specific question or topic and respond with concise and precise summaries of their perspective, allowing readers to engage multiple viewpoints within the scope of one article.

Previous post

Social Justice Without the Resurrection Is Dead

Next post

Conflict Management