"Gay Mawwiage"

Because I'm too lazy to put together an actual essay on same-sex marriage, I'll just string together some general reflections on the topic that may or may not make sense:

The church has lost its leverage. Because of high rates of divorce/adultery/porn-addiction/scandal, the church has been lax in presenting a biblical model of marriage. Like the Israelites who appalled their Canaanite neighbors with their perversion and violence, it rings hollow when Christian leaders make lofty definitions of marriage to which they themselves don't seem to be able to adhere.

Marriage is about God. As a religious sacrament, the primary purpose of marriage is not to provide a context for sexual relations, to ensure the continuation of the human race, or to make sure that guys have someone on hand to keep them well groomed and fed. Marriage is primarily about God. It is a means through which we understand the Trinity and the relationship of Christ to the Church. It is a tool God uses to make us more like Him. As such, it is an agent of sanctification, a means of revelation, a model of reconciliation. Everything else is corollary.

There's no such thing as secular marriage. Therefore, marriage cannot be secular. This is not to say that a secular government may not allow couples or groups of people to enter into legal arrangements that share characteristics with marriage. Business partnerships, powers of attorney, adoption, civil unions all share some of the characteristics of marriage. But they are not marriage. Why? From a biblical perspective, marriage happens when a man and woman are joined together in a covenant relationship. It is something God does that may or may not be acknowledged by civil authorities or the church.

What business is it of theirs? If I accept the above statements, I must naturally ask why a secular civil government has any interest defining (or un-defining, for that matter) marriage. Frankly, it's none of their business, and the Florida and California ballot initiatives attempting to define marriage were intrusions of the state. It would appear that, out of fear, the church has validated this intrusion by lobbying for a constitutional definition of marriage. Granted, I understand the practical concerns, but isn't this setting a dangerous precedent?

So, what about "gay marriage"? Simultaneously, I must ask why secular gays are even interested in the sacrament of marriage--why are civil unions not enough? Just sayin' ...