LCMS ‘tweet chat’ draws dozens of questions about marriage

Comments (4)
  1. Carol Rutz says:

    “All people can love whomever they choose, but that doesn’t give them the right to redefine marriage.”

    *devil’s advocate on*

    All religionists can worship whoever they choose, but that does not give them the right to impose their rules upon those who do not follow their path.

    1. Dave Hodson says:

      @Carol Rutz

      You said:

      “All religionists can worship whoever they choose, but that does not give them the right to impose their rules upon those who do not follow their path.”

      I’d respond:

      You are right, Christians have a right to worship as we choose in this country. Chrisitians also do not have the right to impose their rules on others under either the civil law, or God’s Law; it is God who will judge our actions.

      To you I would say:

      Let we Chrisitians have a voice in this debate in our civil courts too.


      Those who disagree with you are not always seeking to “impose” their beliefs upon you.

      We Christians do have a right to vote our conscience, and we also have a responsibility as good citizens to advocate our conscience. Our conscience says that redefining marriage to include gay marriage as the same as traditional marriage is wrong.

      To us, because of our faith, we require no further rationale for this beyond “God says so”. In a civil debate however, especially one in our country where so many differing views prevail, that is not necessarily enough suasion to carry forth our view point. When we move beyond a simple attestment to our faith, and start to include other practical considerations that such a radical shift in societal norms might bring into our side of the arguement, that does not mean we are seeking to “impose” our beleifs on anyone – at least not to any greater or lesser degree than those who advocate for gay marriage are seeking to impose their beliefs on others.

      In no case which I know of do we hear Christians, at least not LCMS Christians, advocating the use of coercive force should this Supreme Court decision go agaisnt us.

      As such, your assumption that we ARE trying to “impose” our beliefs upon others is insulting, and shows either a misunderstanding on your part of our motives, or a purposeful attempt to color our motives in a darker, more sinister shade than they display upon their own merits.

      I would like to gently remind you of Exodus 20:16 ESV:

      “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”

      …and also remind you that by assuming a position which implies there should be a limit to Christian inclusion in civil debate in our country you are the one who is, in fact, “imposing” your beliefs on others.

      Christians have a right in our country to speak, and vote, their conscience too!

      Thank you for this chance to express my thoughts on your post.

      Yours in Christ,

      Dave Hodson

      1. Stacy Gatz says:

        Dave, that is an excellently balanced and clear response, absent of the harsh tone with which many so-called “tolerant” people deliver their comments. Thank you for making the point so eloquently.

  2. Carol Rutz says:


    Thank you for responding. I am glad there is no vitriol. I do not intend to say that Christians should restrict their speech or participation. Far from it!

    The deal is that this nation was born under the Enlightenment and the Founders (mostly Deists) thought that religion was mainly good for morality. This nation is not what people call a “Christian Nation” (that is, a nation run according to ‘Christian’ ideals with Christianity as the de facto American Civil Religion) but a nation in which all citizens can participate. I only see three ‘natural laws’ when it comes to American governance– life, liberty, and property. I do not see how any couple straight or otherwise threaten my rights to my life, my liberty, and my property.

    I do not need a government to get permission to be married. I go to my church to get married. This is why I advocate privatization of marriage and only go to the state for codifying legal contract. (Keep in mind that my views need fine tuning.)

    Disclosure, I am a civil libertarian and a minarchist, pro life as well. I do hold a quia subscription to the Book of Concord.