Same Sex Marriage and the Church

Running head: SAME SEX MARRIAGE AND THE CHURCH
SAME SEX MARRIAGE AND THE CHURCH
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1SAME SEX MARRIAGE AND THE CHURCH
Introduction: Statement of Purpose
In the modern statist context, the issue of the relationship of the state and the church is a
matter of concern with regard to the formulation of legal statutes that shall be conducive to the
applicability of all social contexts. For the purpose of the drafting of value free and objectively
applicable laws, it is necessary that they are secular, and that is possible by means of separation
of the church and that state. For instance, the general outlook of the church on contentious issues
like same sex marriage is generally negative, however all sections of the population do not
subscribe to the Christian faith, hence having a legal set up which condemns same sex marriage
citing the generally held view of the Church is wrong on an objective basis, especially in a
multicultural set up like that of the United States of America.
For the present purpose, the discussion shall be dealing with the political dynamism of
the relationship between the church and the state and on the basis of it, the most befitting stance
of the church on same sex marriage with regard to the opposing or supporting or remaining
neutral to the legalization of the same sex marriages by the government of the United States of
America shall be analyzed.
Relation between the Church and the State
According to the Horton (2013), the dynamism of the relationship between the biblical
ethics and the generally applicable code of ethics is something which is disparate but not
necessarily irreconcilable. The view of the church on certain social issues is based strictly on a
moral standard based on divinely sanctioned principles, while the laws of the state are based on
the principle of justice which has to be free of any value predisposition that is not rational as per

2SAME SEX MARRIAGE AND THE CHURCH
the Enlightenment principles. Hence Horton (2013) has opined in favour of the separation of the
church and that state, by arguing that the Bible has stipulated the exercise of discretion for the
securing benefit, hence the separation of the Church and the State is something which is
sanctioned by the Bible in the verses from Mark 12:17, “Render to Caesar the things that are
Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.”
McQuilkin and Copan (2013) also echo similar sentiments like that of Horton (2013),
with regard to the relational dynamics between the church and the state. McQuilkin and Copan
(2013) opines that the Biblical conception of ethics is a compendium of eclectic values and some
of which are antithetical to the modern values cherished by the state. The scope of the
applicability of the Biblical principles are limited while the state has to cater to a wide range of
audience who need not be willing to abide by the Biblical conception of morality. Also the Bible
has mandated the exercise of discretion which is immanent in the verse, “My kingdom is not of
this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might
not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world”, John 18:36, and that
also hints at the separation of the church and the state.
In Timothy 5:21, it has been instructed, “I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ
Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of
favouritism.” Butz and Carvalho (2015) have in their studies proven that the Americans tend to
associate themselves with the Christian identity and that string adherence to the Christian
identity has led to a behaviour of favouritism towards the Christian Association against other
communities. Such behaviour is not encouraged by the Christian teachings, hence to counter
such instances the separation of the church and the state must be effected.