Should a Christian Attend a Same-Sex Wedding So As To “Promote a Model of Acceptance”?

A father’s daughter was marrying another woman. Though he and his family were Catholic, the marriage would occur in another church since the Catholic church has clearly stated that they define a biblical marriage as being between a man and a woman, and thus will not allow such unions to take place in their churches. 

However, when this father learned that one of his sisters disapproved with his daughter’s choice to marry another woman, and possibly another sister would not attend, he went ballistic with anger.

What ignited him? One of the sisters drove three hours with her husband several weeks before the wedding to humbly share with her niece that they would not be attending the marriage ceremony because of their evangelical Christian convictions that marriage is between a man and a woman. And, because marriage was a sacred ceremony to them in the eyes of God, their presence would be sanctioning and blessing that marriage as though God sanctioned and blessed it. That was their understanding of what it means to be a witness. As is tradition, the pastor would ask the congregation if any objected to this marriage. Even though that practice finds little expression today, this same-sex marriage ran contrary to their conscience and convictions. They would not be a witness for God of that. Because same-sex marriage was legal did not mean they were free to endorse it. 

This husband and wife—the uncle and aunt—spent much of the time communicating their ongoing love for the niece and that their love did not cease because they disagreed with her decision. The niece understood. 

However, the father blew a gasket and told the daughter that her acceptance of their position was wrong. As a result, the niece returned to the common posture that her aunt and uncle were homophobic, hateful bigots.

This conflict echoes the reality the United States Supreme Court highlighted when they voted to approve gay marriage. 

Justice Kennedy wrote, “Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. warned that the same-sex marriage decision will be used not as a shield but as a club to crush dissent. “Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. E.g., ante, at 11–13. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.” 

The father of the bride held to the very position that Alito warned would ensue. The father’s wrath came from an inner aim to stamp out any vestige of dissent. In his eyes, rejecting the daughter was comparable to promoting segregation and keeping women barefoot and pregnant at home.

At present, the other sister wavers in her belief in attending. She has voiced that she now leans toward attending, whereas her husband leans toward not going. The sister has turned to others who have urged her to be a model of acceptance so that if the niece wishes to follow Jesus, this sister will have done nothing to undermine the niece reaching out to her to learn more about Him. 

But should we always enter settings that others invite us into lest our refusal prove to be an obstacle to that person coming to Jesus? 

Would you imagine with me a few other scenarios where the niece invites her aunt to events that she has good reason to disapprove of? Should she attend any of these despite her convictions, merely because she needs to maintain a “model of acceptance”?

What if the niece invites her to a cannabis party, and wants her to bring her cousins who are of age to smoke weed? What if the niece invites her aunt to a drag queen party in her college dorm and urges her aunt to bring her cousins to the risqué show? What if the niece invites her aunt and cousins to a defund-the-police protest where a violent demonstration will ensue? 

Should the aunt be concerned that if she says no to any of these, her decision might undermine her niece’s future faith in Jesus? For this reason, should she say yes to any and all invitations, “lest her refusal prove to be an obstacle to her niece coming to Jesus,” as some encouraged her?

Many people have no problem saying no to settings with drugs, drag queen sex, and violence. Why? The culture, by in large, still disapproves of such. The aunt would probably have no problem declining any invitation to such events, and would receive little to no backlash. Too, the aunt will have no friends say to her, “But if you say no to these settings, you are undermining the potential of bringing her to Jesus.”

So, what gives when this aunt waffles about attending a lesbian wedding? 

One, she is exposed to individuals who do not see gay marriage as culturally taboo. To them, same-sex marriage is all about love. They have no problem with a lesbian marriage because the secular culture has no problem with it. 

Two, she and others do not see this wedding as sacred but as a cultural event. And if they do see it as sacred, then they believe the marriage is blessed and sanctioned by Christ. This aunt needs to decide what she believes. But given she does not believe same-sex marriage is of God, then why does she not believe that Jesus grieves when such takes place? Or, will she conclude, along with some of her friends, “If Jesus were alive, He’d attend.” Of course, Jesus would not attend those settings with drugs, drag queen sex, and violence, but many whistle a different tune when it comes to same-sex weddings. 

This raises an interesting question: Do we believe what Jesus believes, or have we conformed Jesus into believing what we believe? 

Let’s consider several other settings. 

A father left his wife and four children. Later he divorced and pursued a relationship with another woman. He proposed marriage to her and invited his former wife and children to the wedding. They all refused to respond to the invitation and had no interest in attending. Broken-hearted over their feeling of betrayal and abandonment, all of them were in therapy to learn ways of coping with the pain and rejection of their father and husband. However, the father/husband and new wife went on social media blasting the family for their puritanical, bigoted, intolerant, and hateful position against the marriage. This was the twenty-first century, with no-fault divorce, and love is all that matters. The family ought to rejoice in the dad’s happiness, according to him. 

How silly. Few people would scream, “Get with it, family! Support your former husband and father! Go to the wedding!” I have never met a person who would encourage this family to celebrate the remarriage. Everyone would agree, this is asking too much and violates what this family believes is right and true. Just because the law of the land declares “No-fault divorce” does not mean there is no moral fault. People do betray others. 

Or consider a company’s board and leaders going to Las Vegas for their yearly leadership training. Of the twelve who attended, one gentleman, Brad, had recently come to Christ and now attended church. His life was filled with peace and joy, which he never thought possible. Several of the leaders in the company were curious about his change and observed him at the conference. That night the leaders planned to go to a gentleman’s club to watch strippers. Brad thought, “If I say no, they will tell me I am old-fashioned and like Queen Victoria, and possibly not want anything to do with my faith. Yet, I am happily married, and not only would this crush my wife, I know the Lord doesn’t want me to participate in this.” What should Brad do? 

Few people outside the situation would urge Brad to compromise his faith and values. Remaining true to himself, his faith, and his wife would not be held up as an example of dishonoring his associates. 

Brad could approach this from several angles. He could say, “I cannot join you since I know my wife would not be pleased, and it would be hard for me to keep back from her what I did. But, my not going isn’t my way of telling you to do what I am doing. I am just speaking for myself.”

He could also propose going out to dinner to watch more of a PG-13 event designed for families and which has reviews through the roof as one of the greatest Las Vegas shows of all time. 

Or, he could say, “Hey, I will join you for dinner, but I will go back to the boring hotel. I’ve made some new commitments in my life, and it would be best for me as a new Christian to learn to say no to things that earlier in my life I said yes to. I am not saying anything about what the rest of you should do. This is solely my issue.”

In other words, there are wise ways to approach these situations, which most people understand. Only a handful will frown upon such thoughtfulness.

Consider one more example, this one involving religious convictions outside of Christianity. A family hosted a dinner for their high school student’s friends. The main meal was pulled pork. A Muslim boy who came over respectfully informed the mother that he could not eat pork due to his religious beliefs. Is there anything else, he wondered, available for him to eat so that he could still enjoy the dinner with friends? 

Here is the question: Should this mother accommodate this Muslim boy or tell him that he is unkind, unloving, and intolerant of those who believe pork is tasteful and healthy?

Obviously, the mother should understand, empathize, and accommodate the Muslim boy’s faith and practice. He lived by certain dietary restrictions, and those should be respected. 

In this culture, with regard to eating habits, hosts often ask ahead of time, “Is there anything people cannot eat?” Furthermore, there are invitations that give people the right to opt out. “We invite you to our son’s bar mitzvah, but we recognize that some of you from other religious persuasions might feel uncomfortable in attending. So we fully respect your choice not to participate.”

This is how same-sex weddings should be framed for friends and family. “We invite you to this marriage, but if you hold contrary convictions for personal reasons, as the Supreme court addressed some people might, we understand.” Unfortunately, some of these same-sex marriages polarize because there is no other option in the father’s thinking above. The choice can only entail their choice, and to decide differently deserves wrath. 

As for this niece, if she was raised in a Catholic Christian environment and chose to marry another woman, she is moving away from her faith, not toward it. So if later in life she seeks help concerning the things of Christ, should she then turn to the aunt who compromised her beliefs and attended the marriage, or to the other aunt who drove three hours to lovingly inform her of her decision to not attend the ceremony? She will turn to the aunt and uncle who stood by their faith while also maintaining their steadfast love for her. 

Truth be told, this niece is not being won over to Christ by the aunt who is attending her wedding but is winning others over to her position. She may not be aware of that, but she is caught up in a culture that is very much about that.

Years ago, I learned of a son who had not wanted to follow Christ but later felt convicted about his disobedience. When younger, he had pushed his parents by telling them he was having his girlfriend stay the night and that they’d be taking drugs in the home, in the bedroom. Instead of his parents objecting, “Not in our home. We love you, but sorry, not here,” they bowed to him, thinking, “We need to be nice so he won’t reject us and may come back to Jesus.” But this son told me years later that their willingness to compromise their faith caused him to conclude their faith was not genuine. He was profoundly disappointed in his mom and dad and stayed away from Jesus, thinking it was a false faith. His parents thought that if they followed his choices, he would appreciate their acceptance of everything he did. But he soured against the faith for years longer than if they had remained faithful to their convictions. 

Again and again, in times of desperation, often such people turn to the individual who has remained true to their Christian convictions. Sadly, though, far too many Christians today have decided it best that they accept other’s views that contradict their biblical beliefs, oftentimes under the excuse that they believe doing so will keep the relationship open to bringing them back to Jesus if and when the opportunity comes. But as the son above proved, this is not the message they are sending. Instead they are communicating that they do not have a genuine faith.

The challenge before us is to model the uncle and aunt whose words and actions expressed both their genuine conviction to the Bible’s teachings and their genuine love for their niece. We do not have to choose between one or the other!