The Necessity of "Civil Unions"?

Most have probably heard by now of the documentary that premiered in Rome on Wednesday, October 21, 2020. The title of it is Francesco, and in it the pope endorsed same-sex civil unions. In it, he is seated on a gold chair. He claims that homosexuals are "children of God." Then he added the following words:

You can't kick someone out of a family, nor make their life miserable for this. What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered.

These words should be evaluated according to the Scriptures. Are homosexuals children of God? Paul says that former homosexuals can be children of God. Those who formerly committed other sexual sins are also children of God. The same thing is true of former adulterers, former idolaters, former sodomites, former thieves, former drunkards, former revilers, former extortioners, and those formerly covetous. Paul writes of all of these that they were washed, sanctified, and justified. The significant word is were. All these practices listed are sins, but they were given up (repented of) (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

Where is the Scripture that says people can continue in sin and be called "children of God"? Being a child of God is a privilege—not a right. "Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called the children of God!" (1 John 3:1a). Previously John had taught that Christians must walk in the light (1 John 1:7). Sure, we sin, but we do not practice sin; we do not walk in sin.

John touches on this topic more in 1 John 3. Practicing righteousness is the right course of action—an attempt to be like God (3:7). But the one who continues to walk in sin is of the devil (3:8). Verse 10 adds: "In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother." For this reason, those living in fornication or adultery give up the practice. Thieves reform; covetous people change their way of thinking. Everyone must cease practicing whatever sin he is involved with—except homosexuals. They get to continue. Not. But that seems to be the impression most people have.

If an action is defined as sin in the Bible, then the practice must stop. So, is homosexuality classified as a sin? Only one individual has the correct answer to this question—the One Who made us. What a college professor or a high school teacher thinks doesn't matter. What a pastor, preacher, priest, or rabbi thinks is irrelevant. What an athlete or an entertainer believes is of no consequence. None of them created us, and none of them will judge us. Jesus, the One Who gave His life on the cross for our sins, will serve as our Judge (John 5:27). Only His blood washes away sins.

What Does the Bible Say?

The Bible does not speak of "civil unions"; it talks about marriage. In the beginning, God created one man and one woman (Gen. 1:26-28). They were fruitful and multiplied. God did not create two men, two women, one man with multiple wives, one woman with multiple husbands, or a commune of men and women who could be involved with each other at will. God established a pattern, which He did not change.

Some men tried to change it in Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar. God destroyed all but the smallest of those cities because men had perverted God's system. This would have been a perfect time for God to say, "These are all my children, it is simply an alternative lifestyle, and I will institute something besides marriage—civil unions." Instead, He cast them out of His family by thoroughly destroying the cities (Gen. 19)!

If that was not the right time to change the pattern of marriage He established, then He could have done so when He gave the Law of Moses. Read it from beginning to end, and look in vain for "civil unions." Instead one will find, "You shall not lie with a male as with a female. It is an abomination" (Lev. 18:22). Two chapters later, the penalty is pronounced: "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a female, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them" (Lev. 20:13). What? Didn't God take into account that they were in love? Sure. Many who commit adultery are "in love" with each other, too. They also were to be put to death (Lev. 20:10).

Well, then, surely the New Testament reverses this trend. It's 1500 years later, and love is mentioned frequently; surely God would allow homosexuality and civil unions to occur. Absolutely not! The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write these words:

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use of the woman for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting (Rom. 1:26-28).

The New Testament contains many other verses on the subject (fornication includes homosexuality—Gal. 5:19-21 and Col. 3:5), but these are as plain an any. The Bible is clear and consistent all the way through—from beginning to end. Homosexuality is sin!

"Kicking Them Out"

How ironic that the pope complains of "kicking them out"! Who has always practiced excommunication? The Bible speaks of withdrawing fellowship from the ungodly. Paul wrote to Corinth concerning a man living with his father's wife. Brethren should have mourned this situation but did not. Paul therefore commanded them to deliver this man "to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor. 5:5). Christians must not associate with sexually immoral individuals in the church (v. 9).

When Christians refuse to fellowship a fellow Christian, he is, in effect, turned over to Satan. In this person's case, he would need to ask himself: "Did he desire to continue living with this woman whom he was not authorized to be with, to indulge his fleshly desires—or would his Christian family's withdrawal of fellowship cause him to re-evaluate his actions?" If he was serious about being a Christian, he needed to leave that woman. Neither an adulterer nor a homosexual can continue to live in sin and be accepted by the church.

The pope said, "You can't kick someone out of a family…." Presumably, he meant the spiritual fellowship to which an individual belongs. But he is wrong. The Bible not only teaches that the church can; she must. The purpose for it, however, is not to be mean; the design of withdrawing fellowship is to bring about repentance. It does not always succeed, but that is its goal. It worked with the man in 1 Corinthians 5. In 2 Corinthians 2:6, Paul writes that the punishment "inflicted by the majority" was sufficient.

Not everyone responds the way that brother did. Some will perceive the withdrawing actions of the church to be done in love and will repent. Others will grow angry and further harden theirs hearts, as Pharaoh did. Those lacking humility will probably say, "Who do they think they are to treat me like this?" Some of these will become atheists; others will try to remain religious, justifying their sinful actions to themselves. They will find a religious group (that ignores the Bible) that will accept them as members. This new group will make them feel as though they are children of God, but they are not.

The pope added that Christians should not "make their life miserable for this." As demonstrated above, we do want to make their lives spiritually miserable. None of us wrote the Scriptures; none of us possesses the wisdom to know how to treat others in various situations. For that reason, God reveals to us what should be done. Only one thing will cause another to repent—disapproval. If we act as if nothing had happened, or if we pretend that certain actions will have no bearing on fellowship, then no one will feel compelled to re-evaluate his behavior. What Paul mandated in 1 Corinthians 5 did not come from his mind—they were the commandments of the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37). Of course, we have no desire or authority to inflict physical misery.

"Civil Union"

This one is difficult to figure out, since it is not a Biblical concept. Neither word occurs in the King James, let alone their appearing together. So, what is a civil union, and who is entitled to participate in one? According to the online dictionary, a civil union is "a legally recognized union with rights similar to those of marriage, created originally for same-sex couples in jurisdictions where they were not legally allowed to marry." Hmm. So, what do these words mean? They appear to refer to having the rights of marriage without being married. In other words, the two in the "civil union" are not married, but we're going to pretend as though they are—so that they can get the legal benefits that those who actually are married would be entitled to. This is gobbledygook.

And how long did it take, once civil unions became legal (just as when gold was discovered in Alaska and the rush was on) to now get it called "marriage"? Two males or two females cannot be married because this is not God's pattern (as previously demonstrated). "But," someone may protest, "our civil law calls it marriage." Right. And they might call a Volkswagen a BMW, but that won't change anything, either. One can call a pound of lead, balsa wood, but it will sink just the same. We can see this principle in secular matters; how much more should it be apparent with God's Divine institution of marriage?

But there is something insidious about the definition of civil law. Notice that it does not specify how many people may enter into it. What if a man and two women wanted to have such a "union"? Could we tell a Muslim who has four wives that they cannot have a civil union? Or a Mormon? What if several adults wanted to form a commune and share all their rights and properties; can we refuse them? If so, on what basis? The Supreme Court threw out the Biblical definition of marriage to legalize it for homosexuals. What are they now going to cite as a precedent to keep it from referring to multiple partners? If they argue that marriage has always involved only two individuals, it could be counter-argued that it always involved a male and female, also—until men decided to change it. The definition is now up for grabs.

The only safe thing to do is to abide by the wisdom that God gave man in the Scriptures. Marriage is designed for one man and one woman for life (Jesus provides one exception in Matthew 19:9). Civil unions involve nothing more than the wisdom of men used in such a fashion as to try to get around God's plan. God destroyed the cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim because they practiced sexual immorality (fornication). They went after strange flesh (male with male, female with female). God "kicked them out" of His family permanently, which happens to all who fail to repent of their sins. Furthermore, He set them forth as an example—that all who fail to repent will suffer the vengeance of eternal fire (Jude 7). Those participating in such sins need to know that they are sins and that they can give them up. Those in 1 Corinthians 6 did.