Please join Ms. Hicks for a very special guest, Dr. Leonard Lovett, Theologian-Ethicist, Educator and Author, and an expert on relationships and marriage. After President Obama openly declared he is in favor of gay couples having the right to marry, Dr. Lovett wrote a poignant Open Letter To The Nation on his thoughts about this divisive debate. Please read the letter below and then join in by phone or chat-line and give your opinions, questions or thoughts, on the debate. This is not only a conversation about  morality and religion, but a serious discussion regarding the November election.


Dont Void the Warranty: A Christian Response to the Same Sex Marriage Debate

Rev. Dr. Leonard Lovett, Ph. D, Ecumenical Officer COGIC


It is not what President Obama said when he stated his support for same-sex marriage that constitutes the problem in the debate, but rather the timing and framing of the issue within the context of  politics as a public policy issue that constitutes the crux of the problem. The president has a right to his opinion as leader of one of the most powerful nations in the global village. With all due respect, the president is not God. We are admonished to render to Caesar what belongs to Caesars  and unto God what belongs to God. The family is one of the “orders of creation” fundamental to the perpetuation and maintenance of  the human species. It is unfortunate that the Marriage Amendment debate has emerged within the context of politics as a wedge issue thus forcing supporters on each side to make such an important concern an election choice that will ultimately decide the presidency of the United States of America.

After much reflection I am compelled to agree with the president’s statement affirming the rights of all citizens of our democratic republic to make their marital choice. It was implied that to deny persons the privilege to marry is to violate their basic right to equality under the law. I do not view this debate as a Civil Rights issue. This is a public policy issue with far reaching implications for Civil Rights. Once same-sex  marriage is viewed singularly as a Civil Rights issue it is no longer under the purview of Scripture. I will fight for the right of anyone to make the choice to marry whomever they chose even in what they perceive to be a “loving relationship.” As a Christian I am to demonstrate compassion toward such persons. I have been reminded that “compassion is mercy with work clothes on.” The difficulty comes when we attempt to legitimate such a union with the name Christian. As a public theologian-ethicist I am obligated to question the moral legitimacy of such a union. From the standpoint of public policy a civil union is a form of marriage that requires the state to make it legitimate. As a public theologian-ethicist I am required to ask whether we have permission to call such a union Christian?  Marriage as we have come to comprehend it is grounded in covenant which assigns a sense of responsibility and intrinsic worth upon the institution of marriage itself. Within the boundaries of covenant there can be no authentic  freedom without responsibility. Any attempt to enjoy freedom without responsibility leads to anarchy.

We do not change the rules of the game to accommodate the players.  My faith inspires and informs my societal frame of reference. My opinion is secondary to the One who thought me up. As a Christian theologian Scripture is my guide for faith and practice, not what society desires and embraces. When Paul the Apostle admonishes us not to “Be conformed to this world” it is another way of saying not to allow the world to force us into its mold. (Romans 12: 1) In simple Christian language, the world is human society without Christ. The manufacturers warranty on an automobile is intended to be a safeguard against anyone other than the authorized dealer repairing same. The warranty is voided when an unauthorized person tampers with the engine.

The metaphor is obvious. Scripture is our mandate and manual on marriage.  The manual unequivocally states that the sacred union of marriage should exclusively occur between male and female with the hope of procreation, recreation, permanence and uniqueness. Marriage between persons of the same sex has to be recognized as less than God’s ideal from creation. The very institution of marriage is bound by covenant  grounded in our Judaeo-Christian foundation of faith. To believe and/or to do otherwise is to alter the original institution  and render void the warranty and marriage will lose its sense of sacrality, character and purpose. Postmodernist thinkers would argue that it is a fallacy to ascribe any meaning to a text or even to the text’s author and views truth as a social construct that is relative. That it is the reader who establishes the meaning, and there are no controls that limit  the  meaning that can be imposed  This is a dangerous posture to leave the interpretation of the text (even Scripture) to even an uniformed reader. There are moral absolutes intended to keep us within the boundaries and framework of  some kind of foundational frame of reference. Without moral absolutes society would become as chaotic as a residential neighborhood without speed limits or constraints. We live in a moral universe that metes out serious consequences for anyone who violates its rules.

At this juncture in history we can ill afford to allow the same-sex debate to become a wedge issue that will keep us from voting at all. I have had to correct a few African-Americans who have been coerced to believe that a vote for President Obama is a vote against God. A refusal to vote constitutes a vote for the very person you oppose.  This is the same kind of flawed reason that gave Bush and the Republicans  four more years in 2004 when right wingers used abortion and the Marriage Amendment as wedge issues and successfully defeated John Kerry and Al Gore. My reading of the history of politics reveals that presidential elections are bought. I suggest that anyone interested in the surge of right wing politics in the sixties with the launch of the ultra-conservative Barry Goldwater in 1964 should read a 1984 book titled Ominous Politics by John S. Saloma III, a Harvard trained political scientist who taught at M.I.T. Millions of dollars were invested in multiple think tanks that gave intellectual validation to the strategies and claims set forth by right wingers. With the emergence of Ronald Reagan in the eighties they were well on their way. The “tough on crime” policies of Reagan that later led to mass incarceration of marginalized persons of color a point well argued by Michele Alexander in her now popular book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in a Color Blind Age. The warehousing of black and brown people of color making them felons for life has a direct correlation with the growth and power of radical right wing politics under the guise of law and order.

Michelangelo in his poignant painting  The Last Judgment is that of a man being dragged to hell with a look in one eye of dire recognition that hell is truth seen too late. Politics was never intended to dictate the nature and covenantal terms of marriage. The role of politics is to make life more humane  through organized means. To do otherwise is to violate the purpose of its calling in the world. Until then we are called  to witness and challenge the darkness of this world until the light seeps through.

*Disclaimer:  The views expressed are not the official views of the Church of God in Christ. I take full responsibility for the viewpoint shared in this brief response as a servant of the church


How do you feel about gay marriage? Call-in any questions or comments during the hour 1-877-500-9387 or chat-in.

Live Friday

10 am–11 am Eastern (7 am–8 am Pacific)

Call in 877-500-ZEUS (9387)

Click orange LISTEN Button, upper right corner


Listen to Live Show over Phone at 646-652-2071

Chat in

Archives & Podcasts