In the past, Rick Warren has taken issue with the redefinition of marriage. He has said time and time again, “For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion — this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews — historically, marriage is a man and a woman… I just don’t believe in the redefinition of marriage.” [1] The issue is that our current definition of marriage (that is the Western, Christian notion of the marriage institution in the U.S.) has not existed for 5,000 years, let alone existed across cultural or religious boundaries. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to cover every single ancient culture and religion, but we can understand marriage and family as it pertains to Christianity. We will also notice that despite Warren’s attempt to entice Christians to believe marriage is unchanging, marriage has changed by definition and practice throughout history.

5,000 years ago would take us back to Sumerian culture in Ancient Mesopotamia and Babylonia. The Old Testament book of Genesis refers to Sumeria as the land of Shinar (Gen. 10:10). There existed several forms of marriage and the family unit perhaps due to overpopulation, including celibate wives, marrying (much like our understanding of adopting) the bride’s brothers to form a family clan, bringing in slaves as part of the family unit, and even nuclear families. Families could be a fratriarchy where the eldest brother ruled the home. For the most part, marriage was a commercial arrangement though the groom also received payment or gifts for marrying. Unlike today, polygamy was possible up to two wives, wives were as young as 12 years of age, and grooms were well into their thirties since commonality and companionship was not as important. [2]

Though marriage was defined, as Warren suggests, “by a man and a woman” marriage and family in Sumeria was also defined by a man, a woman, her children, and her brothers; a man, a woman, and another woman; a man, a woman, their children, and their slaves, and so forth. There was absolutely no understanding of Western, Christian marriage between one man and one woman. Even if we took the time to investigate every culture and religion in history, our concept of marriage would come thousands of years later, after Christ’s death at the end of the Medieval era, argued during the Protestant Reformation, solidified by the Puritans, celebrated in the Victorian period, and then epitomized by 1950s television, film, and culture.

[1] Beliefnet Video, Accessed 5/19/2009
[2] Life in the ancient Near East, 3100-332 B.C.E., Daniel C. Snell, p. 51-54

News can go viral instantly in today’s age. With much anticipation, many Twitterers were excited to learn today that the California Supreme Court overturned the marriage ban via other Twitterers, including myself. As soon as I heard the news, I sent word out to my followers and Facebook friends citing that I was happy to see the ban overturned; that there’s been no greater injustice during my lifetime then to deny civil rights to LGBT and I was going to celebrate with a beer. Instantly, my followers began re-tweeting until I looked at the date of the article cited from the Los Angeles Times – May 15, 2008, exactly one year ago from today. (Article)

How did this happen? From my Twitter @aoflores:

The first mention of the CA gay marriage rumor was by @femmetron 5 hrs ago. But they didn’t say it was a current decision.

It appears that @QueerSpawn then claimed a strike of CA gay marriage ban an hour later.

He get’s it right. RTstuartgaffney One year ago today — May 15, 2008 –”California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban” – 1 YR AGO!

I believe @laerkin was 3rd in CA gay marriage rumor followed @jtwb568. 2 hours into it, the rumor was viral on Twitter.

This is a real bummer for Twitter, typically a great way to get information about – that is, unless it’s the wrong information out on one of the most important civil right decisions of our time.

Is the LA Times to blame as well. Supposedly, they tweeted a link to story earlier on their site which has since been deleted.

So who started the CA Gay Marriage Ban Twitter Rumor? We did. We all did.

UPDATE: The LATimes article now says that article is an ARCHIVE STORY. This wasn’t on the story earlier today.

I just got an email from my mother-in-law who yesterday dropped me from Facebook. She made a really good point, “My reason for being on FB is clearly different from yours. I just want to keep connected in a light and airy way with my family and friends.” Her comment got me thinking about how the relationship between Twitter and Facebook creates content awkwardness.

Twitter was created to answer the simple question, “What are you doing?” The same reason why statuses were originally created in Facebook. Do you remember the Facebook name followed by the word “is?” Originally, users were suppose to tell Facebook what they were doing, like:

AO is writting a note.

Somewhere along the line “is” was dropped and became “What’s on your mind?” – a open invitation for Facebook users to tell their Friends what they were thinking about. From reading Facebook statuses, I don’t get the feel that most Facebook users have noticed the change. Facebook users still post mainly random updates about their routine lives giving Facebook a privatized but glorified address book feel, which in addition allows users to know there long lost friend in High School just ate Mac-n-Cheese after using the bathroom. In return, friends post what they are doing. Since no one really cares, nobody really pays attention except that small percentage of friends that regularly interact anyhow.

That’s so 2008 for Facebook! The social media medium is growing up and harbors so much more power for dialogue, networking, learning and community that most Facebook users are not-in-the-know (even though users can add media from a variety of sources today).

Twitter hasn’t changed it’s original question by sticking with “What are you doing?” even though many users send Tweets containing information, links, resources, and opinions about various subjects. In fact, you can’t sustain followers on Twitter if you are not providing significant content or engaging conversations. Only certain followers can tolerate updates about your daily life or what the cutest thing your child has done. The majority of users just don’t care about each others daily routines unless the user first and foremost provides interesting content. No longer is Twitter really asking “What are you doing?” but instead asks Facebook’s question much better than it can.

Many Twitter users, like myself, syndicate their stream into Facebook to carry on conversations outside of the Twitterverse. A problem emerges when two different questions are being asked and most Facebook users are not catching on to the fact that Facebook no longer is asking, “What they’re doing?” Some Facebook users are left wondering why some Friends are telling them a lot more than they want to hear or know. (My sweet Mother-in-Law just cares to know is how my day is going and what my kids are up to. Instead, I’m engaging in Twitter heated conversations about sex, gay marriage, politics, and religion.) Content obviously can become intrusive, invasive, and impermissible highlighting that there are those of us who use Facebook as an address book and others who are pushing the medium towards it’s fullest potential powering it by Twitter. Facebook doesn’t exist in a vacuum either, but often conversations make there way to our Facebook pages from our various online presences, including blogs, other social networks, and Twitter using Facebook like a receptacle for online conversing. This is a very different user mentality than maintaining an address book and users are always privy to the entire discussion at length.

Possible solutions. Facebook has recently added a hide Friend feature as well as separate lists. There are Friends who I honestly would love to stay in contact with, but don’t care what they are doing every moment of the day. These friends are hidden allowing me to visit their pages when I wish. I also have lists for High School Friends, Family, Thought Leaders, Close Friends, etc. so I can click on the content I wish to view more selectively. Unfortunately, users have no option to select which content is for which list, but perhaps before we go deleting Friends we should wait until Facebook evolves. Meanwhile, hide and organize your Friends so you don’t have to worry about content awkwardness and the stress of ending online friendships.

Contrary to popular Christian belief, it is not always so easy to determine what is sin, and what is not sin. Those who argue that the Bible is black and white on issues of sin neglect to take Scripture as something that is constantly in tension and not always in complete harmony with itself. This tension, for anyone who studies theology, is quickly realized and the Christian religion becomes a faith that includes a lot more gray.

This is not only true today but also in Paul the Apostles time, as he often gave his best answer to many “moral” issues of his time (Corinthians). Paul did not try to give concrete black and white answers, but understood the mystery apparent in faith and the cultural issues at hand allowing grace to be applied to the practice of Christianity. I will call that practice of grace “ethics,” but will get to that a little later. Additionally, the early church mindset was for Christ to make a speedy, at any given moment, return within their lifetime and not 2000+ years from then. Perhaps, if they would had had a different expectation their moral advice wouldn’t seem as temporal or fitting solely for that time. But was it intended to be in the first place or merely the moral outcome to be achieved in their specific situation – an applied ethic?

Even today, the Bible still does not answer all of our questions to moral issues. What the Christian should consider to be sin stems from understanding which Biblical mandates and directives are cultural, and knowing which one’s are timeless. The most religious of Christians will hold to the “letter of law” suggesting that every “do not” is a timeless description of sin for every culture and every generation to come. A fast, hard approach to sin which often gets praise from conservative Christians. The problem with this approach is creating an unpractical form of Christian religion bound by irrelevant laws (i.e. women with head coverings, etc.). It seems that every generation and culture has had the grace to determine what is morally right or wrong on these not-so-obvious moral issues within it’s society. I call this Social Ethics, specifically normative, applied and descriptive ethics on social issues.

Today in Christianity, applying Social Ethics is called soft, relativistic, and perceived as a weak approach to Scripture. The fear is if we can make moral decisions on not-so-obvious issues, where do we stop. Soon people will also make moral decisions about what’s obviously immoral. The reality is, we make decisions based on morals everyday so we are constantly doing ethics, even on obvious sin issues like murder. Morals become about ethics and ethics is always harder to practice because there is so much grey. Being ethical is the practice of morality afterall and it has never been acceptable to just know the moral answers, but to also understand the ethical implications.

Anyone who does this will find it that much harder to call, sin “sin” since understanding leaves those people in sympathy and empathy with other human beings striving to be as “right” as possible in often wrong situations.

NOTE: Definition of term: Ethics is two things. First, ethics refers to well based standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well founded reasons.

Original posted to my old blog August 2007:

Ah, completion. Everyone wants to be completed by someone else. It’s a romantic ideal to believe that out there in the universe is someone who will complete us. We believe that something is missing within us as people that can only be found when we meet the perfect somebody. If the person were engaging doesn’t happen to be someone we find ourselves completed by, we seek someone else who can complete us more fully. We are often on the constant search to find the one person who fulfills us completely.

We rarely consider that everyone we meet, everyone we come into contact with, everyone we have any sort of relationship with has value and worth apart from completing us. Instead, we’d prefer to seek relationships on the basis of how we feel fulfilled. It’s cliche, but it’s reality. We want to say or at least think, “You complete me.” Sounds cheesy, huh?

But everyone we meet adds value and worth to our existence. Anyone can bless you by who they are and what they have to offer. Whenever two hearts collide and soul partnerships are formed, no matter if its for a brief period in time or for a lifetime, we add something to one another. We do not add something to each other, because we are incomplete. Rather, we amplify what’s already completed in someone else by what’s already completed in us.

Relationships, including marriage, shouldn’t be about selfish completion. It’s rather narcissistic when somebody desires a relationship to complete their self or fill what’s missing. Possibly, many relationships and marriages end when one partner senses that they are no longer completed by the other partner who once completed them. Was it their job to complete them in the first place?