A Detroit “pastor” is suing the state of Michigan claiming infringement on his religious freedom. That’s becoming an increasingly normal headline. The problem with that headline in this case is the damage this “pastor” is causing to marriage and the Gospel.

Neil Patrick Carrick was a “pastor” with the United Church of Christ. This is, presumably, a quasi-denomination not serious about being true to the Gospel or God’s design for marriage. Mr. Carrick – because I really have a hard time referring to him as pastor – believes in same-sex “marriage” and wants the freedom to marry homosexuals in his church. Carrick not only wants the freedom to marry homosexuals but also to marry people in polygamous relationships as well.

Carrick recently commented that laws defining marriage between one man and one woman result in the state engaging in “the disparate treatment” of gays, lesbians and “plural relationships.”

“Churches should have the right to marry who they want to marry. I’ve been told by others that ‘we would love to marry (gays and lesbians) but we can’t because we would be breaking the law. The state of Michigan does not have the right to tell us what to do in our church.”

I agree with him: the state does not have the right to tell any pastor what to do in his church. But Carrick fails to recognize the authority of God’s Word in defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Accepting and celebrating what God calls sin is sin itself. God surely has the authority to tell His church what to do in the place dedicated to worshipping Him.

Carrick also takes things a step farther by advocating for polygamous marriages as well. And once again we can see the truth of the “slippery slope” argument traditional marriage advocates have been warning about all along. Only the most naïve of persons at this point would dare claim that legalizing same-sex “marriage” will not lead to legalized polygamy, polyamory, pedophilia, adult incest, or bestiality. I’d say any person making such a claim has clearly not kept up with the news (time to read something other than Facebook).

It’s not a hard conclusion to reach. Here’s how the “logic” works: if homosexuals are allowed to marry because they are two consenting adults that love one another (as a result of their inherent sexual orientation), then what right – moral or legal – does the government have in banning any other union? If the government redefines marriage to accommodate homosexuals, what possible moral or legal ground could it justifiably use to ban any other union?

If marriage is simply a government contract recognizing the legal union of two consenting adults then there is no reason to prohibit such unions between three people, a man and 4 women, a father and his adult daughter, a man and his goat, or any other variation you can imagine. Mr. Carrick has obviously, then, fallen for the deception that marriage is simply a government contract. If Mr. Carrick knew that marriage was a holy and sacred union during which solemn vows with God were exchanged, he surely would not be so quick to support marriages God neither recognizes nor condones.

Sadly though, Mr. Carrick is just one of many in our society that has lost the true meaning of marriage. A sentiment true of just as many Christians as non-believers. The evidence of this is clearly seen in the epidemic of people pretending to be married (i.e. cohabitating). Rather than understanding that marriage is a sacred union intended to make us holy, our society believes that marriage is primarily about joint benefits and tax breaks. This fact alone is a strong indicator that the effort to redefine marriage is finding success.

And what about Mr. Carrick. Am I the only one that wonders how long it took LGBT activists to find him? Maybe I’m out in left field here, but it seems that there is a concerted effort to find clergy that are willing to endorse same-sex “marriage and even sue the government for the “right” to marry homosexuals. It’s not lost on me that most of these clergy are from denominations struggling to survive; many risk extinction as younger generations go elsewhere.

Is it possible that this lawsuit of Mr. Carrick’s has been prompted by something other than heartfelt conviction? I don’t know, perhaps. What I will say is that Mr. Carrick has placed himself in the dangerous position of simultaneously supporting what God calls sin while claiming to speak for God. Not a position any sane person would desire.

I’ll go ahead and issue this rebuttal to Mr. Carrick for his edification: You’re right, sir that the state does not have the right to tell you what to do in your church. But God, as your sovereign Lord and authority, does. Since God has called homosexual behavior a sin you have no right to call it anything less. Therefore it is not the state that forbids you from performing same-sex weddings in your church (or out of it) but God Himself. Your argument is not with the state of Michigan, but with God.

Good luck, Mr. Carrick, with your lawsuit against God.