A religious case for gay marriage

Probably like some of you, I have been following the two same-sex marriages cases arguments in front of the Supreme Court. For once, I am an ex-lawyer, and so I found them to be fascinating. Secondly, I am also a Christian minister so anything affecting the well-being of human beings is of interest to me. Thirdly, religious arguments against same-sex marriage were aired quite often during the debates.

While listening to them, I was reminded by a friend about a piece I wrote in 2005 to a very good, conservative evangelical journal, making my religious arguments for same-sex marriage. The piece was rejected, with a VERY polite letter saying, that while they found it interesting and well argued, they could not print it. I took no offense, and continue to read the journal. 

However, given the plethora of religious voices against same-sex marriage, let me try to make a case for it. So here it goes - my pieces from 2005. The piece is old, but I think the jist of my arguments is still the same. 

Speaking out: why gay marriage would be helpful

It is not gay marriage that undermines families and the institution of marriage.  The fact that two men appear in City Hall to sign a civil contract called “marriage” is as harmful to the said institution, as the prevailing trend that brides tend to opt for other colors of their wedding dress, rather than for the long established and esteemed white. What does undermine the marriage is an ever growing absence of the sense of responsibility for our actions in our society, and refusal to face the more harsh consequences. It may shock some Christians but our gay brothers and sisters wanting to marry are allies in the fight to sustain that “honorable institution”.

In the past weeks I have read many articles on the issue of gay marriage. (...) However, before we indulge in the discussion, let us think about the background first. 

First of all, we need to distinguish two forms of marriage: the civil one and the religious one.

I will not even start to elaborate on the vast importance of the religious marriage. I will however, point out that the Bible is not only very much in favor of marriage but also excruciatingly honest about its failures: the story of David and Bethsheba is one example but another, not so often cited, is the embarrassing moment when our Forefather Abraham tries to pimp his own wife Sarah to king Abimelech (Gen.20). Not much of a role model for marriage is it? I would also point out that the Old Testament does not exclude polygamy, which we would, quite correctly find abhorrent in today’s society. In fact in Jesus’ times the royal family of Herod had an impressive record of having more than one spouse at one time, very often interchangeable between brothers and cousins. Christianity changed all that. Marriage was regarded as a sacred institution, the Roman Catholic Church elevated it to the status of one of the Sacraments. It took the church ages to transform societies but it managed to end the practice of sending away a barren wife by a husband, so that he could take another and procreate. Marriage was thus not tied to procreation but rather, to its possibility. Children were a gift of God, and He was free to grant to the wedded that gift or not. Even in the case of barren couples, the church was quick to point out that by living honestly and without children they bring forth and multiply other gifts of the Spirit. Even, when the Reformation reintroduced the possibility of divorce, the lack of children was not a reason, that would warrant such a radical decision. This was a great reinforcement (albeit more implicit than explicit) of woman’s rights in times, when women were always blamed for the lack of children. All these factors, at times more or less prevailing, have shaped the Christian understanding of the term marriage.

The second notion of “civil marriage” was from the start opposed, or at least not exactly parallel, to the religious connotations of the same institution. It is worth reminding many, that “civil marriage” is not another devilish invention of the Age of Enlightment. It drives from ancient Roman Law, where marriage of two people living under Roman ius civile (which meant a tiny group of free born Roman Citizens), was viewed as a contract regulating questions of property (meaning the assets but the wife as well!) and personal status of the parties. Marriage could have been entered upon by buying your wife (coemptio) or by simply “using her” and her estate (uzus). Only one form (confaerratio), had a vague religious context, but this form was reserved for the aristocracy and eventually fell into disuse. When the Christian Church became the religion of the state, it was quick to suppress these civil connotations, binding legal effects with a religious ceremony. However, it was never so successful, as the example of “common-law marriages” demonstrates. When the churches were divorced from the State in the 18th and 19th century, the States moved in to legislate on marriage – not for the sake of providing a secular theology behind the institution, but rather to have the irksome issue of assets clearly regulated in the legal order. Thus, since the 19th century the ideology behind the civil and religious marriage was different and has been slowly drifting apart with every year. A poignant example might be the fact, that unlike in church marriage, the consummation of the marriage or even the possibility of having children has disappeared from marriage legislation: a ninety year old may marry a eighty year old, though we know that these is no possibility of the couple producing offspring.

“Ok” you might ask “but what has to do with homosexual marriage or with your thesis in the beginning?”. Quite a lot.

Some Christians claim that the first casualty of the acceptance of gay marriage would be the very definition of marriage itself. But which definition are we talking about? No one is even claiming that the Massachusetts Supreme Court Ruling will force the Southern Baptists (to pick the most evident example) to accept gay marriage. Churches are free to keep their cherished definition of marriage that has sustained them for generations: that matrimony is a union of one man and one woman to which God may in his infinite wisdom and mercy bring or not children. Some will retain it, some like the United Church of Christ have moved to new definitions, which they are free to do. Members of these churches are also free to agree or disagree on their church’s stance.

What about the civil definition? Now, here the State has moved to another direction. It wants a marriage to be a union of two people, who promise to live together, accepting the legal responsibility to help each other, and take care of each other in times of trouble. The state offers to help out with legal and fiscal incentives. In fact, the State helps to stabilize as much as possible the said union, in the troubled times as ours. Marriage is not only a legal promise made by two individuals to each other in front of a legal officer to support one another but also the State promising to go to all possible legal and reasonable aims to help that contract be fulfilled. The fact that these two individuals will now be Adam and Steve as well as Adam and Eve does not alter at all the civil understanding and definition of the contract or commitment.

Some argue that gay monogamy is not so monogamous after all, but (by accident?) fail to analyze whether “straight” monogamy is always in fact monogamous as well. The sad story of many marriages we all know from our lives or from the court house (where I have worked) point to another, sad picture. So, if marriage stabilizes heterosexual relationships, as the authors seem to imply, why blame gay relationships for their assumed instability if that benefit has been denied to their unions? Even more: why continue to deny them that benefit? I will come back to this point.

Opponents of gay marriage claim that gay marriage will be bad for children claiming it will add to the number of suicides, personal problems, problems with their sexuality. Again, wider scientific research on that issue is missing, and the Authors overlook one important fact: nearly 99% of toady’s children are raised in heterosexual families. If the suicide rate of our children is such a problem, their problems so grave, then using that logic it is the present heterosexual marriage that is harmful to children. Now, we all know that this is not true and the truth is never so clear cut: marriages that are violent, that insult God’s love for us and for his gifts, marriages that have alcohol, drugs, and sexual problems cause the problems described above. Instead of repeating clichés about gay marriage, which does not even exist in the U.S., let’s look with humble hearts and in the fear of God at straight and “godly” marriages before turning to extract specks in other’s eyes and prophesy out of tee cups.

The last and most celebrated point is the statement that “gay marriage would be bad for society”.

What society?

My parents have been married for the past 30 years, my Grandmother was married for 50 years. For most of my colleagues such numbers are unbelievable are tend to be looked like world championship records. I have lived in Poland, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and I now I live in the United States. All These countries are quite different, believe you me, but have one thing in common: the complete disappearance of the word “responsibility” in everyday language. Our western culture has gone to incredible pains to remove, obliterate or forget that word in every possible context. Home, work, society or even church, we love having the choice (isn’t this, what democracy is about?), making the decisions but when unpleasant consequences come: we run faster the Speedy Road Runner in the cartoon! My friends are happy to leave a relationship, rather than work on it – and I don’t mean only sexual or intimate ones. Marriage is regarded in our society as a happy and increasingly expensive celebration of love or even sexual compatibility, rather than a celebration of human love. It may be God’s gift, but is a very precarious gift! It won’t help if on the day of the marriage itself, the preacher elaborates for hours about the similarity between the cross and marriage. If the couple did not hear it before, receiving the information on the day itself will only cause frustration with the preacher and giggles in the pew, rather than a reflection that will last .

We need to change ourselves and then to change our children. We need to teach them and ourselves, that a committed and stable relationship accepted by law and called “marriage” is a society in a miniature, where we all interact, were there is love but also frustration at times, failure and pain. We need to be like the Bible – brutally honest about the struggles a marriage involves, and the effort it takes to make it work: our common effort. We need to show that marriage is a deeply thought over decision, taken in the fear of God to take responsibility for our love for another person. That decision, being so big and demanding makes us turn to God to ask for his help, since without his help, all our efforts are in vain and ultimately will fail. Finally, having said all that first, we then have the integrity to tell the society that marriage can work and is worth the effort. Because it is a reflection of Christ’s love to humankind and to his church. It transforms us, it moves us to do things un thought of before, it heals, it is one of the strongest witnesses we can have.

So, if we point to the society the benefits of marriage, its commitments and responsibilities, let us show that it can work for both Adam and Eve, as well as Adam and Steve. The fact that groups so diverse choose to enter into a committed and legalized relationship it and make it work will be proof that it is not only meant for saints or religious fanatics, but it is meant for anyone who chooses in good faith to enter it.

(...)

When I speak with my skeptic friends about marriage I don’t only give my parents and grandparents as an example. I look to other friends, to other marriages I know. So, as shocking and unorthodox this might sound, I also give the example of a Dutch Reformed Church Minister I know, who has been living with his male partner for the past 20 years. If, as Andrew Sullivan states marriage “will bring gays home”, then Christians should be the first people to walk with them there! Let us not be snobs or selfish and share the joy and responsibility of marriage with others who desire it. The sky will not fall on our heads.