Part I. Theology
A summary of frequently heard arguments pro and con
On one hand
Many can and do use reasons based on scripture, nature and tradition to argue for an unchanging definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. They cite tradition; for example, The Book of Common Prayer: “Christian marriage is a solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God” (BCP 422). They wonder whether a western cultural movement towards group civil rights and individual choice, and against authority and tradition—a movement that, like all revolutions, can be excessive in its zeal and claims, and destructive of established goods--is a sufficient reason to alter an important doctrine and sacrament, marriage, and fundamental social unit, the family.
Opponents of same sex marriage cite the Lambeth 1998 Resolution (1.10) that “homosexual practice is incompatible with scripture.” The Resolution has in mind the obvious scriptural prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:26-26, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10—and resists revisionist readings that argue that these prohibitions did not have in view mutual and faithful loving partnerships between members of the same sex, which supposedly were unimaginable in biblical times.[i] But the Resolution also reflects a reading of scriptural texts that reinforce a view of the created world (“nature”) as inherently ordered toward complementary genders (“male and female he created them” Genesis 1:27) and as having procreation as the predominant reason (end and good) of sexual difference (“be fruitful and multiply” Genesis 1:28) and the care and nurture of children, then, as the primary end and good for marriage.[ii] Other reasons given for marriage in the traditional view-- “for mutual joy and support,” and, in the older Prayer Book rite, “as a remedy against sin”—are important but secondary. Marriage is to be commended and “honored among all people” (a reference to Hebrews 13:4: “Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and adulterers”) because it is the most socially approved and stable way to form the fundamental unity of human society, the family.[iii] Marriage also mirrors and symbolizes the union of God and Israel (the People of God) and Christ and the Church (the Body of Christ). Jesus blessed the marriage at Cana and took a hard line against divorce, suggesting that God’s intention in creation (quoting the Genesis passages cited above) was monogamous marriage, and God’s action in joining husband and wife (“what God has joined let no one separate”), a lifelong union.
Preserving the “sanctity of marriage” against the culturally corrosive forces of promiscuity and divorce is crucial to the health of the society, particularly its children.[iv] Conservative social critics believe that evidence from European countries that permit same sex marriages suggests it is a factor further weakening the institution of marriage, which for practical purposes has become little more than a nostalgic version of commonplace cohabitation—and another factor in a serious demographic decline. These are substantial reasons to oppose altering the definition of marriage; any proposal to alter them must not only make positive arguments of its own but also acknowledge and respond to these.
On the other hand
Many argue for a revision of the definition of marriage—or addition of a category of civil unions—to include gay and lesbian partners. The central argument is a plea for justice, an argument accepted on its merits in recent judicial decisions in states that allow same sex marriage.[v] Gay and lesbian persons deserve equal access to the civil rights of marriage (rights secured through civil unions) and also the legitimization and valorization of their relationships that the institution of marriage alone confers.
In responding to arguments based on scripture, proponents attempt to weaken the force and narrow the application of the biblical prohibitions. They argue that these are culture-bound, and misapplied to faithful same sex partnerships. For instance, the “Holiness Code” of Leviticus serves to create a separate and distinct people by decreeing social practices distinct from and often counter to those in the surrounding Canaanite culture. Such cultural boundary markers include diet, dress, and other practices that Christians have no tradition of following. Nor do we follow ancient sexual mores such as levirate marriage or consider “uncleanness” inherent in menstrual blood or semen. The prohibition against “lying with a man as with a woman,” refers, it is claimed, to the practice of homosexual prostitution, often aligned with cultic worship. Similarly Pauline prohibitions reflect a Jewish antipathy to loose Greco-Roman sexual mores, particularly the practice of older men seeking adolescent lovers, or powerful persons using the powerless for sexual gratification. These practices indeed are rightly prohibited, but, the argument goes, what was not in mind of the biblical authors—and therefore not prohibited--was a stable, faithful, mutually loving partnership between two members of the same sex.
This is primarily because the biblical worldview assumes a created order in which marriage is intended for procreation and procreation requires a male and female “one flesh union”—not quite the case today. The social worldview of the time, whether Hebrew or Greco-Roman, saw marriage as involving property rights and familial contracts—with less attention given to securing freely offered and accepted love. Ancient marriage was deeply patriarchal, often to the degree of countenancing polygamy and an exclusively male right of divorce; this is reflected and not condemned in the Old Testament, although Jesus certainly moves away from it—an exemplar of more weight than Paul.[vi] Most contemporary western Christians disagree with Paul where he advocates submission by women and the analogy of husband to wife as Christ to the Church (and wonder if men having long hair is necessarily “unnatural”). May we not also disagree with him on absolutely categorizing same sex passion as unnatural and idolatrous porneia? Careful biblical readers note that Paul’s own advice on marriage is framed as his opinion, not a command from the Lord (1 Cor 6;12, 7:25; cf. 6:10 where he explicitly writes that it is not he but the Lord who commands—a teaching on divorce).
Furthermore there are biblical counter voices. Although there are no supporting “proof texts,” proponents of same sex relationships point to a deep gospel principle of inclusion (Gentiles, the poor, and repentant sinners) and egalitarianism (in Christ there is no male or female, slave or free, Jew or Gentile). Though tradition may be conservative, there is in history a progressive trajectory towards justice and equal rights, and this trajectory rejects slavery and sexism, including heterosexism.
Arguments from nature against same sex relationships are also weak, proponents argue, in that nature is a shifting concept that includes fixed physical and instinctive animal natures as well as the more adaptable and “free” human nature. We no longer live in a “three tier world” of heaven above and hell beneath the earth; nor do we suppose that sexual orientation is always “naturally” heterosexual.[vii] Regardless of how much of our sexual desires are biologically encoded, they are also culturally formed; furthermore there are distinct differences between male and female patterns of same sex attraction, with women appearing to be much more fluid and men more fixed. All of this points to a need to suspend judgment on the etiology or “natural history” of sexual desire, while noting that increasing experience of the “normality” of same sex partners argues for, and not against, suitability for marriage and the nurture of children. Far from weakening the institution of marriage, proponents argue, the desire of gays and lesbians to get married show its value and increase its normative force. Allowing same sex marriage will help to stabilize an institution whose difficulties certainly cannot be laid at the feet of a class of people who have been excluded from participation.[viii] Furthermore, if one of the purposes of marriage is to serve as a “remedy against sin,” then it would appear that marriage might help mitigate patterns of promiscuity. It would also promote honesty and truth. Just as the Old Testament strongly opposed idolatry, so Jesus rails against hypocrisy. Acceptance of same sex attraction and the move into normative relationships will reduce the number of people pressured into pretence, and thereby forming unsatisfying and hypocritical marriages that ultimately benefit no one and result in divorce. Finally, as more and more gay and lesbian people freely commit to a “solemn and public covenant”—whether legally and ecclesially sanctioned or not—evidence of what Paul called “the fruit of the Spirit” may be discerned: lives of increasing mutual love, kindness, patience, gentleness and self-control (Gal 5).
[i] For a conservative response to liberal hermeneutics see Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001) chapter 5, “The Hermeneutical Relevance of the Biblical Witness” pp. 341-471.
[ii] Early Christian tradition was heavily influenced by the Hellenistic Stoic view of marriage as necessary for the establishment of households (oikos), which make up the city/state (polis) and populate the world (kosmos); marriage thus was a duty and its primary purpose was procreation. St Paul supported celibacy on similar grounds to the classical Cynic position (the classical debate partner on the subject with Stoicism) that the philosopher eschewed domestic and political entanglements in order to pursue wisdom (Sophia). This became, in Paul’s Christian revision, the choice of celibacy in order to concentrate “on the affairs of the Lord” rather than “the affairs of the world and how to please his wife [or, her husband]” (1 Cor 7:32-34). Philo among turn of first millennium Jewish thinkers also embraced this view. A recurring theme of his writing is his insistence that the goal of marriage is the procreation of legitimate children, not sexual pleasure. Early Christian writings from second and third century apologists (Epistle to Diognetus 6.4-6; Athenagoras, Legatio 33.1-2; Minucius Felix, Octavius 31.5; and Justin Martyr, Apology 1.27.1-3 and 29.1), all agree that the sole purpose of marriage is the procreation of children; for instance, Clement of Alexandria defined marriage as “the legal union of a man and a woman for the procreation of legitimate children” (Stromoteis bk. 2, chap. 23.137. 1,3-4). See Will Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). Stoic emphasis on “marital duty” (not pleasure) combined in the early church with an increasing emphais on worldly renunciation, and sexual asceticism in particular, to lead to glorfication of viriginity and demeaning of sexuality and other bodily pleasures. See Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Colombia University Press, 1988). John Chrysostom, although part of this ascetic movement, is a dissenting voice in regards to the primary purpose of marriage; in his view the primary purpose of marriage is to restrain promiscuity: “Marriage is not an evil thing. It is adultery that is evil, it is fornication that is evil. Marriage is a remedy to eliminate fornication” … “These are the two purposes for which marriage is instituted: to make us chaste and to make us parents. Of these two, the reason of chastity takes precedence…especially now, when the whole earth is filled with our kind” From Homily 1 on Marriage, in Eugene F. Rodgers, ed., Theology and Sexuality: Classic and Contemporary Readings (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), 87, 89.
Procreation as the primary purpose of marriage was reaffirmed as the position of the Episcopal Church in the 1922 report of the Joint Committee on Home and the Family, “[Marriage] is not an end in itself but the divinely appointed agency whereby God’s will may be fulfilled in giving life, protection, and proper rearing to the young of the human species.” As this last line suggests this period was influenced by social Darwinism, which led the 1922 General Convention to reject birth control as a threat to the “future of the race,” yet call for federal and state laws to regulate “the marriage of those who are physically or mentally defective” and to restrict reproduction among such, which leads “to an increase of misery and crime.” See Robert E. Hood, Social Teachings in the Episcopal Church: A Source Book (Harrisburg, Pa.: Morehouse Publishing, 1990), 138-139. Hood, 141, notes that “By the 1960s, the church’s mind about the purpose of Christian marriage and its relationship to family life had changed radically. In 1961, General Convention adopted teachings forwarded by the Joint Commission on Human Affairs. Citing the Encyclical Letter of the 1958 Lambeth, the commission said: “Although it is clearly a primary obligation of Christian marriage that children be born within the supporting framework of parental love and family support, it is not to be held from this that the procreation of children is the sole purpose of Christian marriage. Implicit within the bond between husband and wife is the relationship of love with its sacramental expression in physical union’.”
[iii] Note again the third reason given in the 1949 declaration of intention cited in endnote 3: “for the safeguarding and benefit of society.”
[iv] See, for instance, David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage (New York: Encounter Books, 2007). Blankenhorn and Elizabeth Marquardt work on parenthood and marriage issues through the Center for American Values; papers and other research may be accessed through their website, http://center.americanvalues.org/. Another socially conservative academic, sociologist James Q. Wilson, comes to similar conclusions and marshals a great deal of evidence in his book, The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2002).
[v] For instance, here is part of the California Supreme Court decision:
“While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children. As discussed above, because of the long and celebrated history of the term "marriage" and the widespread understanding that this word describes a family relationship unreservedly sanctioned by the community, the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples — while providing only a novel, alternative institution for same-sex couples — likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same-sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples.
Furthermore, because of the historic disparagement of gay persons, the retention of a distinction in nomenclature by which the term "marriage" is withheld only from the family relationship of same-sex couples is all the more likely to cause the new parallel institution that has been established for same-sex couples to be considered a mark of second-class citizenship.
Finally, in addition to the potential harm flowing from the lesser stature that is likely to be afforded to the family relationships of same-sex couples by designating them domestic partnerships, there exists a substantial risk that a judicial decision upholding the differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples would be understood as validating a more general proposition that our state by now has repudiated: that it is permissible, under the law, for society to treat gay individuals and same-sex couples differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals and opposite-sex couples.
In light of all of these circumstances we conclude that retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same-sex couples. Accordingly, insofar as the provisions of sections 300 and 308.5 draw a distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples and exclude the latter from access to the designation of marriage, we conclude these statutes are unconstitutional.”
[vi] From “The Good of Marriage” XV, in Rodgers, ibid., 82.
[vii] See Richard Norris’ unfinished paper, “Some Notes on the Current Debate Regarding Homosexuality and the Place of Homosexuals in the Church,” published in The Anglican Theological Review, Volume 90, Number 3 (summer 2008), 554. Norris, late a Professor of Church History at Union Theological Seminary, goes into some depth on the issues of scriptural interpretation and moral reasoning involved in this debate. I was privileged to have him, Christopher Morse and Phyllis Trible as teachers.
[viii] For statistical evidence that the strongest factors predicting success or failure of marriage are age and education, not commitment to the institution and religious faith see recent articles by Margaret Talbot, “Red Sex, Blue Sex: Do evangelicals practice what they preach?” in The New Yorker, November 3, 2008, 64-70; and Tim Stafford, “Educated for Marriage: The difference college makes,” in Christian Century, November 4, 2008, 11-12. These factors are heavily influenced by and predictive of poverty and single parenting—which also are heavily correlated.
No comments:
Post a Comment