Let
marriage be held in honor
Why the
church does not recognize ‘gay marriage’
by
Alan F.H. Wisdom
November
2000
Law must
rest upon “the basis of the idea of the family, as
consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man
and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure
foundation of all that is stable and noble in our
civilization, the best guaranty of that reverent morality
which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and
political improvement.”
The phrases above were quite unremarkable when first set
down, in an 1885 Supreme Court decision (Murphy v. Ramsey). It
was taken for granted that the marriage-based family was the
building block of civilization, and that society had a special
interest in encouraging strong marriages. There were no
differences on this point between statesmen and churchmen, or
between the various denominations of Christians. All would
affirm the wisdom of the Biblical injunction: “Let
marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed
be undefiled; for God will judge the immoral and adulterous”
(Hebrews 13:4).
Today, suddenly, these phrases have become controversial.
They slam squarely against the growing movement to abolish all
moral and legal distinctions between marriage and other kinds
of “committed” sexual relationships. Those other
relationships are given various names: “holy unions,”
“same-sex unions,” “civil unions,” and “domestic
partnerships.” Sometimes a semantic difference is allowed
to persist provisionally, with the word “marriage”
still reserved for the lifelong union of man and woman. But
strenuous efforts are made to eliminate as many practical
differences as possible between marriage and other sexual
relationships. The ultimate goal is to storm the bastion of
marriage, opening it to all sexual partners who have been
excluded.
This revolutionary cultural change has been nurtured quietly
for years in law review articles, “alternative”
church liturgies and some (not all) circles of the homosexual
community. Now it has burst upon the public scene. In Vermont
a 1999 court decision ordered the legislature to erase all
practical distinctions between marriage and homosexual
relationships. Now “civil unions” – treated as
marriages in every possible way – are on the books in one
state of the Union. It is to be expected that other states,
and many churches, will be asked to recognize these
relationships that now have legal status. The outcome is
uncertain in both church and society.
Because the Presbyterian Church (USA) is a “mainline”
denomination, this movement has inevitably found its way into
our church. The failed 1991 human sexuality report proposed
that “justice-love” should displace marriage as the
standard of Christian sexual morality. At the 2000 General
Assembly, the philosophy of sexual leveling found expression
in two unsuccessful overtures, which proposed to treat
marriage as merely one among many sexual relationships that
the church might bless.
The Permanent Judicial Commission decision in the Hudson
River case (May 2000) would allow this movement to proceed
unchecked. “Same-sex unions” could be celebrated in
every way as weddings, as long as the word “marriage”
was not used. On the contrary, Amendment O would uphold the
privileged status of marriage in the denomination, rejecting “same-sex
unions” as a false imitation.
The arguments for “gay marriage” have great appeal
in an individualistic, experience-oriented society such as
ours. Here is an outline of some of those arguments:
- Sexual relationships are a private and personal choice.
Individuals should be left free to seek their sexual
happiness as they deem best. Neither the state nor the
Church should favor any one relationship over another.
- The greatest good in life, to which everyone is
entitled, is an intense individual experience producing a
sense of self-fulfillment and connection to other persons
and the universe. Sexual intercourse is such an
experience, and therefore good sex becomes a kind of “human
right.” The state and the Church should grant “equal
rights” to all persons who are enjoying this profound
spiritual experience. Marriage is an artificial construct
of society. It is “just a piece of paper.”
Marriage was defined by law to suit past social
convenience, and it can be redefined by law to suit today’s
social convenience.
- The bodies of the sex partners do not matter. What
matters are their feelings of love for one another. It is
“sex discrimination” to insist that the bodies
of the partners must be male and female.
- Childbearing has no necessary connection to right
sexual relationships. Some couples choose to have
children, some couples choose not to, and some couples are
infertile – it makes no difference. There should be
nothing special in the eyes of the state or the church
about a man and a woman who are prepared to raise a
family.
- Both state and Church should be practical and
accommodate themselves to current sexual realities. Since
many people have sex outside of traditional marriage, we
should make room for those relationships in our legal code
and Church teaching. Perhaps the persons involved might
even be somewhat less promiscuous if the state and Church
treated them like monogamous married couples.
- Lastly, there is the challenge posed by Rep. Barney
Frank (D-MA) on the floor of Congress: What harm would it
do to their heterosexual neighbors if he and his partner
Herb were granted a marriage license? The assumption
behind the question is that no harm is done. Therefore the
conclusion is that that the two men (and any other pair of
sexual partners) should receive their marriage license. Or
else marriage should be abolished as a distinct form of
relationship.
In a “mainline” setting, it is surprisingly
hard to resist such arguments. The liberal assumptions behind
them have already penetrated deeply into the minds of many
decision-makers. Conservatives may quote Bible verses
condemning sodomy and fornication; however, large segments of
our religious elites no longer regard the Bible as
authoritative in the Church. And they certainly do not believe
that Christians should “impose” Biblical principles
upon others. Conservatives may warn that endorsing “gay
marriage” will be divisive, and they may quote polls
showing roughly 70 percent of the laypeople opposed to it. But
liberals will respond by claiming the high moral ground,
saying that they are standing on principles of justice for the
sexual outcasts of our society.
The moderate majority in the mainline is often intimidated
from making even these unsuccessful arguments. It knows that
any defense of traditional marriage will be met with a harsh
misconstrual of motives. Anyone who exalts the one man-one
woman model of marriage will be tagged as a “bigot,”
a “homophobe,” a “Pharisee” obsessed with
imposing “narrow religious doctrines” upon the
supposedly free-thinking majority. It is little wonder that
persons who see themselves as compassionate, broad-minded, and
peaceable would shrink back from engaging the debate under
such terms.
Yet the debate must be engaged. The stakes are too high to
ignore the questions that have been raised: What is marriage?
And why does it deserve society’s special favor? The
Church and our Western democratic tradition have developed
some good answers to these weighty questions:
- Marriage is not merely a personal choice. It is an
institution, among others, established by God for the
benefit of humankind. The Church across the ages and
around the world has understood the nature of marriage to
be inscribed in the order of creation. When the
Westminster Confession (6.131) defines marriage as “a
union between one man and one woman,” it is not
stating a peculiarly Reformed doctrine. Nor is this a
narrowly Christian teaching. Marriage, according to the
confession, is “ordained of God” for “the
happiness and welfare of mankind” (6.131).
- Marriage is not defined by the state. Nor is it defined
by the Church. It is defined instead by God’s purpose
in the creation, when he formed man and woman and brought
them together as “one flesh.” Thus marriage goes
back before Christ, before Moses, before all churches and
all states. Human societies around the world and
throughout history have recognized the pattern of marriage
(in some form). “The distinctive contribution of the
Church in performing a marriage ceremony is to affirm the
divine institution of marriage,” according to the
Westminster Confession (6.136) Nothing in the Church’s
liturgy should “diminish the Christian understanding
of marriage” (W-4.9004).
- As an institution, marriage has its rules. Among these
rules are: that it should unite a man and a woman (the two
complementary sexes), that it should be freely and
deliberately chosen, that it should be exclusive and
monogamous, and that it should be a total and permanent
commitment. Marriage is not an infinitely flexible
contract that can be extended to any two persons. For any
individual considering marriage, the pool of eligible
partners is limited. Many categories of persons are
excluded from the pool: minors, close blood relatives,
persons already married, prisoners and legally incompetent
persons, as well as members of the same sex. These
exclusions are not some kind of arbitrary “discrimination;”
they flow from the rules of marriage that apply equally to
all.
- There is no other human relationship that is the
equivalent of marriage, and therefore no other
relationship should be treated as if it were the
equivalent of marriage. Our Presbyterian confessions list
among the purposes of marriage: as “the medicine of
incontinency” (4.246); as a “spiritual and
physical union” providing “mutual esteem and
love,” comfort in trouble, and economic support to
the partners (6.131); “for the mutual help of husband
and wife; for the safeguarding, undergirding, and
development of their moral and spiritual character; for
the propagation of children and the rearing of them in the
discipline and instruction of the Lord” (6.134); as
an alternative to “anarchy in sexual relationships,”
and a demonstration of “the responsible freedom of
the new life in Christ” (9.47). Other relationships
may serve some of these purposes, but none of them serves
them all so powerfully as marriage. No other relationship
is so fundamental to the healthy ordering of society. No
other human relationship, except perhaps that between
parent and child, is lifted up so highly in the Scriptures
as an analogy for the relationship between God and his
people.
- The union of the two sexes in marriage is an intrinsic
good, even apart from any personal or social functions
that it may serve. The same cannot be said of other sexual
relationships – which may manifest some forms of love
and may bring some benefits, but which nevertheless
violate God’s design for the right use of the good
gift of sexuality.
- It is misguided to see socially-approved sex as some
kind of “human right” owed to all persons.
Sexual intercourse is not required for individual
happiness, social adjustment, or spiritual maturity.
Christianity has a long tradition of respect for celibate
men and women who, by the grace of God, deny their own
desires and offer a special service to God and the
community. Such individuals are citizens of God’s
kingdom and the state in the fullest sense. The fact that
the unmarried have different responsibilities and receive
different benefits does not imply that they have been
deprived in any way.
- The bodies of the partners do make a difference in
marriage. Marriage is far more than just an intense
emotional experience of love. It is the mystery of how “the
two become one flesh.” That mystery necessarily
involves the leap across the great divide between the two
sexes, male and female, which God created for each other.
- Childbearing does have a necessary connection to
marriage. The most vital interest that society has in
marriage is its concern for the healthy upbringing of the
next generation of citizens. Sociological studies have
shown conclusively that a child fares best under the care
of a father and mother who are married to one another.
Moreover, our current social scene demonstrates the
damages that result when childbearing is separated from
marriage. Therefore both Church and state have powerful
reasons to recognize and subsidize marriage which do not
apply to other sexual relationships.
- The fact that some marriages are childless does not
eliminate the distinction between these marriages and
other relationships. The authorities in both Church and
state do not know which couples applying for marriage will
turn out to be infertile. Nor do they know which will
choose to have children, and which will have children
contrary to their previous intentions. As far as the
Church and the state are concerned, every couple coming to
be married is a potential set of parents, and both Church
and state are prepared to support that couple in
parenthood.
- Finally, there is an answer to the challenge posed by
Barney Frank: What harm would it do to their neighbors if
Herb and he were married? The answer is that the granting
of a marriage license always affects many more than the
two individuals listed. It not only brings those two
inside the institution of marriage; it also defines (or
redefines) marriage by the example that they will set for
their neighbors. If they follow the rules of marriage and
keep their vows, then their example strengthens their
neighbors’ marriages. But if they ignore or break the
rules of marriage, then they tear the fabric of society in
places that they had not imagined. The bad example of a
debased marriage or a broken marriage may not shake the
couple next door who are already firm in their commitment.
But it could convey to the young and the unmarried
observers a warped and devalued conception of what
marriage is all about. And when the bad example is
imitated – and, worse, when society approves –
then the damage to family structures spreads rapidly. We
have already seen this phenomenon in our society with the
rise of illegitimacy and the explosion of divorce. With
the crisis that the family already faces in American
society, we must ask ourselves: Is this the time to start
a new, more radical experiment in redefining marriage?
The more honest among the advocates of “gay
marriage” admit that they are seeking more than just “inclusion”
inside the institution of marriage; they are seeking to change
the institution from within. This was the theme of an April
1997 conference of liberal Episcopalians in Pasadena, CA.
Speakers at the conference, entitled “Beyond Inclusion,”
leveled a volley of complaints against traditional marriage.
They condemned it as sexist, patriarchal, and violent. “I
don’t want the relationship I enter into with a partner
to be the same as heterosexual marriage, thank you,” said
the Rev. Juan Oliver, canon missioner of the Episcopal Diocese
of New Jersey.
Another participant remarked, “I’ve started to
think that maybe we are a threat to marriage as we know it,
and maybe the Church needs to redefine marriage.” Along
those lines, Oliver distributed a report proposing an
Episcopal Church rite to bless same-sex unions. The sample
rite showed striking differences from the traditional wedding
ceremony: (1) It omitted the promise to stay together “until
we are parted by death.” (2) It dropped the vow to “forsaking
all others, be faithful” to the spouse. (3) It cut out
all references to “the procreation of children and their
nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord.” (4) It
had no place for parents to “give” or bless their
children in marriage.
Of course, Presbyterian same-sex partners might choose a more
traditional liturgy. Or they might devise their own version of
the ceremony. But there is nothing in the Permanent Judicial
Commission decision in the Hudson River case that would stand
in the way of a rite like Oliver’s.
Oliver defended his rewriting of the marriage ceremony,
arguing that the only two essential elements of marriage are
commitment and blessing. “It is more important to praise
God for Sally and Sue, even in the face of infidelity, than to
praise God for their 42 years of a genitally exclusive
monogamous relationship, during which they have hated each
other,” Oliver said. “Faithfulness is not about
plumbing.” Others at the conference reinforced the point
that strict monogamy was not so important to them. Prominent
homosexual advocates, such as Andrew Sullivan, have made the
same point repeatedly.
Thus “gay marriage,” as envisioned by its
advocates, would involve a dual process: The status of
marriage would be broadened to include all sorts of
relationships formerly considered sinful. As a result, at the
same time, the traditional responsibilities and functions of
marriage would be drastically narrowed. Any relationship with
a vague “commitment” between the partners would be
eligible for the blessing of Church and state.
At the Pasadena Episcopal conference, the Rev. Jennifer
Phillips of University City, MO, spoke of “deconstructing
these categories [the boundaries of marriage]” as “part
of Gospel work.” “What’s next?” Phillips
asked. “Maybe we bless non-celibate single people. What a
thought!” The audience laughed.
The Rev. Marilyn McCord Adams of Yale Divinity School
repeatedly challenged the audience to “remove the
blinders of taboo.” She referred to the Trinity as “the
Gay Men’s Chorus,” and cited it as an example
suggesting that the Church might bless relationships involving
three or more persons – rather than just couples. Indeed,
it is undeniable that every argument used to justify “gay
marriage” could also be used on behalf of polygamy or
incest between adults. There are even a few quarters of the
left in which pedophilia already has its defenders.
Our churches and our society must face squarely the question:
Is this the road down which we wish to travel? Do we wish to
reduce the strong bonds of marriage down to some
vaguely-stated “commitment” between any two (or
more?) sexual partners? And do we wish to destroy all the
taboos that tend to channel sexual activity toward the warmth
and safety of the marriage bed?
Ultimately, the choice is between Christian marriage as God’s
gold standard – or no standard at all. Moderates and
conservatives in all U.S. denominations must be prepared to
make these arguments with vigor, intelligence, and compassion
for those who have been caught up in the sexual disorders of
our time. Simply quoting Bible verses and warning against
division in the church will not be enough. This debate will
not be won by stern moralists trying to lay down the law and
make the sexual misfits keep quiet. It will be won by gentle,
humble Christians who seek to hold marriage in the unique
honor that it deserves – as part of God’s good
provision for the happiness of sinful humans and their
troubles societies.
Note: A version of this article was first published in
Faith & Freedom, the newsletter of the Institute
on Religion and Democracy.
|