An Independent Witness to Marriage
July 16, 2010
Stuart Koehl
In the pending court case for overturning California’s Proposition 8, which banned “gay marriage,” two leading conservative legal scholars face off: Charles J. Cooper, taking the classical conservative line that organic social institutions such as marriage have an inherent value and cannot be redefined by legal fiat, and Theodore Olson, taking the more libertarian line that government should simply regulate contractual relationships between individuals and not become involved in private matters.
Whichever is right—whether marriage is or is not a purely private matter in which the state has no abiding interest—the deeper and more immediate danger of the marriage issue for Christians is its potential use by gay activists to undermine the autonomy of the Church and other religious entities. If there is an inherent “right to marriage” for same-sex couples, religious groups that refuse to marry gay couples are violating their civil rights, which in turn could lead to a repeal of the churches’ tax exempt status—or a complete overturn in our law and culture of the religious understanding of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
R. Emmet Tyrell, publisher of The American Spectator and a friend of both men, is in a quandary, and has proposed what he considers a peaceful solution to the issue:
[P]erhaps we should short circuit this tricky business. We should privatize marriage. The state merely enforces contracts between two people, a man and a woman, a woman and woman, a man and a man. Meanwhile, the churches and synagogues extend the sacrament for those who want it. Get the state out of the love and sacrament business. Everyone is happy, no?
Tyrrell has it backwards: rather than the state getting out of the “sacraments business” (which it really isn’t in), the Church should simply stop acting an agent of the state in the execution of marriage contracts. When a priest or minister says the magic words, “By the power invested in me by the State of ___,” he is acting as a civil magistrate binding the couple in the whole web of rights, duties, and obligations pertaining to marriage under civil law. His action is at one level religious, but it is predominantly legal.
Therefore, the Church becomes inextricably bound in the entire debate revolving around marriages—who can, who can’t, and under what conditions.
This has not always been the case. In the pre-Constantinian period, the Church had no legal standing, and sacramental marriage was utterly distinct from legal marriage. Even after Christianity was adopted by the Roman Empire in the fourth century, one still had to obtain a civil marriage from a magistrate before presenting himself in church for a sacramental union. A Church marriage only became one of the criteria for recognition of a union as a legal marriage in the sixth century.
Because Church and civil marriage were separate and distinct, the Church was absolutely free to follow its own doctrine with regard to marriage and its disciplines. In the patristic period, marriage was held to be an indissoluable sacrament that transcended death; therefore a person could enter into only one sacramental marriage in a lifetime.
In both the East and the West, the Church in principle upheld this ideal, and in the East, at least, did not perform “second marriages” or “remarriages” until the ninth century. Rather, when confronted by the pastoral reality of people who wanted to remarry after widowhood, or after divorce, the Church, recognized civil marriages and focused entirely on the reintegration of the remarried into the Church through prayer and fasting.
In the ninth century, however, the Emperor Leo VI abolished civil marriage within the Roman Empire and turned over total responsibility for administering marriage to the Church. The Church thus, for the first time, had to deal with the messy legal and social realities, including divorce and widowhood and the welfare of children.
To protect the integrity of its doctrine of indissolubility while meeting the pastoral needs of the faithful, the eastern Churches devised a non-sacramental “Rite of Remarriage,” which in effect took the place of a second civil marriage. Solemn and penitential in nature, it was explicitly a concession to human frailty and lacked the signs associated with sacramental marriage (in the eastern Churches, the Crowning, the singing of certain prayers, and the sharing of the Eucharist).
The situation in the West was quite different, because of the collapse of central secular authority and a somewhat different theology of marriage, but ultimately, the Latin Church also became responsible for administering all aspects of marriage, though it came to a very different solution to the issue of remarriage and divorce.
The same situation continued after the Reformation, because most Protestant states formed established churches, which, as extensions of the government, naturally functioned as government agents. And this worked because their was a general consensus between church and state on the meaning and purpose of marriage.
Even after the French Revolution severed the relationship of church and state in France and much of Western Europe, church and state still shared that consensus, but the state generally took over all the legal aspects pertaining to marriage. Only civil marriages had legal standing, and a couple would first get married before a magistrate before going to church for a sacramental wedding.
Today, the general consensus on marriage has become irrevocably broken. There are fundamental differences between the two regarding the nature and purpose of marriage, which in a secular society means, inevitably, that the state’s understanding of marriage is going to prevail, and be enforced by coercive measures.
We are reverting to the pre-Constantinian situation, where the Church has no legal standing and its doctrines are considered to be private matters (when they are not considered to be seditious). The solution is a return to the pre-Constantinian practice of the Church in which a Church marriage is a purely sacramental matter, subject to the doctrine and disciplines of the Church, but without legal standing.
Legal recognition of marriage would become a purely civil matter. A couple who wanted to marry would have to get a license and go to a civil magistrate. If they then wanted their union sacramentalized, they would go to the Church. If the Church refused to marry them because they did not meet its criteria for a sacramental wedding—if both parties were of the same sex, for example—the state could do nothing about it, since the Church is a voluntary association protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
Thus disencumbered from its role as an agent of the state, the Church would be free to teach, encourage, and set an example for the rest of the world. It would not have to worry about the legal ramifications of its actions. And this could provide the freedom the Church needs to reshape marriage in the West in a way political and legal activism will not, and cannot.
Decoupled from the state, the Church can preach the Gospel with regard to marriage and human sexuality generally, backed up by enforcement of its canonical and ascetic disciplines, without fear of state sanction—assuming the Church is willing to accept the burden of proclaiming a truth so contrary to the prevailing zeitgeist.
It will not be enough for the Church simply to surrender its role as an agent of the state in marriage; the bishops of the Church must also provide visible and courageous leadership, including setting their own house in order, regardless of the cost to their popularity and standing with the cultural elites. The Church must extend its leadership to the instruction of the ignorant, support for the weak or confused, and reconciliation of the fallen.
For, ultimately, it is not through the law that the oxymoron of gay marriage will be turned back, but by the conversion of individual human hearts. The power of the Church’s witness to truth, combined with a growing recognition of the necessity of traditional marriage and the havoc wrought by the host of “alternative relationships” will, if the Church remains faithful to her calling, lead to a return to sanity.
Stuart Koehl is a military historian and writer living in Northern Virginia. Tyrell’s “Another Peaceful Solution” can be found here.
Comments:
7.16.2010 | 8:08am
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
I have mulled this over in my mind for many years, going back and forth on this issue. I think the fight to save civil marriage is worth the effort, even if, as seems likely, it will ultimately be lost. The question will then be how Christians should respond. If (when) that comes, I think this is the course we must take. I would go even further and suggest that Christians should not avail themselves of the rights and privileges of civil marriage as a form of protest against and expression of our disapproval of what civil "marriage" will have become.
7.16.2010 | 9:41am
Coleman Glenn says:
C.S. Lewis proposed something similar in Mere Christianity - to have two separate kinds of marriage, a civil and a church, and be very clear about the distinctions. His point of contention was divorce laws, but the same thinking could apply to SSM (although I'm still not 100% sure I agree with him):
"Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question — how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."
"Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question — how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."
7.16.2010 | 9:48am
Ianthis says:
You absolutely hit the nail on the head when you said that it is not the law that will change men's hearts. In reality, laws are reflections of a people just as much as laws shape people.
There is no doubt about it: ours is a nation where a large group already believes that homosexual activity is o.k., and I seriously doubt the ban on gay marriage has changed a single mind.
Your solution is intriguing. I agree that there is already too much confusion spread by the church/state connection, from elders getting sniffy about atheist kids down the street not getting "properly" married, to the opposite problem--censorious friends who condemn the couple who get religiously married a week before getting the legal paperwork filled out.
A separation would allow Christians to take a serious look at their own beliefs about marriage and return to a more consistent and edifying practice.
There is no doubt about it: ours is a nation where a large group already believes that homosexual activity is o.k., and I seriously doubt the ban on gay marriage has changed a single mind.
Your solution is intriguing. I agree that there is already too much confusion spread by the church/state connection, from elders getting sniffy about atheist kids down the street not getting "properly" married, to the opposite problem--censorious friends who condemn the couple who get religiously married a week before getting the legal paperwork filled out.
A separation would allow Christians to take a serious look at their own beliefs about marriage and return to a more consistent and edifying practice.
7.16.2010 | 10:10am
Brian L says:
It is my understanding that Germany practices a complete separation of church and state marriage. Catholic couples are obliged to marry twice, one with the state and then later with the priest. Mormons also practice temple marriage, which can include more than one wife per husband, yet this marriage has no standing I am aware of in the United States. So there are modern examples and precedents of marriage performed in an eccelsiastical setting having no secular binding.
But I believe Christians are supposed to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth. By allowing religious ministers to have the power the perform civil marriages, the state shows approval of what that minister does, approval of a religious group's own beliefs about marriage. Yet even this has become farce today when a person can download an "ordination" as a minister from the internet and then have the ability to perform marriages.
I think the Catholic Church in America will see an increase in civilly married, but non-Church married couples if the author's proposal comes to pass. The catechesis of marriage would be brought to the forefront were this to happen, and perhaps some couples would have their marriages ratified. Others would "persist in sin". Would the criteria for marriage in the church then become a little more strict? Would annulments be less prevalent since any church married couple would be there "by choice"? Or would it be another stumbling block to scandalize the weak and turn away the sinner?
Today is my five-year wedding anniversary to a beautiful, faithful Catholic woman. I would have chosen "two weddings" were that required. But many others would simply live in sin.
But I believe Christians are supposed to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth. By allowing religious ministers to have the power the perform civil marriages, the state shows approval of what that minister does, approval of a religious group's own beliefs about marriage. Yet even this has become farce today when a person can download an "ordination" as a minister from the internet and then have the ability to perform marriages.
I think the Catholic Church in America will see an increase in civilly married, but non-Church married couples if the author's proposal comes to pass. The catechesis of marriage would be brought to the forefront were this to happen, and perhaps some couples would have their marriages ratified. Others would "persist in sin". Would the criteria for marriage in the church then become a little more strict? Would annulments be less prevalent since any church married couple would be there "by choice"? Or would it be another stumbling block to scandalize the weak and turn away the sinner?
Today is my five-year wedding anniversary to a beautiful, faithful Catholic woman. I would have chosen "two weddings" were that required. But many others would simply live in sin.
7.16.2010 | 10:11am
FlexSF says:
This is a deliberate lie on your part: "If there is an inherent “right to marriage” for same-sex couples, religious groups that refuse to marry gay couples are violating their civil rights, which in turn could lead to a repeal of the churches’ tax exempt status—" Don't flatter yourself. Nobody is banging down your doors to be married in your institution of insults. You couldn't pay a gay couple to get married in your church. You're a decade behind in relevance, and it's nobody's fault but your own.
We expect to be treated equally under the law, not in your uninteresting, stale church. We're about to destroy proposition 8 in federal court, and proceed to claim the same rights that everyone else has, on a national level. Your pathetic church doesn't have anything to do with it. We lead, you follow! Stop lying, fool!
We expect to be treated equally under the law, not in your uninteresting, stale church. We're about to destroy proposition 8 in federal court, and proceed to claim the same rights that everyone else has, on a national level. Your pathetic church doesn't have anything to do with it. We lead, you follow! Stop lying, fool!
7.16.2010 | 10:12am
Mark says:
I agree with this article but what it advocates is really only a very minor change from the status quo. Currently, priests, rabbis, imams, and other such religious figures have been "deputized" by the state to perform the civil, secular task of officiating legal marriages. Priests are already free if their religion does not forbid it to preside over a marriage ceremony that does not lead to the issuance of a marriage certificate.
I think the article is correct that this "deputy" status simply confuses people and causes people to conflate civil marriage with religious marriage when they are, in fact, two completely separate things.
I also don't see any support for the implication that refusing to officiate over a gay wedding would ever be a violation of civil rights -- the First Amendment combined with the option of getting married before a judge seems to foreclose that possibility.
I think the article is correct that this "deputy" status simply confuses people and causes people to conflate civil marriage with religious marriage when they are, in fact, two completely separate things.
I also don't see any support for the implication that refusing to officiate over a gay wedding would ever be a violation of civil rights -- the First Amendment combined with the option of getting married before a judge seems to foreclose that possibility.
7.16.2010 | 10:21am
Phil Swain says:
What we are defending in the public square is marriage, not Christian marriage. If the time comes when the Church has to relinguish its role as state agent, then so be it. But, that won't change our moral duty to advocate for laws which protect the traditional meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
7.16.2010 | 10:23am
hyhybt says:
The premise of the article (that allowing civil marriage for gay couples would lead to churches being forced to recognize or perform them) is purely imaginary, conjured up for the sole purpose of frightening people into opposing that which has nothing to do with them.
7.16.2010 | 10:30am
Joe Carter says:
***The premise of the article (that allowing civil marriage for gay couples would lead to churches being forced to recognize or perform them) is purely imaginary, conjured up for the sole purpose of frightening people into opposing that which has nothing to do with them.***
It's amazing how many people are willing to make statements about which they know nothing about. The fact is that churches are *already* being forced to let their facilities be used for such purposes. This was an issue over three years ago, when the state of New Jersey allowed a church to be sued by a lesbian couple for refusing to allow them to use church facilities for a “civil union” ceremony.
It's amazing how many people are willing to make statements about which they know nothing about. The fact is that churches are *already* being forced to let their facilities be used for such purposes. This was an issue over three years ago, when the state of New Jersey allowed a church to be sued by a lesbian couple for refusing to allow them to use church facilities for a “civil union” ceremony.
7.16.2010 | 10:35am
Max says:
If this approach is taken, I think it should be as a last resort. While I agree that there are liberating gains to be made by keeping civil vs. sacramental marriage unions distinguished, I would argue that doing so now is premature. Let the matter be definitively ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court before we throw in the towel. I find the pre-Constantinian argument intriguing but I am not sure that it is completely sound. Christian marriage by defintion arose in the period of Roman civil law. However, I think it is important to recall that Christian marriage owes a good bit of its theological origin to Judaism, which is independent of and pre-dates a considerable margin, Roman civil law. I think it is historically indisputable that marriage as a Judeo-Christian institution pre-dates even the concept ofthe state. For this reason, I find the proposal to divorce the civil from the sacramental highly distasteful. Why should an institution that pre-dates the state, cede the defintion to the state? Personally, I could live with same sex civil-unions in our admittedly post-Christian pluralist society, provided thathey left their defintion as precisely that: civil unions. My heartburn lies in the appropriation of the term "marriage" to same sex unions. Words matter, and they have histories and legacies, in this case very loaded ones. The state's legal system ought to be able to own up to the fact that marriage as a Judeo-Christian institution was in place and ordained by clerical authority before "the state" as a concept was even a glimmer in the eye of the first bureaucrat. I say we should hold fast until the bitter end, and then, if all truly is lost, divorce our sacramental unions from having civil legal status.
7.16.2010 | 10:52am
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
hyhybt wrote: "The premise of the article (that allowing civil marriage for gay couples would lead to churches being forced to recognize or perform them) is purely imaginary, conjured up for the sole purpose of frightening people into opposing that which has nothing to do with them."
Of course, there is also the problem of same-sex "marriage" advocates who already insist that Christian florist, dress makers, tux renters, bakers, caterers, etc. should not be permitted to deny their services to aid in the celebration of a ceremony which they, based on Scripture and two millennia of teaching of their faith, to be a celebration of a grave sin. I have had several conversations with advocates of same-sex marriage who are very firm and unbending on this point. If a florist provides flowers for traditional weddings, he must, they insist, do so for same-sex "weddings". So much, it seems, for the free exercise of religion. This is, of course, the reason why so many secularists insist that our freedom of religion extends only to worship and not to any other area of our life. Christians, of course, cannot accept this construction.
Many of the early martyrs died, in fact, because their faith informed every area of our lives. As has often been the case, we may soon face the stark choice of saying, by our actions, if not by our words, Caesar is Lord or Christ is Lord. As in the first three centuries, this may prove to be very beneficial to the Church, leaving it only peopled by those who truly believe Christ is Lord.
@Brettongarcia,
Your sophistry is impressive -- on the surface. Our marriages are a type and shadow of the True Marriage of Christ and His Church. You observe, "But note, this marriage, acknowledged as the core of the Bible, is not between a man and a woman; it is apparently between all of Christian humanity, male and female, with a rather female heaven." In fact, the Church is the bride; Christ is the groom. Perhaps you should spend a little more time studying the true nature of the marriage between Christ and His Church. As to polygamy, the Bible merely reports what happens (it doesn't hide the ugly truth). Nowhere does Scripture present polygamy as God's plan for human marriage and, in fact, in every case in which polygamy is presented, the problems it created are clearly revealed as well. The Bible did not, as you put it, "allow" polygamy; it reported it.
Of course, there is also the problem of same-sex "marriage" advocates who already insist that Christian florist, dress makers, tux renters, bakers, caterers, etc. should not be permitted to deny their services to aid in the celebration of a ceremony which they, based on Scripture and two millennia of teaching of their faith, to be a celebration of a grave sin. I have had several conversations with advocates of same-sex marriage who are very firm and unbending on this point. If a florist provides flowers for traditional weddings, he must, they insist, do so for same-sex "weddings". So much, it seems, for the free exercise of religion. This is, of course, the reason why so many secularists insist that our freedom of religion extends only to worship and not to any other area of our life. Christians, of course, cannot accept this construction.
Many of the early martyrs died, in fact, because their faith informed every area of our lives. As has often been the case, we may soon face the stark choice of saying, by our actions, if not by our words, Caesar is Lord or Christ is Lord. As in the first three centuries, this may prove to be very beneficial to the Church, leaving it only peopled by those who truly believe Christ is Lord.
@Brettongarcia,
Your sophistry is impressive -- on the surface. Our marriages are a type and shadow of the True Marriage of Christ and His Church. You observe, "But note, this marriage, acknowledged as the core of the Bible, is not between a man and a woman; it is apparently between all of Christian humanity, male and female, with a rather female heaven." In fact, the Church is the bride; Christ is the groom. Perhaps you should spend a little more time studying the true nature of the marriage between Christ and His Church. As to polygamy, the Bible merely reports what happens (it doesn't hide the ugly truth). Nowhere does Scripture present polygamy as God's plan for human marriage and, in fact, in every case in which polygamy is presented, the problems it created are clearly revealed as well. The Bible did not, as you put it, "allow" polygamy; it reported it.
7.16.2010 | 10:56am
Andrzej says:
"There are fundamental differences between the two regarding the nature and purpose of marriage, which in a secular society means, inevitably, that the state’s understanding of marriage is going to prevail, and be enforced by coercive measures."
WE are the state. WE decide what is law and what isn't. WE say that walking nude in public should be illegal, so illegal it is. WE think many things are wrong and we set that view in the law.
Of course the question that we need to ask is what is just and good. Is allowing gays to marry just and good?
WE are the state. WE decide what is law and what isn't. WE say that walking nude in public should be illegal, so illegal it is. WE think many things are wrong and we set that view in the law.
Of course the question that we need to ask is what is just and good. Is allowing gays to marry just and good?
7.16.2010 | 11:13am
Joseph A. Mustich, JP says:
It's time for full civil and marriage equality in 21st century America.
And kudos to Argentina in joining with other countries in supporting marriage equality.
As a justice of the peace, I perform non-religioius civil marriage ceremonies all the time for couples, many of whom have been together for 20, 30 and 45 years. Talk about stabilty....
Recently I officiated for 2 young women before their rehearsal dinner at their Espiscopal Church where they were getting married the next day. I signed the marriage license as a justice of the peace, and returned the license to town hall. And lets not forget that marriage licenses are issued by and recorded in town halls not church halls, mosques, temples, etc.
The next day I attended their wedding in the Episcopal Church where I was surrounded by their family, friends, and their long time pastor.
Onward to sanity,
Joe Mustich & Ken Cornet, Justices of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA.
Enough already with the anti-marriage rhetoric.
And kudos to Argentina in joining with other countries in supporting marriage equality.
As a justice of the peace, I perform non-religioius civil marriage ceremonies all the time for couples, many of whom have been together for 20, 30 and 45 years. Talk about stabilty....
Recently I officiated for 2 young women before their rehearsal dinner at their Espiscopal Church where they were getting married the next day. I signed the marriage license as a justice of the peace, and returned the license to town hall. And lets not forget that marriage licenses are issued by and recorded in town halls not church halls, mosques, temples, etc.
The next day I attended their wedding in the Episcopal Church where I was surrounded by their family, friends, and their long time pastor.
Onward to sanity,
Joe Mustich & Ken Cornet, Justices of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA.
Enough already with the anti-marriage rhetoric.
7.16.2010 | 11:27am
toddes says:
@Brettongarcia,
You need to take care to not confuse the actions of man with the precepts of GOD revealed through Scripture. Referencing Genesis 1:27, Jesus reminded the Pharisees, "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
The ideal established at Creation was one man and one woman, two united as one, inseparable. That this ideal was corrupted by mankind and sin does not change its standing.
As well you need to take care not to confuse the marriage analogy of Christ and His Bride with its representation between man and woman. The first is, again, the ideal to be pursued. The second is, all too often due to our fallen state, an imperfect reflection.
You need to take care to not confuse the actions of man with the precepts of GOD revealed through Scripture. Referencing Genesis 1:27, Jesus reminded the Pharisees, "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
The ideal established at Creation was one man and one woman, two united as one, inseparable. That this ideal was corrupted by mankind and sin does not change its standing.
As well you need to take care not to confuse the marriage analogy of Christ and His Bride with its representation between man and woman. The first is, again, the ideal to be pursued. The second is, all too often due to our fallen state, an imperfect reflection.
7.16.2010 | 11:50am
Joe Long says:
I guess my reluctance to go libertarian on this issue, is that I believe it's driven at this point mostly by the gay activist wish to impose their morality - to force the public, legal acknowledgement of what Dr. Esolen calls "pseudogamy", by all of us who do not accept it. Would we really dodge that by... See More truly separating the church and state on the issue - or would we be ceding ground? Wouldn't the textbooks enshrine pseudogamy as the culmination of the civil-rights narrative that dominates the (only positive) interpretation they give to American history?
I was much more libertarian when I was younger ("...my heart was an open book: I used to say, live and let live...") but I no longer believe the government can be neutral on these issues, much as it should. It will take an active side; oughtn't we, then, try to make it take OUR side? We have, I think, a better chance at keepiing a sort of least-common-denominator "ceremonial deist" Judeo-Christian sensibility, than at maintaining any sort of laissez-faire; libertarianism is not only too intellectual, but every other faction in the fight sees government as a tool to impose its agenda.
I was much more libertarian when I was younger ("...my heart was an open book: I used to say, live and let live...") but I no longer believe the government can be neutral on these issues, much as it should. It will take an active side; oughtn't we, then, try to make it take OUR side? We have, I think, a better chance at keepiing a sort of least-common-denominator "ceremonial deist" Judeo-Christian sensibility, than at maintaining any sort of laissez-faire; libertarianism is not only too intellectual, but every other faction in the fight sees government as a tool to impose its agenda.
7.16.2010 | 12:36pm
Gene Godbold says:
I think Stuart is right and I've heard the same solution (though not the historical rationale) ventured by conservative Protestant groups. The Church cannot provide a marriage rationale for the State in light of the incoherence of the institutions of the latter (on marriage). Let's bear witness to the truth of men and women in the Temple of God and let the sociological facts that flow from our competing perspectives cause consternations among the secular in, oh, a generation or two.
7.16.2010 | 12:40pm
Edaward Alleyn says:
Matthew 19:4b-9, Jesus said:
Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate. They said to Him, ‘Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ He said to them, ‘Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wife, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.
No direct mention of pseudogamy.
Paul, however, addresses the subject in Romans 1:18-27.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate. They said to Him, ‘Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ He said to them, ‘Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wife, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.
No direct mention of pseudogamy.
Paul, however, addresses the subject in Romans 1:18-27.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
7.16.2010 | 12:45pm
Liam says:
This is, I believe, pretty much an issue for the Anglosphere, where religious organizations were deputized as licensed witnesses to civil marriage. In Civil Code and countries whose law is modelled on it that do not have an established church, the independence of civil and religious marriage has been the normal state of affairs for a couple of centuries, and the Church has managed to coexist with that model. Americans assume our legal models are universal, where in fact they are the exception.
Certainly, there are a number of religious denominations that have for some time blessed same-sex marriages without the benefit of civil law sanction.
Certainly, there are a number of religious denominations that have for some time blessed same-sex marriages without the benefit of civil law sanction.
7.16.2010 | 1:19pm
Kamilla says:
It seems to me, Stuart, that this is already the situation in Colorado. All you have to do is go down to the County Clerk and sign the "contract". Ministers here do not say, "By the power vested in me by the State of Colorado . . ." because the state vests no power in them to pronounce marriage.
7.16.2010 | 1:32pm
Sandra Miesel says:
Although I do think that a separation of civil from religious marriage would be a solution to the issue in the US, I have a few quibbles with Stuart's history. Roman marriage didn'r require a magistrate for legality nor did early Christian marriages require a cleric's presence. The Latin Church didn't require the presence of a priest and two witnesses until after Trent but the Church always had the last word on verifying the validity of a marriage. Pope and Patriarch famously disagreed about this in the matter of the Emperor Leo the Wise's fourth marriage. The former said that one could remarry repeatedly; the latter said not.
7.16.2010 | 3:31pm
Gil Costello says:
Amen. My pastor, who, in his homilies, comes across as orthodox, in fact, behind the scenes, is promoting a liberal-progressive ideology, which includes embracing birth-control and abortion as a sane way of dealing with sexuality and youth. We have lost the battle. Own up to it. Now all we can do is protect the children as best we can. This begins with proclaiming the truth.
We have arrived. There is no way to turn the tide. You are in or you are out.
We have arrived. There is no way to turn the tide. You are in or you are out.
7.16.2010 | 3:40pm
Keith Toepfer says:
Here is a more thoughtful libertarian's view on the question in a blog article from April 2005. It is perhaps one of the best examples of the application of F. A. Hayek's idea that much of society's human progress is "the result of human action but not of human design." And I think it gives some of the strongest arguments I have yet read against abolishing marriage as between one man and one woman.
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html
Further, and following some thoughts in the blog article by "Jane Galt," with respect to Brettongarcia's assertion that polygamy (or more accurately, polygyny) in the Bible is somehow an argument against the "one man-one woman," I think Brettongarcia is fundamentally wrong. Galt asserts, and I for one think she is accurate, that even in most (although not all) societies that practice polygyny, each wife is given her own residence. That would therefore constitute not a general "plural marriage" but rather multiple marital relationships between the man and each of the women taken as a wife.
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html
Further, and following some thoughts in the blog article by "Jane Galt," with respect to Brettongarcia's assertion that polygamy (or more accurately, polygyny) in the Bible is somehow an argument against the "one man-one woman," I think Brettongarcia is fundamentally wrong. Galt asserts, and I for one think she is accurate, that even in most (although not all) societies that practice polygyny, each wife is given her own residence. That would therefore constitute not a general "plural marriage" but rather multiple marital relationships between the man and each of the women taken as a wife.
7.16.2010 | 3:45pm
andrew says:
(1) to brettongarcia: how did you reach your conclusion about a "female heaven?" i've never heard of such a concept and am curious.
(2) i suspect orthodox christians, mormons, muslims, and jews in the USA will eventually lose the fight over SSM. kagan's imminent appointment to the supreme court does not bode well for traditionalists. moreover, kagan's labored response during her confirmation hearings detailing her supposed ability to separate her own personal convictions from her interpretation of the law is worrisome. no one (from the left or from the right) can do such a thing -- justice taney in dred scott v. sandford come to mind.
(3) the realistic part of me says the author of the post is correct. the idealistic part of me believes the cultural fight against a redefinition of "marriage" must continue.
(4) the word "marriage" matters. but who should be the guardians of the meaning of words? and on what basis? i've never been able to answer these questions when challenged by SSM proponents.
(2) i suspect orthodox christians, mormons, muslims, and jews in the USA will eventually lose the fight over SSM. kagan's imminent appointment to the supreme court does not bode well for traditionalists. moreover, kagan's labored response during her confirmation hearings detailing her supposed ability to separate her own personal convictions from her interpretation of the law is worrisome. no one (from the left or from the right) can do such a thing -- justice taney in dred scott v. sandford come to mind.
(3) the realistic part of me says the author of the post is correct. the idealistic part of me believes the cultural fight against a redefinition of "marriage" must continue.
(4) the word "marriage" matters. but who should be the guardians of the meaning of words? and on what basis? i've never been able to answer these questions when challenged by SSM proponents.
7.16.2010 | 4:34pm
brettongarcia says:
The Bible at times seemed to support male/female marriages - but, then, other times, the BIble ALSO said things that questions conventional marriages, between men and women:
1) "There is neither male nor female," in the kingdom of heaven (Gal. 3.28, Mat. 22.30 etc.). Thus no marriage between male and female, is ultimately envisioned, for those truly in the kingdom. If man cannot divorce, does this mean a "divorce" from God himself in effect?
2) "Are you free from a marriage? Do not seek marriage" (1 Corin. 7.27).
3) Especially, I don't think we should minimize especially, the fact that the coming of heaven to earth, is characterized as a female "bride," coming down to marry all of us; even women (Rev. 21.2). This IS an important, very really "marriage." While it is NOT one between a man and a woman.
Here and elsewhere, there are many hints in the Bible, that gender and conventional marriage, disappears, cancels out, when we are Christians, or are in the kingdom. Indeed, 4) nuns do not marry; or are "married" to the Church. Likewise it seems 5) priests too.
So how important is any marriage? And particularly, a male/female one? Even the Bible itself issues many statements that would lead us to believe it is less important than bourgeoise convention asserts. 6) God made us AT FIRST, at the "beginning," male and female; but later on, when we become Christians, or enter the kingdom, that seems to, oddly, change. Rather as our era seeks androgyny or equality.
For that reason among others, maybe the Church indeed should go back to leaving marriage a civil, governmental matter. And allowing wider latitude.
Indeed, to insist that marriage is only between man and woman, makes the relation of a believer or priest, to heaven and church, illegal. It attacks the Bible itself.
1) "There is neither male nor female," in the kingdom of heaven (Gal. 3.28, Mat. 22.30 etc.). Thus no marriage between male and female, is ultimately envisioned, for those truly in the kingdom. If man cannot divorce, does this mean a "divorce" from God himself in effect?
2) "Are you free from a marriage? Do not seek marriage" (1 Corin. 7.27).
3) Especially, I don't think we should minimize especially, the fact that the coming of heaven to earth, is characterized as a female "bride," coming down to marry all of us; even women (Rev. 21.2). This IS an important, very really "marriage." While it is NOT one between a man and a woman.
Here and elsewhere, there are many hints in the Bible, that gender and conventional marriage, disappears, cancels out, when we are Christians, or are in the kingdom. Indeed, 4) nuns do not marry; or are "married" to the Church. Likewise it seems 5) priests too.
So how important is any marriage? And particularly, a male/female one? Even the Bible itself issues many statements that would lead us to believe it is less important than bourgeoise convention asserts. 6) God made us AT FIRST, at the "beginning," male and female; but later on, when we become Christians, or enter the kingdom, that seems to, oddly, change. Rather as our era seeks androgyny or equality.
For that reason among others, maybe the Church indeed should go back to leaving marriage a civil, governmental matter. And allowing wider latitude.
Indeed, to insist that marriage is only between man and woman, makes the relation of a believer or priest, to heaven and church, illegal. It attacks the Bible itself.
7.16.2010 | 5:02pm
Hyhybt says:
"The fact is that churches are *already* being forced to let their facilities be used for such purposes. This was an issue over three years ago, when the state of New Jersey allowed a church to be sued by a lesbian couple for refusing to allow them to use church facilities for a “civil union” ceremony."---Not *quite* a lie, but that's a story so widely and grossly mistold that it might as well be one. That was not an event to take place in the church; the church basically owned the entire town and got a special tax exemption on the condition that they not discriminate.
7.16.2010 | 5:06pm
Carl says:
To use the word "marriage" to apply to any human relationship other than the union of one man and one woman is an Alice-in-Wonderland use of the language: Words mean what I want them to mean. Albert Camus got it right when he said “To misname things is to add to the misery of the world.”
7.16.2010 | 5:33pm
DWiss says:
In my opinion, same sex marriage is inevitable. We'll probably get what Lewis proposed: church marriage and civil marriages. That is, if the churc hes can win the discrimination lawsuits that will come.
The greater danger, I think, is what comes after same sex marriage, becuase once you've "undefined" marriage, anything should be allowed. Multiple spouses, commune marriages, same-family marriages: who's to say these are wrong if same sex marriage is allowed?
The greater danger, I think, is what comes after same sex marriage, becuase once you've "undefined" marriage, anything should be allowed. Multiple spouses, commune marriages, same-family marriages: who's to say these are wrong if same sex marriage is allowed?
7.16.2010 | 6:03pm
Liam says:
Sandra
Though it should be noted that one of the differences between Roman and Byzantine theologies of marriage is that, while the couple are the ministers of the sacrament in the Roman church (with cleric as witness and officiant to ensure the rite is followed faithfully), in the Byzantine church, the cleric is the minister - hence, there is not quite the same analysis of matter and form et cet.
Hybybt
IIRC, the church facilities in question in the NJ case were a beachfront gazebo that the church had been holding out (arguably - this is what the case revolved around) as a public accommodation. If it it had been in the church itself, the case would have ended very differently.
Though it should be noted that one of the differences between Roman and Byzantine theologies of marriage is that, while the couple are the ministers of the sacrament in the Roman church (with cleric as witness and officiant to ensure the rite is followed faithfully), in the Byzantine church, the cleric is the minister - hence, there is not quite the same analysis of matter and form et cet.
Hybybt
IIRC, the church facilities in question in the NJ case were a beachfront gazebo that the church had been holding out (arguably - this is what the case revolved around) as a public accommodation. If it it had been in the church itself, the case would have ended very differently.
7.16.2010 | 10:45pm
david says:
Here's another vote of complete agreement.
I also agree with the early commenter who suggested that Christians should then refuse to participate in the the institution of civil "marriage."
If society refuses to respect what almost all cultures have always said "marriage" is--union of a man and a woman for procreation and nurture of children--then Christians should (indeed, I tend to think, must) refuse to respect what society says is "marriage".
Christians can then proceed to sacramental marriage.
I also agree with the early commenter who suggested that Christians should then refuse to participate in the the institution of civil "marriage."
If society refuses to respect what almost all cultures have always said "marriage" is--union of a man and a woman for procreation and nurture of children--then Christians should (indeed, I tend to think, must) refuse to respect what society says is "marriage".
Christians can then proceed to sacramental marriage.
7.16.2010 | 11:22pm
Mike NYC says:
I find it amazing that the writer seems to ignore the fact that a number of Christian denominations recognize the support same sex marriage. Is it the thought of the author that ONLY those who won't support same sex marriage are the Correct Christian denominations? Since the Bible neither condemns same sex marriage nor homosexuality, those religions who oppose it are relying solely on man made dogma which surely has NOTHING to do with religion or the sacred. Marriage in the US is purely and simply a governmental contractual affair. As everyone knows, not religious body can marry ANYONE with out the express permission of the state. To pretend that marriage in this country is religious is simply ridiculous. It is time we stopped pretending that the opposition to same sex marriage is based in anything other than ignorance and prejudice.
7.17.2010 | 2:09am
Max says:
TO Mike NYC: you write "Since the Bible neither condemns same sex marriage nor homosexuality..." Dude, are your serious? Read Deuteronomy and Romans. It's pretty clear, brah. In fact, it's indisputable. to say nothing of about 2,000 years of Christian practice condemning it. If people want to practice a gay lifestyle, that is their prerogative, we are all free agents. But don't try to argue that doing so is anything but inconsistent with Judeo-Christian scriptural authority and two millenia of Christian teaching and tradition.
7.17.2010 | 2:35am
Mark says:
Joe Carter: "It's amazing how many people are willing to make statements about which they know nothing about. The fact is that churches are *already* being forced to let their facilities be used for such purposes. This was an issue over three years ago, when the state of New Jersey allowed a church to be sued by a lesbian couple for refusing to allow them to use church facilities for a “civil union” ceremony."
Joe, this is not correct. The case involved the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association which was a religious ministry that owned just about all of the property of the seaside town of Ocean Grove, NJ. This property included the town's boardwalk which was rented out for various private purposes and was otherwise open to the public. OGCM routinely rented out its boardwalk to straight couples for marriage ceremonies (and for many other secular purposes) but would not rent it out to gay couples.
A boardwalk is not the same thing as the inside of a church. If you read the federal appelate court decision, it clearly states there is a legal difference between an actual place of worship (a church) and a boardwalk that happens to be the property of an organization with a religious mission but that otherwise serves no religious function and is mostly an income generator.
Moreover, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the U.S. Supreme Court held it was unconstitutional to force the Boy Scouts to admit gay members since that interferes with the Boy Scouts' "expressive message" of disapproval. When exactly a private organization (religious or otherwise) has a constitutional right to discriminate against homosexuals is not entirely clear but one thing that is clear is that a literal house of worship has special legal status that is not about to be overturned.
Joe, this is not correct. The case involved the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association which was a religious ministry that owned just about all of the property of the seaside town of Ocean Grove, NJ. This property included the town's boardwalk which was rented out for various private purposes and was otherwise open to the public. OGCM routinely rented out its boardwalk to straight couples for marriage ceremonies (and for many other secular purposes) but would not rent it out to gay couples.
A boardwalk is not the same thing as the inside of a church. If you read the federal appelate court decision, it clearly states there is a legal difference between an actual place of worship (a church) and a boardwalk that happens to be the property of an organization with a religious mission but that otherwise serves no religious function and is mostly an income generator.
Moreover, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the U.S. Supreme Court held it was unconstitutional to force the Boy Scouts to admit gay members since that interferes with the Boy Scouts' "expressive message" of disapproval. When exactly a private organization (religious or otherwise) has a constitutional right to discriminate against homosexuals is not entirely clear but one thing that is clear is that a literal house of worship has special legal status that is not about to be overturned.
7.17.2010 | 4:33am
Jerry says:
To Max.... dude....the point should be that being gay...or whatever the Bible says about marriage should not be the issue. Marriage is a civil matter and license are issued by the state not the church. I am a christian and so tired of hearing people quote the bible or christian beliefs in regards to a civil matter. Enough already. If you believe that only a man and woman should marry...then don't marry someone of the same sex. Leave that to someone that believes that same sex marriage works for them. People should put their energy into making their own marriage work and worry less about the marriage of someone else.
7.17.2010 | 7:08am
Johan says:
The municipality and the private religious entity are lead by the same group of people. Not only was the structure that lost it's tax exemption not a church, it was a publicly accessible pavillion right on the publicly accessible boardwalk. Both of which happen to be owned by the OGCMA.
The lesson here is that when you get a tax break from the state on property that you're supposed to be making publicly accessible, you cannot then claim that your private religious views are more important than the agreement you made with the state and your community in order to secure that tax break.
This is not a case of gay rights trumping religious rights at all. It's a case of the OGCMA's pocketbook and it's own agreements coming into conflict with it's religious beliefs. If they didn't really mean everyone when they agreed to keep the property open to the public, then they shouldn't have accepted the tax break on that false pretense.
The lesson here is that when you get a tax break from the state on property that you're supposed to be making publicly accessible, you cannot then claim that your private religious views are more important than the agreement you made with the state and your community in order to secure that tax break.
This is not a case of gay rights trumping religious rights at all. It's a case of the OGCMA's pocketbook and it's own agreements coming into conflict with it's religious beliefs. If they didn't really mean everyone when they agreed to keep the property open to the public, then they shouldn't have accepted the tax break on that false pretense.
7.17.2010 | 7:37am
Mark says:
Two other considerations in the Ocean Grove case are that OGCM apparently accepted government money for the maintenance and repair of the boardwalk while claiming that the boardwalk is for public use and that the State of New Jersey has long considered the boardwalk to be a "public highway." While the boardwalk is privately owned, the fact that it is represented as being open to the public means it can fall under anti-discrimination laws.
So it's just not correct to imply that the Ocean Grove case means churches are going to have to allow their actual church buildings to be open to gay marriage ceremonies. Ocean Grove is a unique place that grew out of the old 19th century movement to establish religious communities along the east coast. It's one of the few that still remain and that owns almost all the property within the town. That makes it an interesting case from a legal perspective but it is not at all relevant to whether or not a church, synagogue or mosque can be forced to preside over a gay wedding.
So it's just not correct to imply that the Ocean Grove case means churches are going to have to allow their actual church buildings to be open to gay marriage ceremonies. Ocean Grove is a unique place that grew out of the old 19th century movement to establish religious communities along the east coast. It's one of the few that still remain and that owns almost all the property within the town. That makes it an interesting case from a legal perspective but it is not at all relevant to whether or not a church, synagogue or mosque can be forced to preside over a gay wedding.
7.17.2010 | 9:15am
brettongarcia says:
Edaward, Toddes, Carl, and Gregory:
Is Rev. 21's image of heaven coming down to earth, like a "bride" prepared for a marriage, really JUST a metaphor? Or "Alice-in-Wonderland" word-twisting? Or is it about the Church and Christ? Or is the model proposed in the Bible, a real model? For another, real kind of marriage for us here on earth?
Note that, contrary to one reading of this passage advanced above, there is no explicit mention of either a church, or Christ, in this passage. Rather, it seems to be more about God and his kingdom, coming down from Platonic heights in heaven, to realize a kingdom of God here on this material earth. It is probably really about the coming of God or Christ to earth again, in the Second Coming. (Or some said, into the Church). Or, perhaps in the larger sense, it is about our relation to God or heaven; rather like the relation of a groom, to a "bride."
In any case, this return of God, heaven, to earth, is characterized as a sort of marriage; God or heaven is the "bride" coming down from heaven, to this world.
And this was not just a weak metaphor. If it was an ideal, it became the ideal model, for the actual behavior of real believers. The Church accepted it as the practical model, for nuns; who were said to be "married to" the Church or to God. Replacing the conventional marriage of woman, to man, in a very real way: nuns and priests, could not get the conventional man-woman marriage; but were allowed only this marriage instead. So that it functioned as an equivalent - and even replacement - for man-woman marriage. As a real-enough marriage.
In fact, the ordinary man-and-woman marriage, is indeed, even thought to be imperfect by the Bible itself. Specifically it is said to be a mere "shadow" of the ideal model posed in Rev. 21.2 ff.; of the better, truer, real marriage. Which again is not between man and woman; a gender distinction that arguably does not even exist in the kingdom. But rather, it is a marriage between heaven, and earth, spirit and body - or between (a rather female, "bride") God, and all believers.
This then is the REAL, MAIN marriage advocated by the Bible. And it note, was not between a man and a woman but all men and women with God. And this model was in fact, not a mere weak metaphor, or even a remote ideal either; but was constantly cited and enacted, by nuns and priests. Who did NOT engage in the man-and-woman marriage advocated by so many. But who had a different, better kind of marriage. As it was constantly asserted throughout the history of the Church.
Therefore in fact, there is good reason to say that the Bible, God, did not really fully approve of man/woman marriage at all; but preferred that we all be married to God. And this was not a remote ideal, but one realized in a practical way, in the priests and nuns, who married God, and not men and women.
And in some ways, it was even a GAY marriage. In that female nuns for instance, were married to a "bride"; a female-seeming heaven or church, coming down to earth.
And this seemingly strange marriage, moreover, was the true, real one.
While in contrast, the "Defense of Marriage Act," the recently-rejected insistence that marriage be defined as the union of "a man and woman," merely drags us back into the mire. As it even in effect, opposes the Bible and God. Opposing their idea, of a truer, better marriage. One that is not between a man and a woman, but between each of us, and God. (Or at worst, men and women both, priests and nuns, with an institution: the Church).
The Defense of Marriage Act therefore, was not only unconstitutional, as a recent court decision found; it is for that matter, profoundly unbiblical. In fact, those who insist on defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, actually oppose the Bible, and are opposing God.
Is Rev. 21's image of heaven coming down to earth, like a "bride" prepared for a marriage, really JUST a metaphor? Or "Alice-in-Wonderland" word-twisting? Or is it about the Church and Christ? Or is the model proposed in the Bible, a real model? For another, real kind of marriage for us here on earth?
Note that, contrary to one reading of this passage advanced above, there is no explicit mention of either a church, or Christ, in this passage. Rather, it seems to be more about God and his kingdom, coming down from Platonic heights in heaven, to realize a kingdom of God here on this material earth. It is probably really about the coming of God or Christ to earth again, in the Second Coming. (Or some said, into the Church). Or, perhaps in the larger sense, it is about our relation to God or heaven; rather like the relation of a groom, to a "bride."
In any case, this return of God, heaven, to earth, is characterized as a sort of marriage; God or heaven is the "bride" coming down from heaven, to this world.
And this was not just a weak metaphor. If it was an ideal, it became the ideal model, for the actual behavior of real believers. The Church accepted it as the practical model, for nuns; who were said to be "married to" the Church or to God. Replacing the conventional marriage of woman, to man, in a very real way: nuns and priests, could not get the conventional man-woman marriage; but were allowed only this marriage instead. So that it functioned as an equivalent - and even replacement - for man-woman marriage. As a real-enough marriage.
In fact, the ordinary man-and-woman marriage, is indeed, even thought to be imperfect by the Bible itself. Specifically it is said to be a mere "shadow" of the ideal model posed in Rev. 21.2 ff.; of the better, truer, real marriage. Which again is not between man and woman; a gender distinction that arguably does not even exist in the kingdom. But rather, it is a marriage between heaven, and earth, spirit and body - or between (a rather female, "bride") God, and all believers.
This then is the REAL, MAIN marriage advocated by the Bible. And it note, was not between a man and a woman but all men and women with God. And this model was in fact, not a mere weak metaphor, or even a remote ideal either; but was constantly cited and enacted, by nuns and priests. Who did NOT engage in the man-and-woman marriage advocated by so many. But who had a different, better kind of marriage. As it was constantly asserted throughout the history of the Church.
Therefore in fact, there is good reason to say that the Bible, God, did not really fully approve of man/woman marriage at all; but preferred that we all be married to God. And this was not a remote ideal, but one realized in a practical way, in the priests and nuns, who married God, and not men and women.
And in some ways, it was even a GAY marriage. In that female nuns for instance, were married to a "bride"; a female-seeming heaven or church, coming down to earth.
And this seemingly strange marriage, moreover, was the true, real one.
While in contrast, the "Defense of Marriage Act," the recently-rejected insistence that marriage be defined as the union of "a man and woman," merely drags us back into the mire. As it even in effect, opposes the Bible and God. Opposing their idea, of a truer, better marriage. One that is not between a man and a woman, but between each of us, and God. (Or at worst, men and women both, priests and nuns, with an institution: the Church).
The Defense of Marriage Act therefore, was not only unconstitutional, as a recent court decision found; it is for that matter, profoundly unbiblical. In fact, those who insist on defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, actually oppose the Bible, and are opposing God.
7.17.2010 | 11:13am
Wolf Paul says:
Actually, the situation in Germany (and Austria) where legal marriage and sacramental/religious marriage are completely separate, traditionally the churches, in order to be subject to the civil authorities, would only marry people sacramentally if they had already married at the registry office or (rarely) were scheduled to do so shortly.
This has come under attack now because of tax and benefits situations where two widowed old age pensioners would stand to lose a lot of their pension income (in the form of reductions and/or higher taxes) if they got legally married; on the one hand there are those who feel that this is unjust and put great pressure on the churches to provide sacramental marriage to such pensioner couples even as they remain legally unmarried; on the other hand there are those who feel that this constitutes a kind of "playing the system", "wanting to have their cake and eat it, too", and that the churches should not facilitate this.
I recount this simply to warn that separating legal and religious marriage will not entirely solve all the problems, because what the churches do has to be within the law of the state.
And saying that churches are simply voluntary associations, and if they do not act for the state in marrying people, they can feel free to exclude those who do not meet their criteria for marriage, is naive: if gay marriage becomes sufficiently accepted in society at large, the state will simply re-define that which the church provides as a service, and will insist that just like the services of photographers, bakers, hotels, etc. it must be provided to all without discrimination. Non-compliance will at first be punished by withdrawal of tax-excempt status, and eventually by fines or worse.
Paul says, "Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesu will be persecuted," and that will become our experience again, in the not too distant future. Right now we in the West are spoiled in this regard, and no longer take this verse seriously, or think we can get out of it.
This has come under attack now because of tax and benefits situations where two widowed old age pensioners would stand to lose a lot of their pension income (in the form of reductions and/or higher taxes) if they got legally married; on the one hand there are those who feel that this is unjust and put great pressure on the churches to provide sacramental marriage to such pensioner couples even as they remain legally unmarried; on the other hand there are those who feel that this constitutes a kind of "playing the system", "wanting to have their cake and eat it, too", and that the churches should not facilitate this.
I recount this simply to warn that separating legal and religious marriage will not entirely solve all the problems, because what the churches do has to be within the law of the state.
And saying that churches are simply voluntary associations, and if they do not act for the state in marrying people, they can feel free to exclude those who do not meet their criteria for marriage, is naive: if gay marriage becomes sufficiently accepted in society at large, the state will simply re-define that which the church provides as a service, and will insist that just like the services of photographers, bakers, hotels, etc. it must be provided to all without discrimination. Non-compliance will at first be punished by withdrawal of tax-excempt status, and eventually by fines or worse.
Paul says, "Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesu will be persecuted," and that will become our experience again, in the not too distant future. Right now we in the West are spoiled in this regard, and no longer take this verse seriously, or think we can get out of it.
7.17.2010 | 11:49am
Mark says:
Wolf Paul: "because what the churches do has to be within the law of the state."
Is that really the case in Germany or Austria? In the U.S., churches are perfectly free to preside over wedding ceremonies that do not result in a marriage certificate being issued.
Wolf Paul: "And saying that churches are simply voluntary associations, and if they do not act for the state in marrying people, they can feel free to exclude those who do not meet their criteria for marriage, is naive"
No, it's not naive, it is based on the prevailing doctrine in the U.S. of separation of church and state and freedom of religion. The U.S. Supreme Court case Boy Scouts of America v. Dale held that the Boy Scouts as a private organization could deny membership to homosexuals as an "expressive message." Catholic churches are free to deny a marriage ceremony to not only homosexuals but also to divorcees and anyone else not eligible for a Catholic wedding under canon law. A mosque can refuse to officiate a marriage between a non-Muslim man and a Muslim woman. Other religious institutions are free to discriminate in a similar manner. Changing the civil marriage law does not force religious denominations to change their own internal rules for marriage.
Is that really the case in Germany or Austria? In the U.S., churches are perfectly free to preside over wedding ceremonies that do not result in a marriage certificate being issued.
Wolf Paul: "And saying that churches are simply voluntary associations, and if they do not act for the state in marrying people, they can feel free to exclude those who do not meet their criteria for marriage, is naive"
No, it's not naive, it is based on the prevailing doctrine in the U.S. of separation of church and state and freedom of religion. The U.S. Supreme Court case Boy Scouts of America v. Dale held that the Boy Scouts as a private organization could deny membership to homosexuals as an "expressive message." Catholic churches are free to deny a marriage ceremony to not only homosexuals but also to divorcees and anyone else not eligible for a Catholic wedding under canon law. A mosque can refuse to officiate a marriage between a non-Muslim man and a Muslim woman. Other religious institutions are free to discriminate in a similar manner. Changing the civil marriage law does not force religious denominations to change their own internal rules for marriage.
7.17.2010 | 1:34pm
Richard says:
BG,
Your biblical exegesis on the meaning of marriage very much reminds me of a passage from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass:
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'
Best,
Richard
Your biblical exegesis on the meaning of marriage very much reminds me of a passage from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass:
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'
Best,
Richard
7.17.2010 | 2:23pm
FlexSF says:
Hello, being born and raised in this country, secular, I expect legal access to the exact same civil services, offered at City Hall, that everyone else has. Currently I'm denied this because of my sex, and sexual orientation. Nobody should've had the power to vote on whom I may or may not marry, but they did and do. This is what is being challenged in federal court, and anything less than legal equality is unacceptable.
I don't understand the conversations about church. It's an entity that has never been on my radar screen until my right to get married was voted away. If I get married at City Hall, it will have absolutely zero impact on any religious organization. Please mind your own business, and keep away from my secular private life!
Good day.
I don't understand the conversations about church. It's an entity that has never been on my radar screen until my right to get married was voted away. If I get married at City Hall, it will have absolutely zero impact on any religious organization. Please mind your own business, and keep away from my secular private life!
Good day.
7.17.2010 | 3:03pm
tjohio says:
Wolf Paul says... "Paul says, "Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesu will be persecuted," and that will become our experience again, in the not too distant future. Right now we in the West are spoiled in this regard, and no longer take this verse seriously, or think we can get out of it. "
This "christian" persecution meme never ceases to astound me.
"christians" have unprecented freedom in the US. I can't walk outside my front door and throw a rock in any direction without hitting a church. All of them tax exempt.
I submit that "christians" have most of the arguments 100% backward. It is they who want to persecute those who do not believe as them. They want everyone else to worship exactly as they see fit.
No one is stopping them from going to church and living a "godly" life. No one keeps them from praying. No beliefs are forced on them. They can take their children to Sunday School and teach them all about religion they want.
But that's not good enough for them. They need everyone else to believe it. They need everyone else to accept them as they FORCE their morality on the rest of us.
I get so sick of hearing about prayer being forbidden in school. Pray is not forbidden in any school, anyone can bow their head and pray and even have christian groups meet before or after school. But that's not what they want. They want to pray over the PA system forcing everyone else to pray with them, or having teachers lead the entire class in prayers to their god.
They are not content in their worship. They need public businesses to spread christmas for them. They need to plaster their scriptures and religious symbols all over public property. They have a need to go into the workplace and preach and hang scriptures up condeming sin and causing consternation in the workplace and wonder why they get fired.
And this idea that any business should be able to place a "no (fill in the blank) served here" sign in their public business is the very anthesis of the message of christ.
Persecution? Far from it.
This "christian" persecution meme never ceases to astound me.
"christians" have unprecented freedom in the US. I can't walk outside my front door and throw a rock in any direction without hitting a church. All of them tax exempt.
I submit that "christians" have most of the arguments 100% backward. It is they who want to persecute those who do not believe as them. They want everyone else to worship exactly as they see fit.
No one is stopping them from going to church and living a "godly" life. No one keeps them from praying. No beliefs are forced on them. They can take their children to Sunday School and teach them all about religion they want.
But that's not good enough for them. They need everyone else to believe it. They need everyone else to accept them as they FORCE their morality on the rest of us.
I get so sick of hearing about prayer being forbidden in school. Pray is not forbidden in any school, anyone can bow their head and pray and even have christian groups meet before or after school. But that's not what they want. They want to pray over the PA system forcing everyone else to pray with them, or having teachers lead the entire class in prayers to their god.
They are not content in their worship. They need public businesses to spread christmas for them. They need to plaster their scriptures and religious symbols all over public property. They have a need to go into the workplace and preach and hang scriptures up condeming sin and causing consternation in the workplace and wonder why they get fired.
And this idea that any business should be able to place a "no (fill in the blank) served here" sign in their public business is the very anthesis of the message of christ.
Persecution? Far from it.
7.17.2010 | 3:31pm
LoveSaves says:
All True Christians against marriage equality for same-sex couples should forsake themselves of all the civil rights and responsibilities of legal marriage as a form of devout martyrdom in defense of our faith. What we seek is everlasting life and peace after death with the Almighty Father, so we should follow the teachings of Christ and sacrifice our worldly pleasures in pursuit of that goal. Surely True Christians believe that obedience to our religion is more important that the privileges associated with legal marriage. After all, we should expect to be in the minority and punished for our beliefs as was Christ. Anyone who would eschew this preeminent burden of the faithful based on their perceived entitlement to governmental benefits and sanction is not a True Christian and nothing but a Pharisee. Let us, as did Christ, lead through example in the behaviors of personal lives rather than attempt to use the oppressive force of the State to act as a banal bulwark for our indomitable faith.
7.17.2010 | 4:47pm
Irenaeus says:
"...should forsake themselves of all the civil rights and responsibilities of legal marriage as a form of devout martyrdom in defense of our faith."
No; this is spiritual pathology. We're not under any obligation to help the state persecute us. In Christian history, the deliberate seeking of martyrdom, while sometimes practiced, has been discouraged. Further, I'm under no obligation to make life even harder for my Christian children. "Lead us not into the time of trial, but deliver us from evil..." Moreover, I would maintain (although some Christian bodies wouldn't) that Christians have an obligation to speak up and out about the right ordering of human society, for we are all a part of it. I would maintain (fully expecting to be flamed) that gay "marriage" is "unjust" in classical terms -- especially when it comes to children, who deserve a mom and a dad and nothing else and nothing less. My $.02.
The vitriol and ignorance and bad faith on this thread depresses me, so instead of jumping in, here's some links for those who would read further and deeper:
Maggie Gallagher on "the coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty"
Adam Kolasinski, "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage"
Institute for Marriage and Public Policy
Witherspoon Institute: Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles (.pdf!)
God bless you all.
No; this is spiritual pathology. We're not under any obligation to help the state persecute us. In Christian history, the deliberate seeking of martyrdom, while sometimes practiced, has been discouraged. Further, I'm under no obligation to make life even harder for my Christian children. "Lead us not into the time of trial, but deliver us from evil..." Moreover, I would maintain (although some Christian bodies wouldn't) that Christians have an obligation to speak up and out about the right ordering of human society, for we are all a part of it. I would maintain (fully expecting to be flamed) that gay "marriage" is "unjust" in classical terms -- especially when it comes to children, who deserve a mom and a dad and nothing else and nothing less. My $.02.
The vitriol and ignorance and bad faith on this thread depresses me, so instead of jumping in, here's some links for those who would read further and deeper:
Maggie Gallagher on "the coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty"
Adam Kolasinski, "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage"
Institute for Marriage and Public Policy
Witherspoon Institute: Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles (.pdf!)
God bless you all.
7.17.2010 | 6:18pm
brettongarcia says:
Richard:
Of course I do not claim that a word like "marriage" for example, can mean anything at all. In fact, we need reliable authorities to determine the meaning of words. But the fact is, in fact, the Bible itself and God himself - not Alice in Wonderland - called our relationship to God a "marriage."
Do you, Richard, acknowledge the word of God as an authority? Or not?
Of course I do not claim that a word like "marriage" for example, can mean anything at all. In fact, we need reliable authorities to determine the meaning of words. But the fact is, in fact, the Bible itself and God himself - not Alice in Wonderland - called our relationship to God a "marriage."
Do you, Richard, acknowledge the word of God as an authority? Or not?
7.17.2010 | 7:38pm
Richard says:
Brettongarcia:
Yes I do recognize the word of God as an authority, but the interpretation of that word is anything but simple. Biblical exegesis is a massive enterprise involving many academic specialties and spiritual guidance above all. The latter is the rub. I cannot accept the idea than just anybody can go into the exegete business. All they need is a bible translation, a little ingenuity, and, if they are believers, the Holy Spirit. The result is chaos, as many bibles as there are readers.
My own reading of scripture is guided in particular by the magisterium and Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the other major Christian traditions as aided by the ancillary human sciences of archeology, textual analysis, history, linguistics, etc.
Marriage is a union between human beings for procreation and the expression of love. It is divinely sanctioned in scripture, and massively attested throughout the old and new testament. That is its most common, original, and primary meaning. To call our relationship with God a marriage is to use a metaphor.
Metaphors compare different things that in some crucial way are similar. This similarity is called in philology the tertium comparationis. God often styles his relationship with Israel like a marriage, but clearly this is figurative language. It expresses to limited human intelligences the relationship between divine and human using a common human institution that most people can understand.
If you call the metaphorical meaning of marriage the true meaning and use that assertion to deconstruct the original human meaning, you both interpret invalidly and, incidentally, undercut your own point.
Your interpretation flies in the face of the generally received understanding of marriage and its secondary use in describing God's relationship with humanity. Your reading is highly idiosyncratic, and it is obvious to me that the scholarly and denominational traditions are right and you are not.
I am loath to take on your analysis point by point, because there is no point in doing so. You want what you want and your discourse is constructed accordingly. Arguments and counter evidence never change your mind and never stem the flow of your endless prose. Talking to you is like talking to Niagra Falls. I don't think you are a mean man, but I don't think that you are one whose mind discussion can ever change. So why bother?
Pax tecum,
Richard
Yes I do recognize the word of God as an authority, but the interpretation of that word is anything but simple. Biblical exegesis is a massive enterprise involving many academic specialties and spiritual guidance above all. The latter is the rub. I cannot accept the idea than just anybody can go into the exegete business. All they need is a bible translation, a little ingenuity, and, if they are believers, the Holy Spirit. The result is chaos, as many bibles as there are readers.
My own reading of scripture is guided in particular by the magisterium and Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the other major Christian traditions as aided by the ancillary human sciences of archeology, textual analysis, history, linguistics, etc.
Marriage is a union between human beings for procreation and the expression of love. It is divinely sanctioned in scripture, and massively attested throughout the old and new testament. That is its most common, original, and primary meaning. To call our relationship with God a marriage is to use a metaphor.
Metaphors compare different things that in some crucial way are similar. This similarity is called in philology the tertium comparationis. God often styles his relationship with Israel like a marriage, but clearly this is figurative language. It expresses to limited human intelligences the relationship between divine and human using a common human institution that most people can understand.
If you call the metaphorical meaning of marriage the true meaning and use that assertion to deconstruct the original human meaning, you both interpret invalidly and, incidentally, undercut your own point.
Your interpretation flies in the face of the generally received understanding of marriage and its secondary use in describing God's relationship with humanity. Your reading is highly idiosyncratic, and it is obvious to me that the scholarly and denominational traditions are right and you are not.
I am loath to take on your analysis point by point, because there is no point in doing so. You want what you want and your discourse is constructed accordingly. Arguments and counter evidence never change your mind and never stem the flow of your endless prose. Talking to you is like talking to Niagra Falls. I don't think you are a mean man, but I don't think that you are one whose mind discussion can ever change. So why bother?
Pax tecum,
Richard
7.17.2010 | 9:29pm
Thomas R says:
"In the patristic period, marriage was held to be an indissoluable sacrament that transcended death; therefore a person could enter into only one sacramental marriage in a lifetime."
I don't get that part. In the Gospels Jesus clearly indicates marriage ends at death. (Mark 12:25 - "For when they shall rise again from the dead, they shall neither marry, nor be married, but are as the angels in heaven.")
I don't get that part. In the Gospels Jesus clearly indicates marriage ends at death. (Mark 12:25 - "For when they shall rise again from the dead, they shall neither marry, nor be married, but are as the angels in heaven.")
7.17.2010 | 11:18pm
George Waugh says:
In Mark 10:2-9, regarding divorce and marriage, "and the Pharisees came up and in order to test Him asked, 'is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?' He answered them, 'what did Moses command you?' They said, 'Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.' And Jesus said to them, 'because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment, but from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.'" ESV. Here the Bible clearly indicates that, regarding marriage, the original plan of God was a man and a woman united for life. Amen.
7.18.2010 | 12:46am
Mark says:
I missed this last comment by Wolf Paul: "Paul says, "Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted," and that will become our experience again, in the not too distant future."
I suspected something was up whenever I discuss this issue with extremely devout Christians. There really does seem to be a theological need for some people to believe that they will be persecuted in the not-too-distant future. The fact that American-style secularism from the very beginning has held as an inviolable principle the freedom to practice one's religion within one's own church is inconvenient.
Joe Carter comes on the scene to proclaim that he knows more about this subject than many of us who have done our homework and that courts are near to ruling that churches must officiate gay weddings. Nonsense. But we are in the realm of theology rather than facts here. It seems necessary for some people's sense of religious self-esteem to believe that any day now the ungodly will start persecuting them again.
It reminds me of some college kids and their need to believe they will be arrested and dragged off to jail for engaging in supposedly radical protests. When college administrators greet them with milk and cookies (sometimes literally!) they get irritated. Persecute us already! I propose that gay groups start to sponsor coffee-and-donut gatherings at very conservative churches (provided the church does not insist on testing said coffee and donuts for poison first). That will really rattle them.
I suspected something was up whenever I discuss this issue with extremely devout Christians. There really does seem to be a theological need for some people to believe that they will be persecuted in the not-too-distant future. The fact that American-style secularism from the very beginning has held as an inviolable principle the freedom to practice one's religion within one's own church is inconvenient.
Joe Carter comes on the scene to proclaim that he knows more about this subject than many of us who have done our homework and that courts are near to ruling that churches must officiate gay weddings. Nonsense. But we are in the realm of theology rather than facts here. It seems necessary for some people's sense of religious self-esteem to believe that any day now the ungodly will start persecuting them again.
It reminds me of some college kids and their need to believe they will be arrested and dragged off to jail for engaging in supposedly radical protests. When college administrators greet them with milk and cookies (sometimes literally!) they get irritated. Persecute us already! I propose that gay groups start to sponsor coffee-and-donut gatherings at very conservative churches (provided the church does not insist on testing said coffee and donuts for poison first). That will really rattle them.
7.18.2010 | 1:20am
Edward Alleyn says:
Surely, there is plenty of evidence that the ungodly are already persecuting Christians. just look at what Muslims are doing to Christians in the Sudan, Ethiopia and Nigeria.
From Wikipedia: "In the 20th century, Christians have been persecuted by radical Muslim and Hindu groups inter alia due to conversion act conducted by Evangelicals, and by (officially) atheistic states such as the USSR and North Korea. Currently (as of 2010), as estimated by Open Doors UK, an estimated 100 million Christians face persecution, particularly in the Muslim world, North Korea and the hands of Hindu extremism in India . . ."
From Wikipedia: "In the 20th century, Christians have been persecuted by radical Muslim and Hindu groups inter alia due to conversion act conducted by Evangelicals, and by (officially) atheistic states such as the USSR and North Korea. Currently (as of 2010), as estimated by Open Doors UK, an estimated 100 million Christians face persecution, particularly in the Muslim world, North Korea and the hands of Hindu extremism in India . . ."
7.18.2010 | 4:33am
brettongarcia says:
As Thomas R confirms above, the Bible, speaking clearly of normal, literal marriages, firmly said that they would end one day. In part, since there was "neither male nor female" in the kingdom of heaven (Gal. 3.28).
Since gender distinctions disappear in the kingdom of God, therefore, real, literal marriages cannot exist in the kingdom. First, there are no marriages between angels, as Jesus makes clear; nor ultimately, for we ourselves, as residents of the kingdom, either (Mat. 22.30; Mark 12.25; Luke 20.34 ff).
The sons of the "age" of Jesus maintained strong gender distinctions. And they married, men to women. But amazingly, the Bible firmly said, that age and lifestyle was supposed to change. Giving way to a new kind of (only metaphorical?) marriage: "for the marriage of the Lamb has come" (Rev. 19.7, 21.2 ff).
This was probably not ALWAYS a very, very loose metaphor, as described above; but a very, very real change in status. Perhaps to be sure, 1) our new relationship or "marriage" to God in the kingdom, is a rather metaphorical "marriage." But perhaps not. In any case, it is clear that 2) the real, literal, man-and-woman marriage we see on earth in any case, firmly, definitely, ends. Jesus firmly says, that there is no more marriage between men and women, in the kingdom of heaven:
"People will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (Mat. 22.30).
Would you like to join that kingdom, Richard? There, actual, literal male-and-female marriage ends. And another kind of relationship or "marriage," takes its place.
Even as we begin to see, here and now, in part. With the recent negation of the "Defense of Marriage Act."
Since gender distinctions disappear in the kingdom of God, therefore, real, literal marriages cannot exist in the kingdom. First, there are no marriages between angels, as Jesus makes clear; nor ultimately, for we ourselves, as residents of the kingdom, either (Mat. 22.30; Mark 12.25; Luke 20.34 ff).
The sons of the "age" of Jesus maintained strong gender distinctions. And they married, men to women. But amazingly, the Bible firmly said, that age and lifestyle was supposed to change. Giving way to a new kind of (only metaphorical?) marriage: "for the marriage of the Lamb has come" (Rev. 19.7, 21.2 ff).
This was probably not ALWAYS a very, very loose metaphor, as described above; but a very, very real change in status. Perhaps to be sure, 1) our new relationship or "marriage" to God in the kingdom, is a rather metaphorical "marriage." But perhaps not. In any case, it is clear that 2) the real, literal, man-and-woman marriage we see on earth in any case, firmly, definitely, ends. Jesus firmly says, that there is no more marriage between men and women, in the kingdom of heaven:
"People will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (Mat. 22.30).
Would you like to join that kingdom, Richard? There, actual, literal male-and-female marriage ends. And another kind of relationship or "marriage," takes its place.
Even as we begin to see, here and now, in part. With the recent negation of the "Defense of Marriage Act."
7.18.2010 | 6:19am
Max says:
Jerry.... dude... see my earlier comment on the larger issue, properly speaking. My note back to MikeNYC was simply to point out that his statement that scripture does not condemn homosexuality was erroneous. As I stated in my first comment, if SSUs would simply limit the title of their arrangement a civil union, I could live with it. I'd still think it wrong as a matter of natural law and theology, but I could cede the "civil" point. Calling it a marriage qua marriage is where the rub is. That term denotes somehthing transcending the civil sphere.
7.18.2010 | 7:09am
Jim M says:
Lust may be like fire, but Christians who think God needs them to play firefighter for him are asking for the same kind of trouble that these real firefighters found waiting for them one day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NuQGx8ISbE
7.18.2010 | 7:36am
Max says:
Everyone should defintely go back and read the references that Irenaeus posted. Especially the articel by Maggie Gallagher in the weekly Standard. The second and third order effects of SSM on religios liberty are going to be significant. Even SSM's supporters acknowledge that. Get ready for some wild litigation over the next decade....
7.18.2010 | 8:55am
Mark says:
"Surely, there is plenty of evidence that the ungodly are already persecuting Christians. just look at what Muslims are doing to Christians in the Sudan, Ethiopia and Nigeria."
To be sure. But we are discussing policy in a democratic, secular, majority-Christian country. It's not clear what Sudan, Ethiopia and Nigeria have to do with either Christians or gay rights activists in the United States. For that matter, those same Hindu extremists who are persecuting Christians in India are also persecuting Muslims even more ferociously -- look up the Gujarat massacre.
Christian minorities in other countries face the same problems every other religious minority does when it comes into contact with radical, fanatical religious or political movements. Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with Americans like Ted Olson, Dick Cheney and many others who support the rights of gay people to marry in the U.S.
To be sure. But we are discussing policy in a democratic, secular, majority-Christian country. It's not clear what Sudan, Ethiopia and Nigeria have to do with either Christians or gay rights activists in the United States. For that matter, those same Hindu extremists who are persecuting Christians in India are also persecuting Muslims even more ferociously -- look up the Gujarat massacre.
Christian minorities in other countries face the same problems every other religious minority does when it comes into contact with radical, fanatical religious or political movements. Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with Americans like Ted Olson, Dick Cheney and many others who support the rights of gay people to marry in the U.S.
7.18.2010 | 9:28am
tjohio says:
Edward Alleyn says:
"Surely, there is plenty of evidence that the ungodly are already persecuting Christians. just look at what Muslims are doing to Christians in the Sudan, Ethiopia and Nigeria."
LOL, there you have it. Far from it being the "ungodly", the problem is with all the different religions (supposedly the godly) fighting each other to impose their own respective religions on everyone else.
"Surely, there is plenty of evidence that the ungodly are already persecuting Christians. just look at what Muslims are doing to Christians in the Sudan, Ethiopia and Nigeria."
LOL, there you have it. Far from it being the "ungodly", the problem is with all the different religions (supposedly the godly) fighting each other to impose their own respective religions on everyone else.
7.18.2010 | 9:38am
tjohi says:
Richard admonishes Brettongarcia: "Arguments and counter evidence never change your mind and never stem the flow of your endless prose. Talking to you is like talking to Niagra Falls. I don't think you are a mean man, but I don't think that you are one whose mind discussion can ever change. So why bother?"
Coming from the person who give us this in the same post: "Marriage is a union between human beings for procreation and the expression of love. It is divinely sanctioned in scripture, and massively attested throughout the old and new testament. That is its most common, original, and primary meaning. To call our relationship with God a marriage is to use a metaphor.
Metaphors compare different things that in some crucial way are similar. This similarity is called in philology the tertium comparationis. God often styles his relationship with Israel like a marriage, but clearly this is figurative language. It expresses to limited human intelligences the relationship between divine and human using a common human institution that most people can understand."
Endless prose like Niagra Falls? Right back at you Richard.
Coming from the person who give us this in the same post: "Marriage is a union between human beings for procreation and the expression of love. It is divinely sanctioned in scripture, and massively attested throughout the old and new testament. That is its most common, original, and primary meaning. To call our relationship with God a marriage is to use a metaphor.
Metaphors compare different things that in some crucial way are similar. This similarity is called in philology the tertium comparationis. God often styles his relationship with Israel like a marriage, but clearly this is figurative language. It expresses to limited human intelligences the relationship between divine and human using a common human institution that most people can understand."
Endless prose like Niagra Falls? Right back at you Richard.
7.18.2010 | 1:00pm
Charles R. Williams says:
The issue that Stuart raises is what the Church should make of marriage as defined by the state in the event same-sex marriage is made legal. Here are some options. The Church could forbid Christians to marry civilly and require that Christians obtain a civil divorce if they are married civilly. The Church could take no account whatsoever of civil marriage and offer the sacrament of marriage on its own terms to Christians irrespective of their civil marriage status. Another option would be to require couples who wish to marry to obtain a civil marriage as a precondition for sacramental marriage. Alternately the Church could consider a civil marriage to a third party as an obstacle to a sacramental marriage, requiring that couples wishing to marry in the Church be free to marry civilly. A related question is how the Catholic Church should regard a civil marriage between two baptized Christians in the event one of them should join the Catholic Church. Today, such a marriage has the presumption of validity. Case I, the parties were married by a judge; case 2, the parties were married by their pastor whose church has a traditional view of marriage; case 3, the parties were married in a church that also performs same-sex marriages.
Unfortunately, there is a wide and growing gap between our culture's and the state's understanding of marriage and Christian sacramental marriage. I think that at some point Stuart's proposals are how the issue will be resolved.
Unfortunately, there is a wide and growing gap between our culture's and the state's understanding of marriage and Christian sacramental marriage. I think that at some point Stuart's proposals are how the issue will be resolved.
7.18.2010 | 1:46pm
Peter Leavitt says:
Brettongarcia confuses the present earthly plane with that of the heavenly plane at the Parousia, something the Bible makes rather clear. On earth as Christ stated marriage ought to be a lifelong union between a man and a woman, the heard-heartedness of the Jews and others notwithstanding. Children are best served by the complementary influence of both a father and mother.
As to the issue that Stuart Koehl raises, civil law, within reason of the reality of fallen men and women, ought to reflect moral law. Christians nations don't stone adulterers or homosexuals.
The Catholic church in its wisdom states unequivocally through its catechism that homosexuality is a disorder of nature that when acted upon is a grave sin. For any serious Christian in the capacity of citizen to accede to the gay militant agenda of marriage would be an egregious error. We may lose this battle due to the decadence of our time, though we need to make a good fight.
As to the issue that Stuart Koehl raises, civil law, within reason of the reality of fallen men and women, ought to reflect moral law. Christians nations don't stone adulterers or homosexuals.
The Catholic church in its wisdom states unequivocally through its catechism that homosexuality is a disorder of nature that when acted upon is a grave sin. For any serious Christian in the capacity of citizen to accede to the gay militant agenda of marriage would be an egregious error. We may lose this battle due to the decadence of our time, though we need to make a good fight.
7.18.2010 | 2:28pm
Maria says:
Men loosing Father dignity and identity ...the cure being able to turn to The Father ..thrice holy ..thrice Fatherly ..the compassionate presence of The Mother , to bring forth this purity of truth in hearts ...
May such be our efforts so that the persecution already evident through the flood of poisoned programs and militant agendas would not be a threat to the young ..
We would see the truth that The Bride is The Whole Church ...or even any soul who recieves of the mercy and merits in The Spirit ...a tottally spiritual truth uncontamintaed by the uselessness of the flesh ...
and for those who are not able to grasp such pure truths , much less dangerous , to enter the Kingdom, as children ...and to reamain so ..
So did St.John , the beloved disciple ..or may be even all the disciples who are adrressed as 'children' by our Lord ...He , who is One with The Father ..and who reveals to us what it is to be a real Man ..and a real Father ..
May all His children give Him such honor and glory -
to drive out the spirit of confusion ....and is there any lack of such in our culture .. every immoral or adulterous union can create a threesome or worse ...every instrument used in killing of the unborn , possibly already contaminated with the demonic spirits of many , brought into the what is meant to be sacred spaces ...
Yet, we do not have to be afraid !
Our God is an awesome God ..and His Church can afford to loose tax breaks if it comes to even that !
May such be our efforts so that the persecution already evident through the flood of poisoned programs and militant agendas would not be a threat to the young ..
We would see the truth that The Bride is The Whole Church ...or even any soul who recieves of the mercy and merits in The Spirit ...a tottally spiritual truth uncontamintaed by the uselessness of the flesh ...
and for those who are not able to grasp such pure truths , much less dangerous , to enter the Kingdom, as children ...and to reamain so ..
So did St.John , the beloved disciple ..or may be even all the disciples who are adrressed as 'children' by our Lord ...He , who is One with The Father ..and who reveals to us what it is to be a real Man ..and a real Father ..
May all His children give Him such honor and glory -
to drive out the spirit of confusion ....and is there any lack of such in our culture .. every immoral or adulterous union can create a threesome or worse ...every instrument used in killing of the unborn , possibly already contaminated with the demonic spirits of many , brought into the what is meant to be sacred spaces ...
Yet, we do not have to be afraid !
Our God is an awesome God ..and His Church can afford to loose tax breaks if it comes to even that !
7.18.2010 | 3:46pm
Mike says:
To Max:
Neither of the quotes you mention in the Bible condemn homosexuality. That is and has been a misinterpretation by those who simply oppose homosexuality on personal grounds. When I was growing up in the deep south, people in a similar vain misinterpreted the Bible claiming that mixed race marriage and integration were against the will of God. In both cases, the Bible says NOTHING of the kind, only misinterpretations of those who put their personal prejudices above the Word of God. Taken in context, everyone knows what Paul was talking about and people being homosexuals was NOT one them. I suggest you read the passages you mention in the context of Paul's letters and times. Hopefully, it will become clear to you.
Neither of the quotes you mention in the Bible condemn homosexuality. That is and has been a misinterpretation by those who simply oppose homosexuality on personal grounds. When I was growing up in the deep south, people in a similar vain misinterpreted the Bible claiming that mixed race marriage and integration were against the will of God. In both cases, the Bible says NOTHING of the kind, only misinterpretations of those who put their personal prejudices above the Word of God. Taken in context, everyone knows what Paul was talking about and people being homosexuals was NOT one them. I suggest you read the passages you mention in the context of Paul's letters and times. Hopefully, it will become clear to you.
7.18.2010 | 3:51pm
Robert P says:
Everyone is entilted to their own opinion and or beliefs. They are not entitled to there own facts. Facts are stubborn things. No matter how much we may wish otherwise marriage is what it is.
Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Any other combination is something else.
Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Any other combination is something else.
7.18.2010 | 4:24pm
Gil Costello says:
Sometimes it's best to return to what went wrong and correct an initial mistake. Too many persons, in a grand gesture of charity, began to indulge the fictions of the initial gay movement out of a sense of propriety: "So what if they are living a life built on lies: it's their life, and they should be able to live it any way they choose if they are not imposing it on anyone else." I agreed with this beginning with Stonewall. I couldn’t find a single gay person who was asking for anything other than "Leave us alone to do our thing in our homes and our clubs. We are not out to force anything on anyone. That’s a homophobic reaction from crazy Christians."
It was true. Those crazy Christians seemed to be the only ones with an agenda opposed to a simple request to be left alone: "You think they'll stop at what they're asking for now? It won't be long before they demand that children be taught their way of life in our schools!" Well, that did sound like pure homophobic lunacy.
When the fictions began to be manufactured by gay leadership in an effort to gain wider acceptance and a broader power base (for example, the "gay gene", the myth of no problems of mental and physical ill-health endemic to a gay lifestyle, and that the sexual habits of gays being identical to the natural desires of heterosexually oriented persons not suffering from sexual repression) we stood back with a ho-hum. We would tell ourselves, "Well, everyone lives a lie in one degree or another. It's really no business of mine. If gays feel better about themselves in living lies, then who am I to force truths on them? I don't want anyone forcing truths about me on me either!"
The problem arose specifically when what the early “crazy Christians” said would happen actually began to happen: The gay leadership (Kevin Jennings now at the national helm) together with other sex liberationists, decided the final road to success in the cultural implantation of the notion that destructive sexual behavior is in fact normal and an expression of intimacy (intimacy is never destructive) begins and ends with the indoctrination of children into sexual fictions from the earliest age possible. And even us Christians somewhat nervously sat back and watched it unfold, comforted only by our distorted sense of Christian charity (in our lukewarmness we cut truth from the matrix of justice).
Heed FlexSF's clarion call: "We lead, you follow!" Gay leadership, together with other sex liberationists, are now confident that their fictions are carved in legal stone, never to be ground away, which inspires them to manufacture more. So it is that if we who are concerned for our children want to fight back, it can't begin anywhere other than by dismantling the lies institutionalized in the highest courts of the land and taught in schools.
Gay marriage is nothing other than the last nail in the sociological coffin of truth.
It was true. Those crazy Christians seemed to be the only ones with an agenda opposed to a simple request to be left alone: "You think they'll stop at what they're asking for now? It won't be long before they demand that children be taught their way of life in our schools!" Well, that did sound like pure homophobic lunacy.
When the fictions began to be manufactured by gay leadership in an effort to gain wider acceptance and a broader power base (for example, the "gay gene", the myth of no problems of mental and physical ill-health endemic to a gay lifestyle, and that the sexual habits of gays being identical to the natural desires of heterosexually oriented persons not suffering from sexual repression) we stood back with a ho-hum. We would tell ourselves, "Well, everyone lives a lie in one degree or another. It's really no business of mine. If gays feel better about themselves in living lies, then who am I to force truths on them? I don't want anyone forcing truths about me on me either!"
The problem arose specifically when what the early “crazy Christians” said would happen actually began to happen: The gay leadership (Kevin Jennings now at the national helm) together with other sex liberationists, decided the final road to success in the cultural implantation of the notion that destructive sexual behavior is in fact normal and an expression of intimacy (intimacy is never destructive) begins and ends with the indoctrination of children into sexual fictions from the earliest age possible. And even us Christians somewhat nervously sat back and watched it unfold, comforted only by our distorted sense of Christian charity (in our lukewarmness we cut truth from the matrix of justice).
Heed FlexSF's clarion call: "We lead, you follow!" Gay leadership, together with other sex liberationists, are now confident that their fictions are carved in legal stone, never to be ground away, which inspires them to manufacture more. So it is that if we who are concerned for our children want to fight back, it can't begin anywhere other than by dismantling the lies institutionalized in the highest courts of the land and taught in schools.
Gay marriage is nothing other than the last nail in the sociological coffin of truth.
7.18.2010 | 4:48pm
Gil Costello says:
There are only two types of human persons: male and female. Once common sense revealed the differences between these two human types, but now the burden is placed on the sciences, and, particularly with neuroscience, the sciences are discovering a plethora of factors that go into making up these two distinct types. And the sciences are also discovering the many wonderful things that happen when these two types are unified, yet in the end so much of it will remain a mystery. But again, what the sciences are discovering is what all lasting religions have always known, that the unity of man and woman creates the best environment for a child to grow up in. The ongoing assault by sex liberationists has taken its toll, but the fight is still worth fighting, for the children.
7.18.2010 | 5:24pm
Gil Costello says:
Mark - When you write, "The fact that American-style secularism from the very beginning has held as an inviolable principle the freedom to practice one's religion within one's own church..." I assume you are also embracing that same secular voice that goes on to say that once a person leaves their place of worship, they are free to voice their religious views in public, are actually encouraged to do so (how we ended up with such great leaders as Lincoln and King). This goes to the heart of what is good in a true secular liberalism: an inquiring mind, a person who wants to know, would not in any way censor what any man thinks and wants to voice at the level of public discussion. It is that healthy humility that whispers, "Perhaps THOSE people might know something that can help the wider community discover a broader understanding, something that I, in my forever limited realm of reasoning, would never be able to fathom."
Just look to how the sciences continue to discover what many religious thinkers have known for centuries. For example, for many years we were told by scientists that the fetus was not human, just a conglomerate of cells not yet formed into what we could possibly call human, but with the advances in fetal surgery, scientists are now changing their minds. And for many years, beginning in the '60s, we were told by scientists there is actually little difference between men and women other than fleshy protuberances, but now neuroscientists are proving what many religionists have known for centuries: that there are many marked differences between men and women, and we now have to learn anew how to respect those differences, and especially how when joined those differences add up to what children most need, the evidence of a grand gestalt that makes possible the formation of healthy relationships, clearly distinguishing the many types of relationships, not confusing them. For example, the love shared by two men in a profound and mysterious friendship requires that they not have a sexual relationship, which would distort the meaning of friendship itself.
Just look to how the sciences continue to discover what many religious thinkers have known for centuries. For example, for many years we were told by scientists that the fetus was not human, just a conglomerate of cells not yet formed into what we could possibly call human, but with the advances in fetal surgery, scientists are now changing their minds. And for many years, beginning in the '60s, we were told by scientists there is actually little difference between men and women other than fleshy protuberances, but now neuroscientists are proving what many religionists have known for centuries: that there are many marked differences between men and women, and we now have to learn anew how to respect those differences, and especially how when joined those differences add up to what children most need, the evidence of a grand gestalt that makes possible the formation of healthy relationships, clearly distinguishing the many types of relationships, not confusing them. For example, the love shared by two men in a profound and mysterious friendship requires that they not have a sexual relationship, which would distort the meaning of friendship itself.
7.18.2010 | 6:56pm
Edward Alleyn says:
tjohio says:
LOL, there you have it. Far from it being the "ungodly", the problem is with all the different religions (supposedly the godly) fighting each other to impose their own respective religions on everyone else.
The homosexual agenda is tantamount to a religion; and that agenda is being imposed upon heterosexuals.
For a Christian it is ungodly for one person to persecute another. One cannot be godly and kill people in the name of your religion.
Mark: "But we are discussing policy in a democratic, secular, majority-Christian country. "
Why, yes we are. We are a democratic republic, I agree. I'm not sure what you mean by a "secular country." Are we comparable in that respect to, say, North Korea, where atheists persecute Christians? Your use of the term "majority-Christian country" is also unclear. President 0.0 claimed not to long ago that we are not a Christian country.
Lastly, it is not a matter of Christians vs. Gays: plenty of "secular" people oppose it, too, even many homosexuals.
Oh, yes . . . LOL!
LOL, there you have it. Far from it being the "ungodly", the problem is with all the different religions (supposedly the godly) fighting each other to impose their own respective religions on everyone else.
The homosexual agenda is tantamount to a religion; and that agenda is being imposed upon heterosexuals.
For a Christian it is ungodly for one person to persecute another. One cannot be godly and kill people in the name of your religion.
Mark: "But we are discussing policy in a democratic, secular, majority-Christian country. "
Why, yes we are. We are a democratic republic, I agree. I'm not sure what you mean by a "secular country." Are we comparable in that respect to, say, North Korea, where atheists persecute Christians? Your use of the term "majority-Christian country" is also unclear. President 0.0 claimed not to long ago that we are not a Christian country.
Lastly, it is not a matter of Christians vs. Gays: plenty of "secular" people oppose it, too, even many homosexuals.
Oh, yes . . . LOL!
7.18.2010 | 8:12pm
Alexander Supertramp says:
You do not have to eliminate the Church from state in such a way. Freedom of religion is protected in the Constitution.
7.18.2010 | 11:08pm
Mark says:
Gil Costello: "I assume you are also embracing that same secular voice that goes on to say that once a person leaves their place of worship, they are free to voice their religious views in public, are actually encouraged to do so (how we ended up with such great leaders as Lincoln and King)."
Free to voice their views? Of course, that's what the First Amendment says. I'm not sure what you mean by "encouraged," who you think should be doing this encouraging or what kinds of views should be encouraged. I can't say I'm that interested in encouraging Fred Phelps, the Church of Scientology, or some imam who wants to murder Salman Rushdie to voice their views in public. They certainly have that right, though, and I'll defend their rights (as long as they don't constitute terroristic threats, libel, incitement to riot or other well-known exceptions).
Edward Alleyn: "I'm not sure what you mean by a "secular country."
I mean what President Jefferson wrote in his letter to the Danbury Baptist association in 1802: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Free to voice their views? Of course, that's what the First Amendment says. I'm not sure what you mean by "encouraged," who you think should be doing this encouraging or what kinds of views should be encouraged. I can't say I'm that interested in encouraging Fred Phelps, the Church of Scientology, or some imam who wants to murder Salman Rushdie to voice their views in public. They certainly have that right, though, and I'll defend their rights (as long as they don't constitute terroristic threats, libel, incitement to riot or other well-known exceptions).
Edward Alleyn: "I'm not sure what you mean by a "secular country."
I mean what President Jefferson wrote in his letter to the Danbury Baptist association in 1802: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
7.18.2010 | 11:12pm
FW Ken says:
Of course the question that we need to ask is what is just and good.
Unfortunately, the answer to that question is essentially religious in nature, and will therefore privilege one religious viewpoint over another. As I understand it, that's a major breach of protocol in American civil matters.
So, instead, let's ask what interest the whole community, i.e. the "state", has in marriage of any kind. Why is it a public matter at all? With hundreds of benefits for the married state written into law (so the gay rights advocates tell us), a lot is at stake. Then, using hard data, we should determine whether same-sex relationships fit into the public interest. If they don't, they remain essentially private in nature, on a par with heterosexual non-marital relationships.
Whether Christian ministers, Rabbis, Imams, or Wicca practitioners should act as agents of the state, or whether civil and religious marriage should be separated, are interesting questions, but the question we should all be asking is whether same-sex marriages are of essential interest to the whole community. Call it marriage, civil partnerships, or whatever, doesn't answer the critical question.
I hope this point wasn't made above. The combination of malice, lies, and raw stupidity displayed in many of the comments left me skimming.
Unfortunately, the answer to that question is essentially religious in nature, and will therefore privilege one religious viewpoint over another. As I understand it, that's a major breach of protocol in American civil matters.
So, instead, let's ask what interest the whole community, i.e. the "state", has in marriage of any kind. Why is it a public matter at all? With hundreds of benefits for the married state written into law (so the gay rights advocates tell us), a lot is at stake. Then, using hard data, we should determine whether same-sex relationships fit into the public interest. If they don't, they remain essentially private in nature, on a par with heterosexual non-marital relationships.
Whether Christian ministers, Rabbis, Imams, or Wicca practitioners should act as agents of the state, or whether civil and religious marriage should be separated, are interesting questions, but the question we should all be asking is whether same-sex marriages are of essential interest to the whole community. Call it marriage, civil partnerships, or whatever, doesn't answer the critical question.
I hope this point wasn't made above. The combination of malice, lies, and raw stupidity displayed in many of the comments left me skimming.
7.19.2010 | 12:24am
Gil Costello says:
For any Christian who believes we who want to protect children should throw in the towel, you are in fact recommending that we sin in what we would be failing to do, and become equally culpable with the sex liberationists who are destroying the lives of children. Protecting the institution of civil marriage is a way of protecting children, and regardless how ignorant secularists may be, we aren't. Which means secularists in fact, in their ignorance, are not committing a mortal sin. But we Christians in our awareness would be guilty of mortal sin in supporting the destruction of the most important relationship a child will ever encounter, a mother and father committed to them in love and understanding. Should we only strive to protect Christian children, or all children? That is the question.
7.19.2010 | 12:53am
Jane says:
I'm a hetero, long-married Catholic, and I struggle with this issue.
I know the Church's thinking, but I also have trouble believing that homosexuality per se is a sin. For instance, it seems to me that promiscuousness or abusive relationships of any kind are much worse sins than a committed homosexual relationship.
I know that the State benefits in many ways from man-woman marriage because it so often produces children, but I believe that there would also be societal benefits in rewarding committed same-sex couples.
Stuart Koehl's suggestion, I believe, provides the perfect solution.
I know the Church's thinking, but I also have trouble believing that homosexuality per se is a sin. For instance, it seems to me that promiscuousness or abusive relationships of any kind are much worse sins than a committed homosexual relationship.
I know that the State benefits in many ways from man-woman marriage because it so often produces children, but I believe that there would also be societal benefits in rewarding committed same-sex couples.
Stuart Koehl's suggestion, I believe, provides the perfect solution.
7.19.2010 | 2:06am
Max says:
Mike: agree with you on race issue, vehemently disagree on your claim that the Biblical pasages can be read as anything but condemnation of homosexuality. I don't make the rules, I just try to live by them. By your interpretation, Paul's epistle to the Roman church would actually be an admonition by him for them to embrace the prevailing sexual mores of pagan Rome (rife with hetero and homo-sexual libertinage). Such a construction is so patently false that it is difficult to imagine an exegetical or historical interpretation that could support it. If your thesis were true, then the Christianization of pagan Rome would have brought about no radical transformation in acceptable sexual mores. that is to say, the sexual libertinage of pagan Rome would have been perpetuated in Christian Rome and after in all Christendom. It is histrically indisputable that this simply did not happen. Therefore, your interpretation is a new one and essentially argues that roughly 2,000 years of Christian tradition is wrong. I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy it.
To FlexSF: your argument that homosexuals are singled out from marital participation is also false. The law precludes numerous categories of relations from being married including incest (blood relative of 1st cousin or closer, generally speaking), polygamist/polygynist, minors below the age of consent, and bestialists. You argument that sexual liberty trumps all is clearly untrue as a matter of law.
To FlexSF: your argument that homosexuals are singled out from marital participation is also false. The law precludes numerous categories of relations from being married including incest (blood relative of 1st cousin or closer, generally speaking), polygamist/polygynist, minors below the age of consent, and bestialists. You argument that sexual liberty trumps all is clearly untrue as a matter of law.
7.19.2010 | 3:32am
Mark says:
Gil: "For any Christian who believes we who want to protect children should throw in the towel, you are in fact recommending that we sin in what we would be failing to do, and become equally culpable with the sex liberationists who are destroying the lives of children."
As Aquinas and many others have noted, failing to act to stop evil is not as morally culpable as deliberately acting toward an evil end.
Moreover, it seems to me that living in a secular society already requires you to not actively interfere with the way non-Christians raise their children even if that means the children will grow up to be non-Christian adults and never accept Jesus as their savior. Compared to that, growing up with two moms ought to be pretty trivial.
As Aquinas and many others have noted, failing to act to stop evil is not as morally culpable as deliberately acting toward an evil end.
Moreover, it seems to me that living in a secular society already requires you to not actively interfere with the way non-Christians raise their children even if that means the children will grow up to be non-Christian adults and never accept Jesus as their savior. Compared to that, growing up with two moms ought to be pretty trivial.
7.19.2010 | 8:11am
Richard says:
Mark,
In Christian theology, sins of omission matter. In Jesus' story of his condemning those who failed to help those in need in the judgement after death, the sins for which they were condemned were sins of omission (though particularly cruel ones). Still, certainly Christians in early Rome were indeed obliged to accept much behavior of which they did not approve, and this remains true today even in a Christian society, let alone a secular one. I must add that though we are constitutionally a secular state, culturally we are a pluralist society, and the dominant religious element in that pluralism is markedly Christian. Those in that pluralist society are free within the limits of civility to try to persuade others to adopt their views whether those views be atheist, Christian, Moslem, Buddhist, or whatever.
I agree that Christians in a secular society cannot and even should not interfere actively in the way non-Christians religiously or areligiously enculturate their children. Moral freedom is important to Christian theology, though it cannot be absolute (a principle with which secular society also affirms). My church's theology teaches that everyone is given the grace they need to choose the good, so in no case are children spiritually destitute. But children of atheists, for example, or lesbians, are deprived of a real good which it is better to have. What's trivial to you will not always be trivial to us.
Best not infer that all Christian theology assumes the worst for those who never become Christian or who practice homosexuality. There is no deeper mystery than the interaction between God and a given soul.
I intensely dislike coercion in morality. The best way to reach those who disagree with my convictions is to model them by living them. We are obligated to let the truth as we understand it be known, and to try to bring others around through persuasion, but a heavy hand is counter productive. In the end each soul must choose for her or himself. No one is lost who does not choose that eternal destiny. Or so some Christians see it.
Best,
Richard
In Christian theology, sins of omission matter. In Jesus' story of his condemning those who failed to help those in need in the judgement after death, the sins for which they were condemned were sins of omission (though particularly cruel ones). Still, certainly Christians in early Rome were indeed obliged to accept much behavior of which they did not approve, and this remains true today even in a Christian society, let alone a secular one. I must add that though we are constitutionally a secular state, culturally we are a pluralist society, and the dominant religious element in that pluralism is markedly Christian. Those in that pluralist society are free within the limits of civility to try to persuade others to adopt their views whether those views be atheist, Christian, Moslem, Buddhist, or whatever.
I agree that Christians in a secular society cannot and even should not interfere actively in the way non-Christians religiously or areligiously enculturate their children. Moral freedom is important to Christian theology, though it cannot be absolute (a principle with which secular society also affirms). My church's theology teaches that everyone is given the grace they need to choose the good, so in no case are children spiritually destitute. But children of atheists, for example, or lesbians, are deprived of a real good which it is better to have. What's trivial to you will not always be trivial to us.
Best not infer that all Christian theology assumes the worst for those who never become Christian or who practice homosexuality. There is no deeper mystery than the interaction between God and a given soul.
I intensely dislike coercion in morality. The best way to reach those who disagree with my convictions is to model them by living them. We are obligated to let the truth as we understand it be known, and to try to bring others around through persuasion, but a heavy hand is counter productive. In the end each soul must choose for her or himself. No one is lost who does not choose that eternal destiny. Or so some Christians see it.
Best,
Richard
7.19.2010 | 8:48am
Edward Alleyn says:
Jefferson, of course, was entitled to his opinion. Here's a working definition of "secular": "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis."
That definition applies to many people in our society, but not to all of them. You posit a society made up of people who oppose Christians who are not really part of the society, which is absurd.
Like many people you think of "society" as an abstraction, as something that transcends people.
That definition applies to many people in our society, but not to all of them. You posit a society made up of people who oppose Christians who are not really part of the society, which is absurd.
Like many people you think of "society" as an abstraction, as something that transcends people.
7.19.2010 | 12:42pm
Blaise Pascal says:
There is no right for sodomy. Therefore there is no right for so-called "gay-marriage". Period.
7.19.2010 | 5:56pm
Gil Costello says:
Mark – You write, “As Aquinas and many others have noted, failing to act to stop evil is not as morally culpable as deliberately acting toward an evil end.” In general, yes, but when the circumstances of a sin of omission are discerned, sometimes the omission is equally culpable, and sometimes is judged more serious, as in the circumstances I related.
You then write, “…it seems to me that living in a secular society already requires you to not actively interfere with the way non-Christians raise their children…” Not true. If a non-Christian is in any way putting their children in danger, intervention is the rule of law. This is why I insist that the time is long over-due for everyone concerned with the welfare of children, including Christians, to begin examining exactly what it means to in any way encourage a child to begin contemplating engaging in homosexual acts promoted as acts of intimacy in the gay community and sex education classes that are in fact life-threatening behaviors.
We also must begin an exploration of the gay movement approving adults having sex with children for decades until the UN in 1995 told the gay leadership that if they did not stop this practice, they would not receive UN recognition. It was then that NAMBLA was told they could no longer march in gay pride parades. There was never a public outcry before then from any gay leader to stop supporting adult men who engage children in sex. In fact, they were unanimously welcomed on board. And the gay philosophies and attitudes/perceptions that support male adults having sex with children still haven’t been openly criticized by gay leadership (I have never encountered a lesbian philosophy that justifies adults engaging children in sex). They will simply say things like, “I don’t support that and know of no gay men who do.” Which implies that overnight all those many thousands of gay men who supported adults having sex with children simply disappeared or underwent a radical conversion.
My point is that children in sex education classes are being taught that behavior that can maim them physically, emotionally and psychologically and even kill them are simply normal acts of intimacy, when in fact they are denigrating sado-masochistic acts. And the sex educators and “guest speakers” from gay organizations actually hide from these children basic facts of AIDS and other disease transmissions even while using condoms. This has to be stopped by anyone who cares about our children. Promoting destructive behavior for children to make gay adults feel good about themselves, with a belief that their self esteem inside a sexual orientation/obsession is more important than their lives, is the height of lunacy.
Again, gays and other persons caught up in a sexual identity that leads to a blinding sexual obsession/addiction are not as culpable in this destruction of children as those who are not blind to the facts.
You then write, “…it seems to me that living in a secular society already requires you to not actively interfere with the way non-Christians raise their children…” Not true. If a non-Christian is in any way putting their children in danger, intervention is the rule of law. This is why I insist that the time is long over-due for everyone concerned with the welfare of children, including Christians, to begin examining exactly what it means to in any way encourage a child to begin contemplating engaging in homosexual acts promoted as acts of intimacy in the gay community and sex education classes that are in fact life-threatening behaviors.
We also must begin an exploration of the gay movement approving adults having sex with children for decades until the UN in 1995 told the gay leadership that if they did not stop this practice, they would not receive UN recognition. It was then that NAMBLA was told they could no longer march in gay pride parades. There was never a public outcry before then from any gay leader to stop supporting adult men who engage children in sex. In fact, they were unanimously welcomed on board. And the gay philosophies and attitudes/perceptions that support male adults having sex with children still haven’t been openly criticized by gay leadership (I have never encountered a lesbian philosophy that justifies adults engaging children in sex). They will simply say things like, “I don’t support that and know of no gay men who do.” Which implies that overnight all those many thousands of gay men who supported adults having sex with children simply disappeared or underwent a radical conversion.
My point is that children in sex education classes are being taught that behavior that can maim them physically, emotionally and psychologically and even kill them are simply normal acts of intimacy, when in fact they are denigrating sado-masochistic acts. And the sex educators and “guest speakers” from gay organizations actually hide from these children basic facts of AIDS and other disease transmissions even while using condoms. This has to be stopped by anyone who cares about our children. Promoting destructive behavior for children to make gay adults feel good about themselves, with a belief that their self esteem inside a sexual orientation/obsession is more important than their lives, is the height of lunacy.
Again, gays and other persons caught up in a sexual identity that leads to a blinding sexual obsession/addiction are not as culpable in this destruction of children as those who are not blind to the facts.
7.19.2010 | 6:08pm
Gil Costello says:
Blaise Pascal - In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that gays do have a right to commit acts of sodomy. This was an important fight for gay organizations in their effort to equate anal sex with vaginal sex. Note that no heterosexual ever wanted to fight for the right to commit sodomy, even if they were involved in this sado-masochistic and life-threatening behavior. It was simply a gay-supported initiative that sought to normalize a destructive sexual behavior endemic to and embraced in the gay community, viewed as an act of intimacy, whether a gay man practiced it or not.
7.20.2010 | 5:22am
Mark says:
Gil, nearly every "fact" you wrote above is incorrect. The very short story is that there were radicals of various sorts who wanted to abolish age of consent laws in the gay movement in the very beginning, but once the movement became more mainstream and larger, those radicals were forced out. This process started in 1979 and both lesbian organizations as well as GLAAD and HRC have condemned NAMBLA and have done so for years.
Since the actual topic we were discussing was gay marriage and its affect on children, I can only interpret your off-topic diversion into the supposed sympathy gay men have for pedophiles to be a subtle attempt to equate gay people raising children to child abuse.
This is an outrageous libel on your part and I would ask you to please do some more research before spreading these "facts" in other places.
Since the actual topic we were discussing was gay marriage and its affect on children, I can only interpret your off-topic diversion into the supposed sympathy gay men have for pedophiles to be a subtle attempt to equate gay people raising children to child abuse.
This is an outrageous libel on your part and I would ask you to please do some more research before spreading these "facts" in other places.
7.20.2010 | 6:26pm
Gil Costello says:
Mark - What you write is an example of the ongoing attempt at rewriting history. All the way up to 1995, AFTER THE UN CONDEMNATION of the gay movement's support of NAMBLA and gay literature promoting adults having sex with boys, the process began where gay leadership threw NAMBLA under the bus and assigning the role of promoting gay men having sex with children to gay artists like Allen Ginsberg, Elton John, Cameron Mitchell and many others. And I haven't heard from a single gay leader yet any condemnation of these artists who continue to support gay men engaging children in sex.
It is true, by the way, that lesbians condemned gays for supporting NAMBLA from the beginning, and would refuse to march in gay pride parades for that very reason, as well as the rampant misogyny. Lesbians and gays formed a widespread alliance after gay leaders (with exceptions like Kevin Jennings) threw NAMBLA under the bus.
It is true, by the way, that lesbians condemned gays for supporting NAMBLA from the beginning, and would refuse to march in gay pride parades for that very reason, as well as the rampant misogyny. Lesbians and gays formed a widespread alliance after gay leaders (with exceptions like Kevin Jennings) threw NAMBLA under the bus.
7.20.2010 | 8:16pm
Gil Costello says:
Mark - From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association#The_International_Lesbian_and_Gay_Association_controversy
"In 1993 [not 1979], the International Lesbian and Gay Association achieved United Nations consultative status. NAMBLA's association with ILGA drew heavy criticism, and many gay organizations called for the ILGA to dissolve ties with NAMBLA....
"IN 1994, ILGA expelled NAMBLA and two other groups (MARTIJN and Project Truth) because they were judged to be 'groups whose predominant aim is to support or promote pedophilia.'"
Keep in mind that the many decades of lesbians protesting gay leadership in their support of NAMBLA had no effect on that leadership. Again, it wasn't until the gay leadership began to seek recognition from the UN and to form a coalition with lesbians for more political clout that it universally ended its support of NAMBLA.
But none of this has stopped gay artists from keeping up the fight to lower the age of consent so that adult men can engage children in sex. In other words, the strategy has shifted, but the goals remain the same. I say this because there is no criticism from gay leaders of this ever-increasing activity.
One of the reasons gay organizations fought so hard to decriminalize/normalize anal sex, and getting that victory in the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, is that we parents still had some ammunition to fight the indoctrination of children in sex education classes into embracing dangerous anal sex practices. We could, as I did, insist that these sex educators and "guest speakers" from gay organizations were opening pathways for children to experiment with very dangerous sexual practices. But after Lawrence v. Texas we have a tougher fight.
And yes, dangerous sexual practices that are erroneously taught as normal and expressions of intimacy between persons in child sex education classes is even more harmful if taught in the home because parents are the ultimate authority in the eyes of children. For parents to intentionally encourage their children to pursue a gay lifestyle, even model it to them, is as dangerous as encouraging children to purse a lifestyle of intravenous drug use.
As a single parent, I would spend all the extra money I had to enroll my daughter in extracurricular classes with women instructors so that she could at least have some influence on a regular basis in developing her sense of herself as a girl growing into womanhood. Why would anyone want to inflict on a child the absurd notion that two men in a sexual relationship can somehow fulfill what can only be fulfilled in a man/woman relationship? It is the warping of children's minds and leading them down a road of physical, psychological and emotional disaster that I object to, and for this reason we shouldn't institutionalize gay parenting even if we in silence tolerate it.
That's why it is imperative that we stop the institutionalization of gay marriage. I understand a gay man's need to feel that he isn't doing any harm by imposing his lifestyle on a child (the modern mind wants more than anything not to feel guilt), but my concern is not easing necessary guilt feelings from the minds of gay men when it involves the sacrifice of children on the altar of a gay man’s absurd notion of sexual identity.
"In 1993 [not 1979], the International Lesbian and Gay Association achieved United Nations consultative status. NAMBLA's association with ILGA drew heavy criticism, and many gay organizations called for the ILGA to dissolve ties with NAMBLA....
"IN 1994, ILGA expelled NAMBLA and two other groups (MARTIJN and Project Truth) because they were judged to be 'groups whose predominant aim is to support or promote pedophilia.'"
Keep in mind that the many decades of lesbians protesting gay leadership in their support of NAMBLA had no effect on that leadership. Again, it wasn't until the gay leadership began to seek recognition from the UN and to form a coalition with lesbians for more political clout that it universally ended its support of NAMBLA.
But none of this has stopped gay artists from keeping up the fight to lower the age of consent so that adult men can engage children in sex. In other words, the strategy has shifted, but the goals remain the same. I say this because there is no criticism from gay leaders of this ever-increasing activity.
One of the reasons gay organizations fought so hard to decriminalize/normalize anal sex, and getting that victory in the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, is that we parents still had some ammunition to fight the indoctrination of children in sex education classes into embracing dangerous anal sex practices. We could, as I did, insist that these sex educators and "guest speakers" from gay organizations were opening pathways for children to experiment with very dangerous sexual practices. But after Lawrence v. Texas we have a tougher fight.
And yes, dangerous sexual practices that are erroneously taught as normal and expressions of intimacy between persons in child sex education classes is even more harmful if taught in the home because parents are the ultimate authority in the eyes of children. For parents to intentionally encourage their children to pursue a gay lifestyle, even model it to them, is as dangerous as encouraging children to purse a lifestyle of intravenous drug use.
As a single parent, I would spend all the extra money I had to enroll my daughter in extracurricular classes with women instructors so that she could at least have some influence on a regular basis in developing her sense of herself as a girl growing into womanhood. Why would anyone want to inflict on a child the absurd notion that two men in a sexual relationship can somehow fulfill what can only be fulfilled in a man/woman relationship? It is the warping of children's minds and leading them down a road of physical, psychological and emotional disaster that I object to, and for this reason we shouldn't institutionalize gay parenting even if we in silence tolerate it.
That's why it is imperative that we stop the institutionalization of gay marriage. I understand a gay man's need to feel that he isn't doing any harm by imposing his lifestyle on a child (the modern mind wants more than anything not to feel guilt), but my concern is not easing necessary guilt feelings from the minds of gay men when it involves the sacrifice of children on the altar of a gay man’s absurd notion of sexual identity.
7.21.2010 | 12:34am
Hyhybt says:
The only times I've been able to find when gay men (overall; not the tiny NAMBLA subset you focus on and insist represents all of us) have argued for lowering the age of consent were when it was set higher for same-sex than for opposite-sex acts. The rest of your claims... well, really none of your claims are credible enough even to bother looking up proper refutations.
7.21.2010 | 4:15pm
Gil Costello says:
Hyhybt - That's one of my points. You claim that all claims that have been verified as fact but don't fit into the propaganda machine of the gay movement aren’t credible claims. In other words, facts aren't credible. You want justice without truth.
7.21.2010 | 4:31pm
Gil Costello says:
Hyhybt - I sometimes forget that what is obvious is not at all obvious. Just to be clear: when you and Mark claim that for the many decades that the gay leadership and the majority of gay men supported the very obvious goals of NAMBLA somehow never happened, that makes clear that you are hiding something. But then again, maybe you are young enough that it was even hidden from you (meaning you weren’t cognitively mature until after 1995). In any case, you can prove your disapproval by beginning to criticize contemporary gay artists like John Cameron Mitchell who still encourage gay men to seduce children and scapegoat those children. And you can also begin openly criticizing Andrew Sullivan who promotes anonymous sex as a mystical experience. When you and Mark begin this, then I will begin to take you seriously.
7.21.2010 | 7:16pm
Hyhybt says:
I've never even heard of John Cameron Mitchell (and may or may not look him up later) but even if he exists and is as you say, then that does not make him anything like representative of gays as a whole. Andrew Sullivan I have heard of, and have read his column on occasion, but I don't recall him making any such claims, nor do I see how they would be relevant if he did. After all, many straight people, too, enjoy anonymous sex; that doesn't make it *right,* but it's not, specifically, a failing of gays in general.
7.22.2010 | 4:23pm
Gil costello says:
I referred to John Cameron Mitchell as one of many gay artists promoting sex between men and boys and then scapegoating the children because he has been the most Successful at it, especially with his film Hedwig and the Angry Inch.
7.23.2010 | 8:17am
Tim Doubblestein says:
Separating civil and Sacramental marriage would be a positive thing for the Church. It allows and encourages the Church to think theologically about the public expression of the Faith and not just pragmatically. However, it then becomes incumbent that the leadership within the Church commit to upholding discipline while dogmatic matters are being discussed. The scandal of watching local churches thumb their nose at the larger body while issues are being discussed and debated, should no longer be tolerated.
10.14.2010 | 8:18am
Devora Nobregas says:
I get so sick of hearing about prayer being forbidden in school. Pray is not forbidden in any school, anyone can bow their head and pray and even have christian groups meet before or after school. But that's not what they want. They want to pray over the PA system forcing everyone else to pray with them, or having teachers lead the entire class in prayers to their god. For any Christian who believes we who want to protect children should throw in the towel, you are in fact recommending that we sin in what we would be failing to do, and become equally culpable with the sex liberationists who are destroying the lives of children. Protecting the institution of civil marriage is a way of protecting children, and regardless how ignorant secularists may be, we aren't. Which means secularists in fact, in their ignorance, are not committing a mortal sin. But we Christians in our awareness would be guilty of mortal sin in supporting the destruction of the most important relationship a child will ever encounter, a mother and father committed to them in love and understanding. Should we only strive to protect Christian children, or all children? That is the question.
Then too, 2) we say that nuns are "married to" the Church; which is not a union of a man and a woman, but a woman and an institution.
Most importantly, 3) the Bible caracterizes the second coming of God, as the kingdom of God coming down from heaven, like a "bride" to a bachelor (Rev. 21?). The coming kingdom is referred to often in the Bible, as a sort of marriage or marriage feast. But note, this marriage, acknowledged as the core of the Bible, is not between a man and a woman; it is apparently between all of Christian humanity, male and female, with a rather female heaven.
To define "marriage" as being between one man and one woman, therefore, conceptually attacks the BIble; and even makes ... parts of the Bible illegal.