The battle over gay marriage is heating up in the District of Columbia, as the forces against it are about to launch an initiative stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman. The prospects for this initiative are not good, since on its face, it violates the District's Human Rights Act as much as the prior attempt at a referendum to prevent the District from honoring gay unions performed in other states. With a Speaker of the House from San Francisco, it is unlikely that any District law on this subject will be negated by Congress by legislative veto. Furthermore, any such initiative would likely not pass the equal protection test in the courts, even if it were allowed on the ballot. Colorado citizens tried to negate all gay rights protections by a state constitutional amendment. The federal courts found that the motivation for this amendment was malice against gays, which is not a rational basis for inequality. There is currently a suit in California, filed by former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, alleging that Proposition 8 carries the same flaws, leading to the likely repeal of not only Proposition 8, but all such gay marriage bans, including the one enacted in Virginia in 2006. The Virginia Amendment, which even went so far as to negate "marriage like contracts" has not yet been challenged, since the Lambda Legal Defense fund is waiting for a better Supreme Court to move forward with these challenges - although waiting gave them Alito and Roberts in the interim.
Of late, the Catholic Church has been supporting amendments in support of traditional marriage. Indeed, the latest papal encyclical, Caritas in Veritate mentions defense of marriage between a man and a woman explicitly. The question I have is, is this a good idea?
The Sacrament of Marriage has a complicated history. In biblical times, polygamy was an accepted fact of moral behavior. Indeed, when rebuking the Sadducees, our Lord calls the patriarchs, who were polygamists, among the living. If their way of life were damnable, he could not have done that.
This past Sunday, the marital comparison to the Church in St. Paul's letter to the Ephesians was the Epistle for the week. It contains the phrase "the two shall become one flesh." This terminology is echoed in the Gospel of Matthew, written later, almost word for word. This phrase has two meanings. One is sexual but the other is legal. It reflects the underlying truth that when one is married, one is divorced from one's family of origin and one with one's spouse.
A main impetus for gay marriage is the lack of recognition in family law of the rights of the gay spouse in relation to the family of origin, especially regarding inheritance and end of life issues. Such couples function as a de facto family, but there is not recognition in the law. The law is not catching up to the reality of their situations - and it is recognizing that if a heterosexual couple can, with one act, gain recognition of their rights as a family, that is is an onerous burden to force a gay couple to execute a multitude of legal instruments to gain the same rights - some of which are still out of reach, particularly with regard to the Social Security system. The latter provisions are indeed anti-family, as sometimes the gay couple has custody of children and the natural parent is the one who has died. An equal application of the law would provide survivors benefits to the remaining custodial partner rather than forcing the child into the foster care system, or to an unfit parent. There is no sensible logic which can state with a straight face (pardon the pun) that breaking up an existing family unit at such a time is in any way "pro family."
These legal developments will, of course, affect the way the Church deals with marriage, since from ancient times the celebration of the Sacrament has followed the civil rite - and still does in much of Europe. The United States is unique in the use of religious authorities to celebrate civil marriage at the same time. The Sacrament was originally a simple blessing of the civil action. It later evolved into a separate set of vows. It is also recognized that the vows that a couple makes are made to each other. The Church witnesses the marriage, but it is performed by the parties themselves. Given that fact, any teaching that gays cannot marriage seems out of step with reality. They seem to do it all the time now, regardless of what the Church says.
Some object to gay marriage and gay sex overall because it cannot produce children. Marriage, of course, is as much about caring for children as producing them. Gays are perfectly capable of doing that, and in fact do it because people sometimes enter into gay relationships with children in tow. While religious leaders talk about the role of procreation in marriage, the ability to procreate is not a requirement in either civil law or canon law to marry - (Canon law requires only the ability to function - although it still regards sodomy as disordered). Of course, the very concept of disorder requires that there be a natural order outside of human experience to damage (since God cannot be damaged). If the natural order is considered a sophistry then the disorder argument carries no weight, especially given the biological evidence that homosexuality is simply a natural variation in the species. If inability to procreate is not a bar to marriage among heterosexuals, it cannot be so for homosexuals.
The distinction needs to be made here between marriages, which exist before God regardless of what we say, and weddings. Weddings, going back to the Old Testament, are a joining of two families as well as the separation of the couple from each family, as is dictated in the New Testament. Weddings are an opportunity for each family to give their tacit consent to the new situation (in some ceremonies, it is still asked "who gives this person in marriage"). Usually, the parent has no choice in the matter, yet asking the question was a recognition of the fact that the child is transitioning out of the family of origin. To not celebrate gay weddings deprives Catholic families of the chance to come to grips with this within the comforting embrace of the Church. As such, it is an insult not to the couple, who often care less what the Church thinks - since the Church appears to care less about them, but to the Catholic families who willingly or unwillingly, give their children in what is soon to be recognized as legal marriage.
Such recognition is inevitable, since there is no rational basis for the family of origin to maintain superior rights in relation to a gay spouse when it does not have these rights over a straight spouse. There is certainly no biblical justification for such a distinction if the two are considered one flesh. Indeed, it is more likely that the gay couple has separated from their families of origin, so the irony that the family of origin has more legal rights is stinging and will not stand the test of equal protection law.
Finally, the Church will see it in their interest to recognize these marriages, since if it gives the Church a platform to teach that monogamy is a good thing for gays and lesbians that it does not have now as it counts both monogamous and promiscuous gay sex as the same thing, even though it is not the same thing at all. The morality of the sex act is not the act itself, but how it is used. Promiscuity is always a selfish act, where committed sexuality is unitive, natural and an expression of how the person was created. If God created people to be gay, as we are finding, who are we to argue with God? Indeed, how can we expect gays and lesbians to trust the Church when we talk about God when we do not trust them when they say that they were created to be Gay and were well made? If the current teaching on homosexuality is a barrier to evangelization, and indeed an impetus to suicide for gay youth, how can it stand? My answer is that it can't and it won't. Hopefully the changing legality of gay marriage will be an impetus to a further examination of this fact.
Comments
At the moment the Catholic corporation, Mormons, and evangelicals, are awful institutions. It will be a delight to be legally liberated from them!
Is it a good idea ? Depends on your goal - hate sells. Is is abhorrent to the conscience of many westerners with a history of secularism and science, but it will aid in their recruiting in more backwards countries and especially in the middle east and places like Nigeria.
It's in the churches tradition of still campaigning against the simplest science like birth control and Galileo - incredible conservatism and lack of openness to any idea less that 2000 years old.
First of all: the churches that you always see in the limelight, on the news media, is NOT the true church! Only those who are behind the scenes, praying and interceeding! But there is coming a time when this spirit of homosexuality will be laid to rest and it will no longer have a stronghold in this world or this nation!
The bible says that " To lie down with a man as if he was a womon, is an abomination in His sight!" If God intended men to be with men and women to be with women, there would be no purpose in the creation of life, cause you can't be born into this world with same sexed individuals!
Yes, even in the bible, it speaks about many of God's people who had multiple wives and concubines! Even King David, whom founded the liniage of God's Son, Jesus Christ! So what??? DO NOT MISINTERPED GOD'S WORD!!!
Since this nation was founded on the Word of God, our morals should be holy! Remember, God destoyed Sodom and Gamor because they lived as this world is living today!
Eating Oysters is also an abomination, but that doesn't stop me from eating them in any month with an R in it. 8 days until that particular abomination is seasonal! Silly? So is relying on that particular OT scripture.
This is a Catholic blog. We don't traditionally proof text in Catholicism - we strive to find the deeper meaning and are open to the promptings of the Spirit, who sometimes speaks through the body of Christ. No part of the Body of Christ is dispensible, including those parts who are gay and lesbian.
It is also an abomination to eat shellfish, but I eat Oysters freely in months with an R in them. It is 8 days and counting to abomination season. Yummy. If this seems silly, so does using an Old Testament source from the same set of abominations to condemn homosexuality.
In Catholicism, we don't proof text. Sometimes we even rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance when our knowledge of humankind changes, as it has been relating to homosexuality.
When homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament, it is usually in the context of an expectation that all sexuality should be avoided if possible due to the imminent return of Christ. Every generation for the last 2000 years has believed it is the last - and every one of these has been wrong.
Michael,
Although your main argument is that it is in the church's best interests to recognize gay unions, I believe that you're using several weaker-than-ideal arguments that wouldn't hold up in a debate.
Personally, I believe "gay marriage" issue is not best argued from within the context of Christianity; instead, it should be argued from a constitutional standpoint. The flip side of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom is freedom FROM religion: civil equality.
The major mistake in your argument, I believe, is that "how God created us, releases us from blame or obligation." If you believe in Christianity, God created your entirety, did he not? Including the genetic predispositions towards infidelity, violence and other "sins" that we're discovering are hardwired into people.
You can still argue that it's the human mind, and reason, that God bestowed upon you, to choose to embrace your higher nature and avoid them.
(Part 1)
(Part 2)
Gays (of which I am one), as well as psychiatrists and psychologists worldwide, believe that sexuality is neither a choice, nor changeable.
Likewise, it is thought that pedophiles and the like do not "choose" their proclivities; there is simply something different about their brains, that drives them to commit socially (and morally) unacceptable behavior.
I believe, even as a gay man, that the only difference is that one is considered socially/morally wrong, and the perception of the other--homosexuality--is changing, because people are more accepting of two consenting adults sharing a bed than an adult and a child clearly incapable of consenting.
But I believe "God" made both homo, heteroexuals, and pedophiles the way they are. But you still have a "God-given" ability to control (presumably, unless those hardwired predispositions overcome you) your actions, and choose not to commit what is obviously a moral wrong. The "God made me" argument doesn't excuse ALL be
(Part 3)
All behaviors*. Bleh, it cut off my last post. Well, anyway; I just mean that radically different behavior like homosexuality, bisexuality, pedophilia, etc, is a result of differing brain structure, and not a choice.
But that doesn't mean embracing it is inherently praise-worthy, because you're acting as "God intended." Personally, I am agnostic, and believe all the Biblical condemnations of homosexuality are a product of their time, or product of their mistranslation over time.
Refraining from my argument degenerating into a general "attack" on religion entirely, I'll just say that there are far too many blatantly disregarded parts of the Bible--as ludicrous--to be considered "divinely inspired," and believe anti-gay sentiment among the writers is the -sole- cause for its inclusion.
Respectfully,
A Libertarian
Falls Church, VA
There's no business like religious business! even if I believe it is unfortunate for people to need crutches like the believe in God, we have to face reality, humanity has always had Gods from Zeus to Deus, the changes are the shops and the product they sell. The Roman Catholics have lost lots of followers with contraception and condoms and those in the business realize this, the Episcopalian, church of England and now the Lutheran are thinking of accepting gay people and gay marriage alse they'll be replaced by new churches and new leaders of the new church, in the scriptures Leviticus will be replaced by Priapus and Asinius will comment on the followers old and new.
That was a good article by the way.
Kudos to New England, Iowa and the Episcopal Church for supporting marriage equality. And now it's DC turn.
Marriage is firstly a civil matter in America, as marriage licenses are issued by and recorded in town halls not church halls, or mosques or temple....
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA
And to the marriage foes and sexually phobic please find something else to do with your time. Find love.
Why are we so keen to reject, disect and distort God's World to justifying doing what we know is wrong. God creates deformed people, mad people, murderers, and other criminals. Then if gay is acceptable, then let all the law books do away with all laws against these crimes because these people have been created by God with these abberations inherent in them. Please, just go ahead a do whatever you want and leave God out of it. He will sort you out when you meet yonder. The Gift of free Will He has given us and the power of the Holy Spirit are to assist us to fight and win over these unholy and unnatural tendencies. Christ was true God and True Man and He did not sit. Christians are called to imitate him, not to pander to their lowest inclinations and stand on the rooftops to justify themselves that God created them that way and it is OK to live that way. The Creation of man and woman was for procreation through the family thus the human race would survive until the end of time
Denise Hunnell is DC Catholic examiner. She is a coward that tends to censor those who express views that she does not like. For example, she apparently finds the following too offensive to remain on her page:
"What do the bishops have to say about the death penalty? Have the bishops expressed an opinion as to what role the government should play in alleviating poverty? What are their thoughts on immigration reform? What did the bishops have to say about the pre-emptive war that the United States launched in Iraq? What does the Church teach on the subject of torturing prisoners? Why is it that you so often quote the bishops when doing so advances your own right-wing political agenda, but ignore what they have to say when their opinions aren't politically conservative?"
Tell Denise Hunnell that censorship has no place on these boards.
Note to NOVA Libertarian. This is a religion section blog. We talk about the religious aspects of issues here. I have written in other places about the lack of a rational basis for denying gay marriage rights in the civil realm, and the comments are reflected here, but are not predominant. However, the question of whether childrearing is a requirement of marriage is still part of it, as is the question of whether religious marriage must include gays and lesbians. Churches can probably not be required to perform gay marriages, however they must recognize those performed civily.
Wonderful article, Michael. The mystery is how is it possible for someone who is so clearly intelligent and a "thinking" person still embrace the teachings of the church? When children believe in "imaginary friends" we find it endearing. When an adult continues to believe the myth that is Christianity (or any religion), it's baffling to me. I gave up childish things when I became an adult.
Don't mean to pick on your religion, because I find all of them equally offensive and completely irrelevant to modern life.
Thanks again for a good article..!
Support marriage equality!
Dan, because the religious experience is real. Indeed, my personal proof of God is that people still believe in Her (which is the correct pronoun, since this is the age of the Spirit - and the correct pronoun for the Holy Spirit is feminine in biblical Greek), even despite the foibles of religious leaders.
Most atheists are actually good hearted, which is the punch line in my next collumn, because they are motivated by love of their fellow person. Of course, once you act out of love, you have found God, even if you don't cop to it.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!