Let marriage be held in honor
by Alan F.H. Wisdom, January 23, 2001
Law must rest upon “the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization, the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.”
The phrases above were quite unremarkable when first set down, in an 1885 Supreme Court decision (Murphy v. Ramsey). It was taken for granted that the marriage-based family was the building block of civilization, and that society had a special interest in encouraging strong marriages. There were no differences on this point between statesmen and churchmen, or between the various denominations of Christians. All would affirm the wisdom of the Biblical injunction: “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for God will judge the immoral and adulterous” (Hebrews 13:4).
Today, suddenly, these phrases have become controversial. They slam squarely against the growing movement to abolish all moral and legal distinctions between marriage and other kinds of “committed” sexual relationships. Those other relationships are given various names: “holy unions,” “same-sex unions,” “civil unions,” and “domestic partnerships.” Sometimes a semantic difference is allowed to persist provisionally, with the word “marriage” still reserved for the lifelong union of man and woman. But strenuous efforts are made to eliminate as many practical differences as possible between marriage and other sexual relationships. The ultimate goal is to storm the bastion of marriage, opening it to all sexual partners who have been excluded.
This revolutionary cultural change has been nurtured quietly for years in law review articles, “alternative” church liturgies and some (not all) circles of the homosexual community. Now it has burst upon the public scene. In Vermont a 1999 court decision ordered the legislature to erase all practical distinctions between marriage and homosexual relationships. Now “civil unions” – treated as marriages in every possible way – are on the books in one state of the Union. It is to be expected that other states, and many churches, will be asked to recognize these relationships that now have legal status. The outcome is uncertain in both church and society.
Because the Presbyterian Church (USA) is a “mainline” denomination, this movement has inevitably found its way into our church. The failed 1991 human sexuality report proposed that “justice-love” should displace marriage as the standard of Christian sexual morality. At the 2000 General Assembly, the philosophy of sexual leveling found expression in two unsuccessful overtures, which proposed to treat marriage as merely one among many sexual relationships that the church might bless.
The Permanent Judicial Commission decision in the Hudson River case (May 2000) would allow this movement to proceed unchecked. “Same-sex unions” could be celebrated in every way as weddings, as long as the word “marriage” was not used. On the contrary, Amendment O would uphold the privileged status of marriage in the denomination, rejecting “same-sex unions” as a false imitation.
The arguments for “gay marriage” have great appeal in an individualistic, experience-oriented society such as ours. Here is an outline of some of those arguments:
- Sexual relationships are a private and personal choice. Individuals should be left free to seek their sexual happiness as they deem best. Neither the state nor the Church should favor any one relationship over another.
- The greatest good in life, to which everyone is entitled, is an intense individual experience producing a sense of self-fulfillment and connection to other persons and the universe. Sexual intercourse is such an experience, and therefore good sex becomes a kind of “human right.” The state and the Church should grant “equal rights” to all persons who are enjoying this profound spiritual experience. Marriage is an artificial construct of society. It is “just a piece of paper.” Marriage was defined by law to suit past social convenience, and it can be redefined by law to suit today’s social convenience.
- The bodies of the sex partners do not matter. What matters are their feelings of love for one another. It is “sex discrimination” to insist that the bodies of the partners must be male and female.
- Childbearing has no necessary connection to right sexual relationships. Some couples choose to have children, some couples choose not to, and some couples are infertile – it makes no difference. There should be nothing special in the eyes of the state or the church about a man and a woman who are prepared to raise a family.
- Both state and Church should be practical and accommodate themselves to current sexual realities. Since many people have sex outside of traditional marriage, we should make room for those relationships in our legal code and Church teaching. Perhaps the persons involved might even be somewhat less promiscuous if the state and Church treated them like monogamous married couples.
- Lastly, there is the challenge posed by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) on the floor of Congress: What harm would it do to their heterosexual neighbors if he and his partner Herb were granted a marriage license? The assumption behind the question is that no harm is done. Therefore the conclusion is that that the two men (and any other pair of sexual partners) should receive their marriage license. Or else marriage should be abolished as a distinct form of relationship.
In a “mainline” setting, it is surprisingly hard to resist such arguments. The liberal assumptions behind them have already penetrated deeply into the minds of many decision-makers. Conservatives may quote Bible verses condemning sodomy and fornication; however, large segments of our religious elites no longer regard the Bible as authoritative in the Church. And they certainly do not believe that Christians should “impose” Biblical principles upon others. Conservatives may warn that endorsing “gay marriage” will be divisive, and they may quote polls showing roughly 70 percent of the laypeople opposed to it. But liberals will respond by claiming the high moral ground, saying that they are standing on principles of justice for the sexual outcasts of our society.
The moderate majority in the mainline is often intimidated from making even these unsuccessful arguments. It knows that any defense of traditional marriage will be met with a harsh misconstrual of motives. Anyone who exalts the one man-one woman model of marriage will be tagged as a “bigot,” a “homophobe,” a “Pharisee” obsessed with imposing “narrow religious doctrines” upon the supposedly free-thinking majority. It is little wonder that persons who see themselves as compassionate, broad-minded, and peaceable would shrink back from engaging the debate under such terms.
Yet the debate must be engaged. The stakes are too high to ignore the questions that have been raised: What is marriage? And why does it deserve society’s special favor? The Church and our Western democratic tradition have developed some good answers to these weighty questions:
- Marriage is not merely a personal choice. It is an institution, among others, established by God for the benefit of humankind. The Church across the ages and around the world has understood the nature of marriage to be inscribed in the order of creation. When the Westminster Confession (6.131) defines marriage as “a union between one man and one woman,” it is not stating a peculiarly Reformed doctrine. Nor is this a narrowly Christian teaching. Marriage, according to the confession, is “ordained of God” for “the happiness and welfare of mankind” (6.131).
- Marriage is not defined by the state. Nor is it defined by the Church. It is defined instead by God’s purpose in the creation, when he formed man and woman and brought them together as “one flesh.” Thus marriage goes back before Christ, before Moses, before all churches and all states. Human societies around the world and throughout history have recognized the pattern of marriage (in some form). “The distinctive contribution of the Church in performing a marriage ceremony is to affirm the divine institution of marriage,” according to the Westminster Confession (6.136) Nothing in the Church’s liturgy should “diminish the Christian understanding of marriage” (W-4.9004).
- As an institution, marriage has its rules. Among these rules are: that it should unite a man and a woman (the two complementary sexes), that it should be freely and deliberately chosen, that it should be exclusive and monogamous, and that it should be a total and permanent commitment. Marriage is not an infinitely flexible contract that can be extended to any two persons. For any individual considering marriage, the pool of eligible partners is limited. Many categories of persons are excluded from the pool: minors, close blood relatives, persons already married, prisoners and legally incompetent persons, as well as members of the same sex. These exclusions are not some kind of arbitrary “discrimination;” they flow from the rules of marriage that apply equally to all.
- There is no other human relationship that is the equivalent of marriage, and therefore no other relationship should be treated as if it were the equivalent of marriage. Our Presbyterian confessions list among the purposes of marriage: as “the medicine of incontinency” (4.246); as a “spiritual and physical union” providing “mutual esteem and love,” comfort in trouble, and economic support to the partners (6.131); “for the mutual help of husband and wife; for the safeguarding, undergirding, and development of their moral and spiritual character; for the propagation of children and the rearing of them in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (6.134); as an alternative to “anarchy in sexual relationships,” and a demonstration of “the responsible freedom of the new life in Christ” (9.47). Other relationships may serve some of these purposes, but none of them serves them all so powerfully as marriage. No other relationship is so fundamental to the healthy ordering of society. No other human relationship, except perhaps that between parent and child, is lifted up so highly in the Scriptures as an analogy for the relationship between God and his people.
- The union of the two sexes in marriage is an intrinsic good, even apart from any personal or social functions that it may serve. The same cannot be said of other sexual relationships – which may manifest some forms of love and may bring some benefits, but which nevertheless violate God’s design for the right use of the good gift of sexuality.
- It is misguided to see socially-approved sex as some kind of “human right” owed to all persons. Sexual intercourse is not required for individual happiness, social adjustment, or spiritual maturity. Christianity has a long tradition of respect for celibate men and women who, by the grace of God, deny their own desires and offer a special service to God and the community. Such individuals are citizens of God’s kingdom and the state in the fullest sense. The fact that the unmarried have different responsibilities and receive different benefits does not imply that they have been deprived in any way.
- The bodies of the partners do make a difference in marriage. Marriage is far more than just an intense emotional experience of love. It is the mystery of how “the two become one flesh.” That mystery necessarily involves the leap across the great divide between the two sexes, male and female, which God created for each other.
- Childbearing does have a necessary connection to marriage. The most vital interest that society has in marriage is its concern for the healthy upbringing of the next generation of citizens. Sociological studies have shown conclusively that a child fares best under the care of a father and mother who are married to one another. Moreover, our current social scene demonstrates the damages that result when childbearing is separated from marriage. Therefore both Church and state have powerful reasons to recognize and subsidize marriage which do not apply to other sexual relationships.
- The fact that some marriages are childless does not eliminate the distinction between these marriages and other relationships. The authorities in both Church and state do not know which couples applying for marriage will turn out to be infertile. Nor do they know which will choose to have children, and which will have children contrary to their previous intentions. As far as the Church and the state are concerned, every couple coming to be married is a potential set of parents, and both Church and state are prepared to support that couple in parenthood.
- Finally, there is an answer to the challenge posed by Barney Frank: What harm would it do to their neighbors if Herb and he were married? The answer is that the granting of a marriage license always affects many more than the two individuals listed. It not only brings those two inside the institution of marriage; it also defines (or redefines) marriage by the example that they will set for their neighbors. If they follow the rules of marriage and keep their vows, then their example strengthens their neighbors’ marriages. But if they ignore or break the rules of marriage, then they tear the fabric of society in places that they had not imagined. The bad example of a debased marriage or a broken marriage may not shake the couple next door who are already firm in their commitment. But it could convey to the young and the unmarried observers a warped and devalued conception of what marriage is all about. And when the bad example is imitated – and, worse, when society approves – then the damage to family structures spreads rapidly. We have already seen this phenomenon in our society with the rise of illegitimacy and the explosion of divorce. With the crisis that the family already faces in American society, we must ask ourselves: Is this the time to start a new, more radical experiment in redefining marriage?
The more honest among the advocates of “gay marriage” admit that they are seeking more than just “inclusion” inside the institution of marriage; they are seeking to change the institution from within. This was the theme of an April 1997 conference of liberal Episcopalians in Pasadena, CA. Speakers at the conference, entitled “Beyond Inclusion,” leveled a volley of complaints against traditional marriage. They condemned it as sexist, patriarchal, and violent. “I don’t want the relationship I enter into with a partner to be the same as heterosexual marriage, thank you,” said the Rev. Juan Oliver, canon missioner of the Episcopal Diocese of New Jersey.
Another participant remarked, “I’ve started to think that maybe we are a threat to marriage as we know it, and maybe the Church needs to redefine marriage.” Along those lines, Oliver distributed a report proposing an Episcopal Church rite to bl