I have never made a blog post, published an article or made a public pronouncement of my position on same sex marriage. This has not been because I have no opinion on the question. My reason is purely practical. I do not think that the topic of same sex marriage can be addressed any more simply than can marriage in any other context, and I have been too lazy to try to sort it all out, arrange the pieces, and condense my thoughts into a blog post. Recent events, however, have persuaded me to make some effort in this area.
Marriage, like music, is a complex concept. The idea of marriage, like music, covers an almost unimaginable variety of relational combinations formed for a variety of reasons and purposes. Private agreements, religious sacraments, state sanctioned marital contracts and mere informal arrangements are from time to time referred to as marriage in our public discussion. Such marriages range from the public, practical and profane to the purely private, spiritual and sublime. There has always been an uneasy commingling of marital jurisdiction between religion, government and the maverick among us who will not be content with the bounds established by either.
This explains why, when an issue such as same sex marriage arises in the public forum, so much passion and rancor seem to be elicited on all sides of the question. Everyone looks upon marriage from their own perspective, defining marriage in their own way and within the context of their own experience. Each person’s peculiar experience, intentions or aspirations establish for them a definition of what marriage is and what marriage is not, and few are willing to look beyond their own definition.
For practical purposes we often assign musical compositions to different genres. This categorization facilitates discussion and helps keep us all on the same page as we consider a range of pieces of different styles. Categorizing the principle types of marriage may be equally useful as we discuss the larger concept of marriage. However, to adequately describe and categorize even the more common relationships sometimes referred to as marriage is a task more suited to a scholarly paper than a blog post.
At the risk of displeasing most of my fundamentalist, evangelical friends and my mainline liberal friends alike, I am going to adopt a familiar blogging technique. I am going to jump directly from preface to conclusion, offering very little supporting reasoning for my thesis. I ask the reader to take it as an article of faith that I have supporting reasoning, and I promise to present it for consideration at a later time.
Mary Ann has been my wife for very nearly four decades. Our definition of marriage is entirely personal to me, to her, our understanding and our experience. We are religious people, and our understanding of our marriage is grounded in our understanding of the Christian scriptures and larger faith. We keenly recognize that our marriage is only one type of marriage that is referenced in the accepted Christian scriptures and in the practical lives of Christian people. It is, however, the one form of marriage that we sought for ourselves ab initio and which we prayed that God would grant us.
Though my wife and I obtained a marriage license from the state and were married in a public ceremony performed by a duly licensed minister, our marriage was not perfected by that ceremony, the vows taken in connection with that ceremony, nor by the marriage license subsequently issued by the state. Our marriage was not perfected by anything that we said or did. Our marriage was sealed and perfected by an act of God.
The state had no hand in it at all, and the truth is that we had very little. We chose to regard our marriage as a sacrament, and we believed that it is possible for two souls to be forever joined as one. Not merely ‘til death do us part, but for all eternity.
Just as God exists as one in three persons, we believe that we may exist as one proceeding from two. We further recognized that we had not the power to perfect such a union ourselves, that such was exclusively within the province of our creator. We prayed together that God would grant us such a blessing, and we are confident in our hearts that our prayers were granted.
At a later time I may discuss our Swedenborgian-like perspective on conjugial love and the survival of the marital union beyond the grave, but for now suffice it to say we fully expect to continue our love affair in a time and place where we are like the angels. That this might not be possible is utterly unthinkable for two hopeful Christian universalists such as we. How else could heaven exist for us?
Now, for the purpose of this discussion, the important thing in all I just said is that God, not us, did the joining. God does his will, not mine. Whereas I might, on one ground or another, deny the petition of one couple for such a blessing, God might freely grant it. It is not up to me to judge, I am not capable of judging God’s will. That I might be disinclined to join two same sex partners together does not at all suggest that God would not be so inclined. The opposite is also true.
I believe that God is love, and I believe that he granted our prayer precisely because we, Mary Ann and I, so love one another. God loves me unconditionally, and likewise do I love my wife. There is nothing that we can do that could cause God to stop loving us, and there is nothing Mary Ann could do that would cause me to stop loving her. God knows our hearts. Wherever such love lives, I believe God grants prayers.
Now, I realize that the issue of same sex marriage, like marriage in general, is usually discussed in terms of a secular, civil union. It is important for issues like taxes, estate planning, descent and distribution, family rights, et cetera. Though I recognize that a civil marriage is all most people seek or desire, such a thing is, in my mind, a far lesser thing than a sacramental marriage.
If God is willing to grant an eternal union to two who, in their love for one another, reflect his love for them, on what grounds do we stand to deny such a pair the meager benefits of a mere civil union?
On what grounds will conscience allow me to deny such meager benefits to those, heterosexual and homosexual alike, who in their lives continue to seek the spiritual vision to see and long for a higher love and more lasting union?
By what right do I withhold from my brothers and sisters the freedom to live as they choose in a country founded on the idea that each of us have the right to do just that? What right have I to substitute my judgment for theirs in matters that do not touch upon my life, yet are vital to their own?
I recognize there are those who will want to bombard me with scriptures which, to them, condemn all non-heterosexual relationships. There are also those who will be ready with the counter-scriptures, eager to argue the other side. Still others will want to introduce evidence from both the behavioral and hard sciences to advance one argument or the other. All will contend that my position on same sex marriage should be moulded by their evidence. Please understand now that I am neither impressed, persuaded nor interested in any of that.
I have heard all the arguments, and I do not believe that the question can be settled by scripture, science or reason alone. It is a question which should afford the loudest voice to conscience, and by my conscience I have been persuaded.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
What a wonderful opinion you hold and thank you for sharing! I have several close family members and friends who are homosexual and I have watched them suffer both from their own internal struggles and those placed upon them by society. Like you, I’m really not persauded by either sides viewpoint. Instead I try to look at it this way – it’s not my place to judge or condemn. It’s my job, as I believe my personal Christian walk should be, to love – period. I’m not the judge and I’m glad I’m not. We have all fallen short and no one is truly in a position to cast a stone at a brother or sister.
Besides that, WHY is it so gosh darn important to anyone if two people who have made a committment to one another be joined in a “marriage” or not?? Why does this have to be such a hot topic constantly? If you’re against it, fine – you’re entitled to your opinion but shut up and continue on your merry way and be happy. If you’re for it, great but again, shut up and continue on your merry way and be happy. Just think what might be accomplished if all the energy spent worrying about this one issue were instead used to figure out a way to help the homeless or poor or even work for peace in war torn areas of our world! Forgive the cliche but it’s true – love is the answer.
You say you are a Christian but your view are not traditional Christian views or values. The traditional Christian definition of marriage is one man and one woman and it is the one that counts to the majority of people in this country. You say that you are not interested in scriptures that declare this view. That sure doesn’t sound like a Christian attitude to me.
The Bible is the only authority for Christians and the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. So, if you support gay marriage you are supporting sin. Every other major religion says the same thing. Jesus also said that there is no marriage in heaven so you are contrary to the scriptures there too.
The Bible is not the only authority for Christians. God is.
Prentice you are a brave man indeed!
Prentice, this is a very well-written piece — no surprise there since I’ve read other blog postings of yours. Even tho’ I disagree with yoru position, at least you’re endeavoring to support it reasonably, and reluctantly.
Jesus’ own teachings on marriage are the foundation stone for my views concerning it, and my assertion that it’s not really all that complex (in the Bible). In addressing the Jewish leaders of His time and their all-too-easy divorce practices, the Lord referred back to the very beginning, when God created one man and one woman, and said they were to become one flesh — ’til death do they part, He insisted. This affirms the centrality of a firmly committed relationship (in agapé love — I Cor. 13, Eph. 5) between a man and a woman in marriage. It pretty much excludes easy divorce and so-called “serial monogamy”, as well as same-sex relationships. At least such unnatural unions cannot be termed “marriages”.
Sorry, I’m not “reluctant” to state my point on this topic. Probably it comes from my opinionated, Celtic nature, incited all the more by having a sister who’s a militant lesbian (who “wed” her lover in the hills above Boise some years ago, before any state was corrupted into legalizing same-sex “marriages”).