A few days ago I posted a few thoughts about why I don’t find parallels between slavery debates and homosexuality debates to be persuasive. In short, when it comes to the issue of homosexual practice, I am not persuaded that the issue within the church is an issue of realizing the justice and liberty that are ours in Christ.
But as I have mulled this over, I have feared that I may have done wrong in merely stating that much and no more.
Here’s the more: the same Christian story that compels me to deny the church’s blessing on same-sex unions also compels me to fully support the civil rights of homosexuals.
In short, the state should have a mechanism for sanctioning homosexual couples as united in one household, and the laws of the state pertaining to spouses should extend equally to all such partners, and exclusion from public office, commerce, housing, and the like should be met with the same recriminations that the state metes out on racial and religious prejudice. And let’s not forget tax deductions, for crying out loud!
What sort of reading of the Christian story would lead me to the conclusion that this is a quintessentially Christian position? Quite simply, it’s the command to love neighbor (together with Jesus’ closing of the “who’s my neighbor?” loophole) as interpreted through the Golden Rule.
What does it mean to love my neighbor? What does it mean to do what I would want done to me?
If someone did not approve of my choice of a spouse, would I still want that person to protect my right to cover my wife on my employer’s health insurance plan? If my wife’s state-funded employer poked around and found out that I work at an institution that discriminates based on religious conviction, would I still want them to allow me to be covered under her insurance and receive spouse survivor benefits should she die–even though my work and life is antithetical to the state’s commitment to non-establishment of religion?
If I were sick in the hospital, would I want the hospital to be legally required to allow the partner I love to come visit me?
There is no way of reading the church’s posture toward the world as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and still argue based on our set of convictions that we are acting obediently when we fail to not only approve of but even advocate for full inclusion of homosexuals in civil society.
If all of this seems too far from home, perhaps we should remind ourselves of some of the other things that the NT teaches about sex and marriage, and ponder whether we want those, too, to be the bases of difference in civil society.
Should the state refuse to acknowledge a marriage in which one of the partners has been previously divorced?
Should an insurance company be able to cancel the insurance policy of a spouse who commits adultery?
When the shrewd lawyer attempted to back Jesus into a corner by pinning him down on the extent of this “love your neighbor as yourself” business, Jesus replied with a most unlikely story. A religious outsider, an idolatrous Samaritan, sees a beaten, wounded man on the side of the road and lends assistance where the religious professionals, in order to obey nothing less than the law of God itself, passed by.
Who was the neighbor who loved? It was the person who showed mercy.
Who was not a neighbor? It was the religious people who upheld the Law.
O.k., but Luke was a bleeding heart liberal, chapter 4 and all that. What about the good ol’ Sermon the Mount Jesus?
He is the one who commanded: “Let your light so shine before people that they will see your good deeds and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”
Did you catch that? We are to be acting in such a way that people outside the community see that we are workers for good in way that compels them to glorify the God who is, himself, the source of the light that we shine.
And once again, as an evangelical Christian the question is turned on me: have I shone the kind of light for my homosexual neighbor that would cause him or her to see my good work and glorify my Father in heaven?
Both as an individual and as a member of a community I know that I have failed, that we have failed, to show this kind of love.
Please forgive me.
“Luke was a bleeding heart liberal, chapter 4 and all that…” gave me a good chuckle. I knew Luke was my favorite gospel for a reason.
Anyways, I think one of the big problems is that a lot of Christians who oppose civil unions and the other scores of issues that come with that, haven’t had the opportunity to “Let your light so shine before people…” specifically people who are gay. A lot of fear anger, and hatred comes from ignorance (Yoda really should have started with ignorance).
I previously worked at a church for 7 years and am now entering my 10th month of working for a local art museum. Let’s just say that working in the arts community is A LOT different than working for a church. I’ve really had to come to grips with what it means to “Let my light shine” when my direct supervisor and a majority of the people I work with are gay. If we all spent some time and had conversations with or even worked with some gay people, I think a lot of our stereotypes and views on such issues would change.
For purely pragmatic reasons, I agree that gov should allow civil unions. It would allow a distinction to remain between marriage and non-marriage. However, I don’t think the state should be involved in recognizing (anyone’s) marriage at all. Because to recognize something necessarily involves defining it, and I don’t think the state has the right to define marriage anymore than it has the right to define eucharist.
BTW, I have been told by a senior hospital administrator that in this country a hospital patient can designate anyone as their visitor, it’s only when the patient arrives UNCONSCIOUS and therefore unable to designate someone that the hospital defaults to legal kin.
blisteringly good post, cogently argued and persuasive. thanks
This line of thinking has lead me–having lived in three states in the last three years–to vote (in WI, CA & WA) against a redefining of civil marriage as a union between a man and a woman only. And at the same time, I am grieved by my own PC(USA)’s steps toward removing the chastity and fidelity requirements from its ordination standards.
It is not realistic to create two kinds of marriage (civil and sacred). It will lead to a discriminating hierarchy, and further marginalization of the church’s voice. The fact is, marriage exists across cultures, religions, and civic structures. Rather than try to take marriage for ourselves alone, it is the role of Christians to recognize their own marriages as holy covenants before God and community, and to allow their light to so shine…
In California, particularly, the Evangelical community spent a gross amount of money in a display of power to pass Prop 8 in 2008. Jesus modeled for us not how to exploit our power, but rather to lay it aside and take up the authority that is earned in cruciform love.
We would do well to remember Joy Davidman’s (CS Lewis’s wife) words, “Meanwhile, let us remember the twin duties of compassion toward others and severity to ourselves.” (Smoke on the Mountain, p. 94)
A good compromise might be the government sanction of civil unions for any two persons who would like those legal and civil benefits. If those two persons wish to define the civil union as a marriage, that would be their own choice. I do think, though, that civil unions should be open to non-sexual partners as well as to sexual ones. Why, after all, should the government discriminate between sexual and non-sexual relationships?
The compromise should also include broad protections for the freedom of religious institutions to act according to their consciences. For example, if a Catholic agency wants to limit their adoption services to families with what they would define as a traditional, heterosexual marriage, that should be their right.
Great post, Daniel. I’m in full agreement with you: one of the fundamental ways we show love of neighbor, in a radical sense, is to support homosexuals in actively living as part of our society. But there seems to be an intrinsic tension in doing this. How do we support someone when we don’t support their behavior? Or, to ask it another way, how do we support someone’s civil rights and at the same time welcome them into the church (which involves a call of repentance from the behavior we don’t support)?
This is something I’ve struggled with for some time.
Frankly, the gay community is not going to be satisfied with equal “civil rights” (which, actually, they already have). The goal is structural approval in law and active marginilization of any who dare dissent. This is already happening:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/28/court-university-expel-student-opposes-homosexuality/
In many ways, Christians who refuse to draw a line in the sand will find that a line has been drawn for them.
This is a difficult issue for me. I am really unsure how a liberal democracy is supposed to operate once it forsakes its philosophical foundation. I think we have drifted into a fallacy if we believe that our government can operate as it was intended when the culture has strayed so far from Christian standards. It is one thing for a society to behave in an unChristian manner in even so pervasive and grave a matter as human bondage, and quite another to blatantly reject the standard and the means which calls us to repentance.
Obviously, the gay marriage issue is but a small part of this puzzle, and on its own can’t return us to anything but a very narrowly defined cultural Christianity. Helpful, I know
Well said, Daniel.
Daniel, I think I’m with you on most of this stuff, though I probably have more sympathy for those Christians who would take a different stance on it. However, the one thing I just cannot convince myself on is the adoption issue. I live in Cambridge, MA and minister in a city where we can’t even remember the last time the mayor wasn’t gay, where the campuses and politics are as far to the other extreme on these issues as that hate church in Kansas, and so I constantly meet same-sex couples who have children they are raising (my wife and I have also adopted). I don’t doubt the authenticity of their motives or their love, anymore than I do those of many heterosexual unbelievers I meet. But I can’t see how I could consistently support, from the gospel and the logic of the biblical narrative, this deviation from God’s designs of the family in creation. I’m no Republican, but I just can’t make this one fit. Thoughts?
Unfortunately the sides are battling over whether gay union should be recognized as set-apart and holy. This is a church issue. The state can not sanctify. It can recognize and enforce contracts and obligations. It taxes.
The question is whether our government should recognize a domestic partnership and make special provision in the tax code for it. This should not be confused with the holy union of marriage sanctified by God and observed by the church. The government should be completely indifferent about the sexual habits and feelings of the partners in the relationship. If the partnership was over pork-futures, sex would not be an issue. Neither should it be over domestic partnerships.
As Christians I think we should be relieved to give up any special recognition of marriage by the state. I remember seeing footage of Gavin Newsome marrying a gay couple some years back. Gavin Newsome reeks irreverence. The relationship was sanctified in the same measure as the man applying the sanctification. The bridal illustration of Christ’s relationship to his church was tarnished.
The reason for the intractability of the problem is that both side are attempting to resolve a sacred issue in the secular courts.
Thanks, Daniel. Well said.
Thanks for the thoughts, everyone. I was away from the computer yesterday and not able to respond.
There seems to be a general thread here that the sacred mystery of marriage is the church’s business, civil unions are the state’s. That seems to be a profitable way forward.
Alex, you make a great point by questioning why sex has to be at the heart of a civil partnership. You made me realize that this whole thing seems to be very much centered on a very small and modern definition of a household. Your suggestion opens up some interesting possibilities for other ways to care for each other as a society.
traditionally, the wedding service is structured to allow someone who loves the couple to announce if there is any reason why the impending marriage may be harmful.
I’d want my dad to object if he thought my wife was a horrible choice.
I’d want my doctor to object if my wife was secretly my sister and would lead to all kinds of harms.
So it may be possible to construe civil restrictions on gay marriage as a minimalist legal discouragement to engage in harm. (surely, there could be many more intrusive ways of doing so, but those have left the barn long ago)
I don’t think the “household’ idea is that modern, BTW.
I can’t say that the wedding ceremony is the time for anyone to object. That time has come and gone. I would punch my dad or doctor in the face if he pulled that stunt at my wedding (in a “give myself so my spouse might more fully live sort of cruciform sense,” of course
).
I’ve had friends who, in my estimation, were making less than ideal choices in a life partner. The time to make that case is before the wedding. At the wedding and after is my time to say that I’m your friend, I love you, and I’m committed to standing with you and walking beside you through whatever path you go down.
So yes, there’s a place to object. But then there’s a place to love and support those who have made decisions we don’t approve of. And often, in so doing, we discover that we weren’t as wrong as we thought; or, alternatively, we discover that we really do get to walk in love with our friend through hard times that we could foresee.
The banns (“If anyone knows of just cause why these two…”) were traditionally read out on three occasions prior to the actual nuptials. The primary reason wasn’t to provide opportunity for people to express whether or not they thought it was a bad match, but in order for any legal impediments to come to light.
For instance, if one of the partners was already secretly married or had made vows of celibacy, it would not be licit for there to be a marriage. Or, a case where a partner lacked consent to the union because he or she was being pushed into the marriage by family, under duress. Or, if unknown to anyone, the two partners were too closely related or otherwise violated rules of consanguinity.
I do think that marriage, in modernity, has become too much a creature of the State and that this is part of the difficulties we run into with regard to same-sex partnerships and other kinds of non-traditional households. So much legal, political, tax, inheritance, insurance, custody, and other baggage/benefit has come to be attached to the legal definition of marriage. (Why this is the case is an interesting question too.)
If two unrelated “spinster” women lived together in a household 200 years ago, I doubt there would have been as much question about whether, for instance, the one could stay at the bedside of the other as she was ailing or whether whatever property they held in common would remain in the hands of the other upon the one’s death (assuming no other immediate heirs, etc.).
But with the gradual increase in democratic rights and citizenship, there has also been a gradual regulation of the domestic sphere by the apparatus of the modern State, often in the name of what is in the compelling interest of the State and/or for the good of society (not that these necessarily coincide).
The extension of regulation as a form of benefit/privilege implies the withholding of those benefits/privileges from others, which is bound to lead to resentment to those who don’t enjoy them. Furthermore, in the context of a narrative where benefits/privileges are generally becoming more broadly applied under the rubric of “rights,” they will sooner or later be demanded by others in the name of justice.
Part of me wants to reject this whole approach to justice and modernity (and to worry whether extending civil rights is merely perpetuating a broken system). But given that’s what we’re stuck with for the time being, I guess the question is what it means to love one’s neighbor within our present context. And that’s where Daniel’s reflections intersect with things.