| |
|
THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE?
|
|
|
As I write, a bunch of politicians are gathered in Massachusetts to try
to amend their constitution to define marriage as between one man and one
woman. |
|
I’ll spin off some thoughts with my final outcome unknown to either of
us until I reach the bottom of the page. |
|
My cynical self rises up to scoff at any Americans making moral pronouncements
about marriage. We lead the world in violating any sanctity there might
be in marriage laws. Will the “one man one woman” ruling mean that all
those in second (even third and fourth marriages) with other than their
first partner be found illegal? Just a thought. |
|
My biblically oriented self rises up to recall that the Old Testament people
would not recognize such a ruling. There were multiple marriages, much
like early Mormons. Women were property, often valued for fertility. They
were disposable. |
|
If you want sordid relationships you can find a Bible full of them. In
fact, the Bible is about as full of frankly sexual exploits as any book
every printed. For some reason religion has an unusual interest in sexual
relationships. All kinds of relationships, hetero and homo, are found in
the Bible. They are both honored and condemned at various times. Watch
out for anyone pulling a Bible verse from here or there as if to show where
God is on the issue. |
|
We all know in our heart of hearts where people who wave the “sanctity
of marriage” flag are coming from, don’t we? It’s really about who can
join, ceremonially, civilly, or consensually in a legal relationship that
can assure legal and economic and protection benefits that society has
granted. This is about deciding which kind of social unit is allowed such
benefits. |
|
The social unit we call family is important to our society. We have not
honored it or cherished it as we should. Our society is a mess as a result.
No wonder bin Laden doesn’t want our western culture imported to the Muslim
world. I note that the family unit often does not include one man and one
woman. It is often just the woman and children with no man in sight. I
also know of two-woman family units that are raising children in a context
that offers love and nurture. Our society needs some way of protecting
these units whether there is one man and one woman or two men or two women. |
|
Maybe “marriage” is an obsolete word for what we are talking about. Weddings
are a bit of a problem for me. I hate having the state shove off its legalizing
responsibilities on me. Let them “legalize” the partnership. I’ll work
on a ceremony if the couple wants. Don’t let the state or church or anybody
tell me whose commitment can and cannot be blessed. |
|
The courts can’t sanctify marriage. Nor can the constitution. I think sanctification
is God’s business. My suspicion is that the two-thirds of Americans (or
is it three-quarters) that think God only sanctifies heterosexuals are
wrong. It’s a great political situation. No politician wants to stand with
the minority—even though it means standing with God—in an election year. |
|
I’ve never been asked to do a gay wedding. I’ve done some weddings that
turned out to be not so gay. The Metropolitan Churches have done more than
6,000. Lots more have been done. I’ve never heard of any harm done. In
fact, anything that puts an end to careless and temporary relationships,
gay or otherwise, has to be better than lonely promiscuity. |
|
I guess my bottom line is the hypocrisy of self-righteous individuals,
largely men, gathering in marbled halls, daring to define God’s intention
for human relationships. If statistics serve, it is probable that at least
half of them have violated the sanctity of marriage in one way or another. |
|
And finally, in an equal opportunity society, don’t you think that everybody
ought to have equal opportunity in breaking vows of personal commitment?
Why should heterosexuals be granted that exclusive privilege?
— Art Morgan,
Valentines Day, 2004
|
|