Friday, July 5, 2013

Redefining Marriage

The recent rulings by the US Supreme Court marked a confusing day for the institution of marriage in America. The decisions are complex and will take days for legal analysts to understand the full implications. What we do know is that both good and bad have come from the court’s decisions.

In the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) decision, the court approved federal benefits for same-sex couples who are married in states which have adopted homosexual marriages.

In the California Proposition Eight case, the Supreme Court did not overturn the 32 other states that have defined marriage through an act of direct democracy by amending their state constitutions. The Court also did not force one standard upon all the states but instead respected the rights of states to define marriage. Thankfully, the Court did not create a new sweeping right of same sex marriage and force that upon the rest of the country as many thought they may have done.

One of the things the Supreme Court also did was to open the door for dialog about marriage and other familial arrangements. As a Christian, the Court has challenged me to re-examine marriage and other familial arrangements in the Bible.

In the Bible, marriage contracts and arrangements come in different shapes and forms across cultures. For instance, in Genesis we read where Abraham got married to Sarah, the daughter of his father, but not the daughter of his mother (Genesis 20:12). In addition, Abraham’s son Isaac, got married to his first cousin (Genesis 24:15). Sometime later, Jacob, Isaac’s son, got married to two sisters, both his cousins (Genesis 29:10).

These practices describe what anthropologists often refer to as polygeny (births through ancestral relationships) and tribal endogamy (marrying only within one’s tribe). Interestingly, many of the marriage customs of American aborigines run parallel with those of the biblical patriarchs. 

Both in Genesis and later Old Testament texts, polygamy (having many wives) was also practiced. However, in the New Testament, the apostle Paul expected church leaders to be the husbands of one wife. In attempting to establish a norm for marriage, Paul invited the young Christians to consider the model of Adam and Eve.

That model was one man with one wife. In Matthew 19, Jesus made a similar reference to the Adam and Eve pattern. He acknowledged the accommodations in marriage, but stressed the original intent was to bring together male and female.

Some analysts would want us to believe that the Supreme Court was similarly acknowledging accommodations in different forms of marriage. With this I must disagree. Nowhere in the Bible do we find accommodations including same sex marriage as a viable alternative. Every familial accommodation involved males and females. Same sex relationships were always renounced as deviant.

Even outside of Jewish society, same-sex relationships were rarely viewed as something noble. No culture or society in history has flourished because it welcomed the practice of same sex relationships. However, the practice of heterosexual marriage, the union of husband and wife is timeless, universal and particularly special because children flourish best with a mother and a father. Ninety-four percent of countries worldwide affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In addition, every major world religion affirms marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

For such reasons I will agree with John Stemberger, President and General Counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council, when he said “no court decision or public opinion poll can affect that which is evident in biology, logic, common sense and the collective wisdom of human history.”

Similar sentiments were shared by Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York. He contends, “Our culture has taken for granted for far too long what human nature, experience, common sense and God’s wise design all confirm: the difference between a man and a woman matters, and the difference between a mom and a dad matters. Marriage is the only institution that brings together a man and a woman for life, providing any child who comes from that union with the secure foundation of a mother and a father.”

Now that the Supreme Court has issued its decisions, we appeal to every leader in America to stand steadfastly together in promoting and defending the unique meaning of marriage – one man, one woman, for life. This creation arrangement has always been suitable – “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (Genesis 1:27).

2 comments:

Rodney Brown said...

While this should be the norm and "no biggy" for me reading this... IT IS SO REFRESHING TO HEAR THESE SENTIMENTS .... I was wondering for a while if the WHOLE ELECTRONIC WORLD has gone mad... Even among eminent Tele-evangelists... They are compromising on this issue of homosexuality. I have been the "weird one" for months now... Homosexuality is clearly one of the abominations... Thank you...

Anonymous said...

Hi Dave:

I must confess that I am behind on the news these days [It not only sounds like a broken record everywhere you turn, but I also find it painfully depressing], and so was not aware of much of the the details about the Supreme Court decision. I must say though that I am the least surprised by the Supreme Court decision. Anyone who is aware of the trend of this court for the last several decades really should not be. I am not even impressed by the fact that the court did not impose its will upon all Americans [all the states]. This is not really necessary--it will stick to its "salami tactics" [you know, "slice-by-slice"]. The "die is cast" already and their is no tuning back--America as a whole will eventually come to accept gay marriage [indeed, the whole world will], if the socio- demographic trend continues as it is [and I am afraid it will continue].

From a Christian perspective, the real problem though is not the Supreme Court. The problem has to do with the people who support and appoint the current members of the Court. It is interesting that this is a majority conservative court, whose chief justice and one other member was appointed by no other than the conservative, "evangelical" president George Bush. I say this because I mean to say further that we evangelicals are largely to be blamed for our own disappoints about this court. When are we going to wake to the fact that we have received very little or nothing for all the effort and resources we have put into evangelical politics. Our influence is virtually nil, and the result is that we are now being taken for granted.

One last point--I do not think that we are to allow the Supreme Court's decision to challenge us to reexamine marriage. As you noted, the examples pointed out from the OT are not comparable. Moreover, like the matter of divorce, Jesus might well say that these abnormal situations obtained "because of the hardness of your hearts." But "In the beginning it was not so!"

Selah

Adrian