For more than half my life, I’ve been a wedding coordinator, helping men and women plan the ceremonies that will bind them for life. One of the things that I ask my couples is, “What readings or scriptures do you want read in the service?”
Someone invariably mentions 1st Corinthians 13, the famous “Love Chapter.” Love is patient, love is kind, love never insists on its own way and so forth. Wonderful advice for marriage, but Paul was not talking about marriage. He was addressing a church fight: the believers in Corinth had split into factions and were competing for prestige and influence. We see echoes of this conflict throughout the letter, but especially in chapters 12 and 14, which surround this passage.
Others want the passage from Ruth: “Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God.” Another moving passage, but it’s certainly not about marriage. Ruth addresses this moving speech to her mother-in-law Naomi: from one woman to another. Isn’t THAT interesting?
And then, the second creation story in Genesis comes up: (Yes, there are TWO creation stories): “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genisis 2:24). This passage is certainly appropriate to marriage, as it reflects the level of intimacy and commitment that distinguishes marriage from other relationships. Jesus quotes this passage, too, in Matthew and Mark, but he isn’t exactly discussing marriage. Instead, Jesus’s topic is divorce, and when ministers read these Gospel passages at weddings, as they often do, the message seems a little off. I’d rather not hear about divorce at a wedding.
One other passage frequently surfaces in weddings but rarely in mainline Protestant Churches. This passage has become part of the traditional wedding vows that most people today leave out. The part about wives should obey their husbands. Ephesians 5:22-33 commands wives to obey their husbands and husbands to love their wives. Conservative Christians may try to explain away the offense of this passage, but there’s no escaping its ugly reality. Ephesians calls wives to submit to their husbands just as children must obey their parents and slaves must obey their masters.
The point is, Christian weddings rarely feature passages that directly relate to marriage. Only one passage, Genesis 2:24, seems especially relevant, while other passages require us to bend their content to our desire to hear a good word about marriage. Things are so bad that the worship books for many denominations turn to John 2:11, where Jesus turns water into wine at a wedding feast, to claim that Jesus blessed marriage.
Yes, he turned water into wine at that wedding. But we must remember the circumstances: His mother, Mary, went to Him for help because the hosts had run out of wine. He told her that “It is not my time.” But in the way of all mothers, she continued asking, and like a good Son, he did something for His mother. Jesus’s first miracle wasn’t to bless a wedding, but done as a favor for his mother. People think that Jesus blessed marriage because he attended a wedding. That’s the best we can do? No wonder it’s common for couples to struggle over the choice of Scripture for their wedding ceremonies. The Bible just doesn’t have much to say on the topic.
Let’s be honest, unfortunately, many Christians use the Bible to support their own prejudices and bigotry. They talk about “Biblical family values” as if the Bible had a clear message on marriage and sexuality. Let’s be clear: There’s no such thing as “biblical family values” because the Bible does not speak to the topic clearly and consistently.
Let’s not even go into some of the Bible’s most interesting marriages. We won’t talk about the fact that:
Lamech had two wives – Genesis 4:19,
Esau had three wives – Genesis 26:34 & 28:9,
Jacob had four wives – Genesis 29:28 & 30:4-9,
Gideon had many wives – Judges 8:30,
Abijah had 14 wives – II Chronicles 13:21, and the list goes on…..
Nor will we talk about some of the Bibles most chilling teachings regarding marriage, such as a man’s obligation to keep a new wife who displeases him on the wedding night: Deuteronomy 22:13-21), his obligation to marry a woman he has raped (Deuteronomy 22:28-30), or the unquestioned right of heroes like Abraham to exploit their slaves sexually. I wonder: Have the “biblical family values advocates” actually read their Bibles?
In Biblical times, a wife was regarded as chattel, belonging to her husband; the descriptions in the Bible suggest that she would be expected to perform tasks such as spinning, sewing, weaving, manufacture of clothing, fetching of water, baking of bread, and animal husbandry. However, wives were usually looked after with care, and men with more than one wife were expected to ensure that they continued to give the first wife food, clothing, and marital rights.[Ex 21:10]
Since a wife was regarded as property, her husband was originally free to divorce her for any reason, at any time. A divorced couple were permitted to get back together, unless the wife had married someone else after her divorce.[Deut 24:2–4
Betrothal (erusin), which is merely a binding promise to get married, like engagement, is distinct from marriage itself (nissu’in), with the time between these varying substantially. Since a wife was regarded as property in those days, the betrothal (erusin) was effected simply by purchasing her from her father (or guardian) and the girl’s consent is not explicitly required by any biblical law.
For millennia, marriage was about property and power rather than love. It’s high time people came clean about how we use the Bible.
Leaving the Bible, let’s talk about modern marriage and how it’s changed in the past couple of hundred years.
Most of the “traditions” we associate with marriage are in fact comparatively new. As part of the Protestant Reformation, the role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage passed to the state, reflecting Martin Luther‘s view that marriage was a “worldly thing”. In England, under the Anglican Church, marriage by consent and cohabitation was valid until the passage of Lord Hardwicke’s Act in 1753. This act instituted certain requirements for marriage, including the performance of a religious ceremony observed by witnesses.
It was only two centuries ago that people began to marry for love rather than for mercenary or practical considerations. Only 130 years ago did men start to lose their legal right to physically beat or imprison their wives. And only in the past 40 years have we established the principle that within a marriage, wives and husbands have equal rights in decision-making.
Not until 1979 did the last American state finally repeal its “Head and Master” law, which had given husbands the final say over many aspects of family life. Not until 1993 did marital rape become a crime in every state, overturning the millennia-old tradition that a wife was obligated to have sex with her husband whenever he demanded it.
Wives were legally dependent on their husbands and performed specific wifely duties. This was part of what marriage cemented in society, and the reason marriage was between men and women. Only when distinct gender roles ceased to be the organizing principle of marriage – in just the past 40 years – did we start down the road to legalizing unions between two men or two women.
During the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s, sociologists and psychiatrists remained adamant that marriage required strict adherence to traditional feminine and masculine roles. In 1964, a year after Betty Friedan published “The Feminine Mystique,” an article in a journal of the American Medical Association described beating as a “more or less” satisfactory way for an “aggressive, efficient, masculine” wife to “be punished for her castrating activity” and for a husband to “re-establish his masculine identity.”
Well into the 1970s, marriage was still legally defined as a union that assigned differing marital rights and obligations according to gender. The husband was responsible for supporting the family financially, but he also got to decide what constituted an adequate level of support, how to dispose of certain kinds of property and where the family would live.
The wife, in turn, was legally responsible for providing services in and around the home, but she had no comparable rights to such services. That is why a husband could sue for loss of consortium if his spouse were killed or incapacitated, but a wife in the same situation could not. And because sex was one of the services expected of a wife, she could not charge her husband with rape.
During the 1970s and 1980s, however, a new revolution in marriage rolled across North America and Europe. As feminists pressed for the repeal of “head and master” laws enshrining male authority in the household, legal codes were rewritten so that they no longer assigned different rights and duties by gender. Over time, people came to view marriage as a relationship between two individuals who were free to organize their partnership and their parenting on the basis of their personal inclinations, rather than pre-assigned gender roles. Today, as Judge Vaughn Walker noted in his decision striking down California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage, “gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”
Since marriage under law is a union of equals”, let’s talk about Gay Marriage, which is the reason we’re all here today.
I’ve always wanted a relationship that echoed that of my parents. Well into their 70s, Mother would still sit on Daddy’s lap, and when they went for their daily walk, they would do so holding hands. I have that kind of relationship now. I want my relationship with the love of my life, my Prince Charming, to be legalized. As in most committed relationships, the values that gay couples exhibit in their daily lives are often indistinguishable from those of their straight neighbors. They’re loyal to their mates, are monogamous, devoted partners. They value and participate in family life, are committed to making their neighborhoods and communities safer and better places to live, and honor and abide by the law. Many make valuable contributions to their communities, serving on school boards, volunteering in community charities, going to church, and trying to be good citizens. In doing so, they take full advantage of their relationship to make not only their own lives better, but those of their neighbors as well.
Marriage has undergone many changes in our history. It is time that it changes again, and we, the LGBT community, are given the right to marry. The problem is that marriage has traditionally been interpreted as having both a civic and a religious function. It is time for a change. If marriage were like a driver’s license or registering a business, there would be no problem. Any two people who could meet the qualifications (fee, minimum age, etc.), would sign an application form, and the government would assign them certain rights and privileges.
If marriage were considered to be like baptism, there would be no problem, because it has no civic meaning; it is purely religious. The state has no interest in whether a person is baptized. Faith groups could decide to marry or not marry a couple on any grounds whatever. In the past, Christian churches have refused to marry couples with a marriage license from the government because they were judged to be too young or immature, did not have a serious intent, were of the wrong combination of races, religions, or genders, too closely related genetically, or even when one person was physically disabled. So again, those couples had to resort to being married by someone in a government position.
Today, regardless of what faith communities say, marriage is literally and legally a civil contract, granting 1,400 federal benefits under law. Before anyone, ANYONE, can get married, the government and civil authorities, have to approve.
Marriage gives couples certain rights and privileges, and legal and economic benefits. Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.
The laws regarding same-sex marriage are important, very important, and need to change. We demand that change. Same sex marriage immoral? No. Legal? No. We demand our right to marry, LEGALLY.
Laws make up the lowest common denominator for morality, and morality is not the issue here. The issue is equal rights, and love. And love, as Paul said, never finds an end, and as the song says, Love will find a way.
So let’s get on with it. Let’s get over the aversion to what is opposed for silly, irrational reasons, based on ignorance and faulty assumptions, and make ours a more just and honorable society, finally honoring that last phrase from the Pledge of Allegance; “With liberty and justice for all.”
The Rt. Rev. Michael R. Beckett, OPI 