Destroying Marriage?

By Peter Kreitler

Ever since that first joyful day in San Francisco when a courageous mayor offered marriage licenses to couples in same-sex relationships, conservative Christians have weighed in on the issue. James Dobson of Focus on the Family has been asked repeatedly: “How is the union of two men or women going to affect you, and for that matter anyone's marriage?” The equivocation and sidestepping would make a politician proud, and why, because nowhere in Mr. Dobson's scriptures can he find any single reference to marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Attempts to justify the sanctity of marriage as a 3000 year-old heterosexual institution are without merit. There is no historical basis for the position taken, other than the fact that a majority of people have chosen a monogamous heterosexual union and have called it marriage. Polygamy, polyandry and group marriage have been tried, and today serial marriage is common, but for the most part one man and one woman for life has become normative; until this century.

Marriage is now a work in progress for both same-sex and opposite-sex unions. Who can say that two loving people choosing to commit for life in a public marriage ceremony will destroy something that is already on the rocks? It is more appropriate to ask Mr. Focus on the Family why there are no sex education classes for the youth of America or family planning seminars to bring enlightenment where there is ignorance. Mr. President, you who want to constitutionally ban marriage between two loving people, how come the dismantling of family planning and educational programs about sexuality and marriage has been a hallmark of your presidency? The sanctity of marriage is eroding from within. There is no justification for an anti-same-sex marriage union other than prejudice and outright discrimination.

Marriage and the Bible

As an Episcopal priest, I performed my first wedding in 1969. I have since presided over approximately 650 weddings with a minimum of five hours of pre-marital counseling with each couple. The sanctity of marriage is a focus of my deliberations with each couple. We talk about Jesus attending a wedding in Cana of Galilee and that it signifies the mystery of the union between Christ and his church. Marriage is a covenant, a solemn oath and promise of an everlasting relationship between two people who love each other.

In the state of California there are three impediments to marriage and when the minister asks, "Is there anyone who can show just cause why these two people may not be married?" there are only three answers that would apply:

1. Either partner is presently married to someone else.
2. The individuals are blood relatives.
3. One of the partners has been judged insane by a court of law.

Nowhere in the marriage manual, either of the Episcopal Church or the State of California, does it state that a wedding is to be between a man and a woman. In addition, no such directive appeared during my three years of graduate school seminary training, 35 years as a priest, or in my extensive study of marriage. I also have never run across denominational or governmental discrimination against same-sex unions, until now.

Also, there is no scriptural justification for denying marriage. Let's examine the evidence:

•  "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).

It does not go on to say that a man cannot be one flesh with a member of the same sex.  

•  "Jesus said to them, ‘Those who belong to this world marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage" (Luke 20:34).

No specificity there.

•  "Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled: for God will judge fornicators and adulterers" (Hebrews 13:4).

Here is a clear condemnation of bad behavior. But is it not directed at the married heterosexual partner who dishonors the union?

If marriage is a right for everyone, then a defiled bed in a same-sex union will be judged by God in the same way. No framework for marriage is established other than a requirement to keep it honorable throughout the union. “The bond and covenant of marriage was established by God in Creation,” states the Episcopal Wedding Service. It does not say this is exclusively the bond between man and woman.

A quick review of history: The human family began to settle communities around 40,000 BCE. Strong directives arose to keep the societies functioning. The Ten Commandments evolved because a strict set of guidelines was necessary. Note: Only one of the ten had anything to do with marriage, family, or sexuality, and that one was because the sanctity of marriage was already under attack by heterosexual misconduct. Adultery was unacceptable behavior, period.

We must also note there was no commandment from Moses warning of same-sex unions, or even homosexuality generally. If God is so concerned about same-sex unions or homosexuality, these concerns would have certainly been included in the most important biblical directives ever presented to the human family.

The Commandments also ordered: "Thou shall not covet your neighbors' house. Thou shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his servant, man or woman." The concept of property prevailed. A married woman, and both male and female servants, were considered of less value than the man in those days. This commandment, like all scripture, reflects the times, and that is why historical criticism of the scriptures must be applied.

The Code of Leviticus

When the Code of Leviticus was written, a specific set of do's and don'ts addressed marriage relationships in detail. These laws are illustrative of the need to put scripture in context. Today we laugh at many of the directives and accept few of them as being relevant to our times. In the entire 700-plus directives from Leviticus, one cannot find a line that says same-sex unions are an abomination to God or anyone else. There is no sentence found where it states that marriage is compromised by same-sex relationships, unions, or marriage.

Those who use Leviticus as justification for homosexual people not marrying isolate one brief line. There is never a repeat of this line, and a biblical truth is that repetition by the authors means emphasis. Leviticus 18:22 states clearly, but only once: "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination." The Jerusalem Bible translates this as ‘ a hateful thing .' Note: Even this so-called ‘hateful thing' is not punishable by death, as was adultery. It was not even cited as a reason for ostracism from one's community; however, stones were reserved for the adulterer. There is no form of emphasis.

And what about the 700 other directives? Are we going to condemn those who have seen a parent or sibling naked, or outlaw someone who has eaten something with blood in it, or who has, God forbid, practiced magic?

There are even rules about marriage for a priest.   In Leviticus 21:13-14, it states, "He shall marry only a woman who is a virgin. A widow, or a divorced woman, or a woman who has been defiled, a prostitute, these he shall not marry." If we were to take this literally, many of the great celebrations of marriage, including my own, would never have taken place. My wife Katy was widowed at age 33.

Thus, applying reason, historical criticism, and common sense helps us realize that one cannot always take scripture literally; especially the entire Code from the Torah. Reading the entire Code of Leviticus, rather than isolating one fraction to prove our point, helps us put in context statements like the following:

In Leviticus 19:27-29 we read: "You are not to round off your hair at the edges or trim the edges of your beard…you are not to tattoo yourselves, I am Yahweh." Devoted Jews may try to follow every code to the letter of the law, but most do not and can not because they are unreasonable in today's world. All sentences must be weighted equally, or all judged in relation to the times they were written.  

One cannot weigh Leviticus 18 more than Leviticus 19; thereby creating an artificial hierarchy of importance. However, if we could, I might suggest (with a bit of tongue-in-cheek): How about a constitutional amendment against tattoos? "A tattoo does not destroy the sanctity of anything," might be the righteous retort.   

On the contrary, a tattoo destroys something more fundamental than marriage, and that is the temple of God, one's own body. Scripture reminds us that our bodies are sacred and that we should not desecrate the temple of the Almighty. Therefore, every body tattoo on a Christian man or woman is an outward and visible sign of one's disrespect of the Lord.  

Leviticus provides a scriptural justification for an outrageous position. Using good judgment we would never propose a constitutional amendment banning tattoos, though we have more biblical justification for that than for banning gay marriage. Leviticus includes an extensive list of rules for conjugal relationships and of offences against the family. Not one paragraph, not a single line references either homosexual behavior (other than the brief line cited above) or same-sex unions.

I am deeply concerned about the sanctity of marriage. The bonds are being dissolved as quickly as an Alka-Seltzer. The religiously righteous have shunned marriage and sexual education for our young, under-funded human sexuality classes for our college age students, and wrongly assume that couples will make it on their own. The Focus on the Family folks may focus on the sanctity of marriage, but unless they deal with the issue of sexuality and sex in our culture and its influence, we will continue to see the marriage covenant rent asunder at an alarming rate. This attitude is what is compromising the sanctity of marriage, not those who want to established a lifelong covenant.

All marriages should receive support in the form of counseling. Focus on the strengthening of unions is what is needed, not a constitutional amendment banning their marriage. Today, in San Francisco and elsewhere, men and woman with their partners are standing proud, publicly admitting their commitment. This is a personal choice.

Who among us is qualified to judge what only the individual couples and God know in their hearts? Marriage is marriage! It should never be "gay marriage" or "straight marriage," but marriage. Love and commitment should be honored not banned. The judgment is not ours to pronounce, and only when the covenant is broken through infidelity or irreconcilable differences should the law of the land step in to speak.

May we stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters who against all odds have maintained faithful loving relationships and who now can exchange rings, hold hands and embrace and say: Halleluiah! We are married!   

The Rev. Peter Gwillim Kreitler is a cultural historian, television talk show host, author, businessman and environmental educator. His most recent book is United We Stand: Flying the American Flag , and he keeps a daily online journal at www.earthtalktoday.tv . Peter may be reached by email at pkreitler@aol.com .

 
Reprinted with permission from The Witness.