Debate over gay marriage hasn’t cooled over time

There is arguably no hotter social issue in America than legal marriage between two persons of the same sex.

The issue could be a significant factor in the 2008 presidential election. The issue is a good example of what happens when church and state get too entangled. The issue is critical enough that my next three columns will take a critical look at the issues.

The basis of the columns will be three relatively recent books on the subject. For this column I am introducing you to Mark Jordan, the Candler professor of religion at Emory University. Mark is a completely out-of-the-closet gay man. The title of his book is “Blessing Same Sex Marriage.” The subtitle is “The Perils of Queer Romance and the Confusion of Christian Marriage.”

Jordan begins by saying that gay people have made a huge mistake. The almost universal assumption of gay people is quite simple. They want legally recognized marriage between people of the same sex. Substitute a gay couple for a heterosexual couple and proceed. According to Jordan there is great peril in that assumption.

The first problem is to define a Christian marriage. The Bible is of little help. In the Old Testament, a variety of marriage patterns are easily identified. Polygamy was dominant. The use of concubines was widely practiced. Female slaves were available to male owners for procreation.

Today’s Christian marriage standard of a man and a woman coming together as independent persons freely choosing one another is not found in the New Testament. In the New Testament a woman was still the property of a man. The roots of today’s definition of Christian marriage are no more than 150 years old. They are entwined with the end of slavery, and in particular with the roots of women’s liberation from male ownership.

To look to the Bible for an understanding of what is today considered Christian marriage is laughable.

To complicate the matter even more, Jordan continues, there is wide disagreement about what happens when a Christian clergyperson blesses a couple and pronounces them husband and wife. The entanglement with the state makes the situation very confusing.

Hundreds of times I have been involved in the blessing of the marriage of a heterosexual couple. Soon after the ceremony I have faithfully filed the government-provided paperwork with the appropriate agency and the marriage has become legal. Without that bit of state sanction, the general public does not recognize that anything happened at the church.

I agree with Jordan that if legal sanctions are the goal, it makes far more sense for a couple to go to an agent of government for the magical waving of the wand. Why are ministers and churches involved in the first place? A judge, a mayor or a policeman makes more sense. Here in the United States where we cherish separation of church and state, how have we allowed this unholy alliance to develop?

Jordan takes us to another reality. A gay couple is not the same thing as a heterosexual couple. Most heterosexual couples either procreate or attempt to procreate. No such dynamic is found in gay relationships, and the differences go further.

We know that what goes on in the bedrooms of heterosexual people varies greatly. The same is true of homosexual people. As an example, while research is difficult and percentages cannot be quoted, anecdotal information confirms that there are many long-term, very stable homosexual relationships that have no sexual element in the relationship. The two persons simply enjoy each other and their lives together. Is it a marriage? Why cannot they have legal recognition and protection?

Gay people have a reputation of being promiscuous. Some deserve the reputation. The gay polyamorous household is common. But among heterosexual persons and couples, promiscuous patterns of behavior are also found in abundance. Should gay persons be denied legal rights and protection if they live in a polyamorous household? If so, heterosexual persons who are promiscuous should also lose their rights and protections.

Jordan believes that the issue of gay marriage has gotten too big. He is confident that social acceptance and law will eventually catch up with actual practice. In the meantime, Jordan believes a helpful first step is for churches and ministers to drop out of participation in legal recognition of personal relationships no matter what they are called.

Jordan recognizes the value of ceremonies that define long-term relationships. He believes the blessing of relationships in a church is very important. However, the church and the clergy who participates should be absolutely free to set the rules, standards and terminology with no government-provided paperwork involved.

Jordan argues that justice and equality are of enormous importance to gay persons. However, Christian marriage is a bogus issue.

The Rev. Howard Bess is the pastor of Church of the Covenant, an American Baptist church in Palmer. His email address is hdbss@mtaonline.net