Christians would do better to realize that gay brothers and sisters wanting to marry could be allies in the fight to sustain that ancient and honorable institution.
Nor is “civil marriage” another devilish invention of the Age of Enlightenment or godless French philosophers. It derives from ancient Roman law, where a marriage of two people under Roman ius civile was a contract regulating questions of property (including the wife!) and personal status of the parties. Marriage could be entered into by buying your wife or simply “using her” and her estate. Only one form had a vague religious connotation, but this form was reserved for the aristocracy. When Christianity became the state religion, it suppressed these forms, binding legal effects with a religious ceremony. When the churches were divorced from the state in the 18th and 19th centuries the states moved in to legislate on marriage to have the issue of assets regulated. Thus, since the 19th century the ideologies behind civil and religious marriage were different and have been slowly drifting apart since.
Some Christians claim that the first casualty of the acceptance of gay marriage would be the definition of marriage itself. But which definition are we talking about? No honest person in this debate can claim that courts would force the Southern Baptists to accept gay marriage in church. Some churches will retain it, some like the United Church of Christ have moved on.
What about civil marriage? Here the state is moving in another direction. It wants a marriage to be a union of two people who promise to live together, accepting the legal responsibility to help and take care of each other in times of trouble. The state offers to help out with legal and fiscal incentives. Marriage is not only a legal promise made by two individuals to each other in front of a state official but also the state promising to use all possible legal and reasonable means to help that contract be fulfilled.
Some opponents of same-sex marriage argue that gay monogamy is not monogamous after all. But is “straight” monogamy always in fact monogamous? We all know from our lives or from the courthouse stories of marriages that point to another, sad picture. But, if marriage stabilizes heterosexual relationships, as many imply, why blame gay relationships for their assumed instability if that benefit has been denied to them? Why continue to deny committed gay couples the same stabilizing and protecting benefit?
Ask this question: if monogamy is the requirement for marriage, then why are the “defenders of marriage” not pushing for a ban on divorce? By banning divorce we could help to keep all straight marriages intact, and reverse the catastrophic 50% divorce rate in the U.S. Why not work a marriage amendment here?
I am deeply convinced that if we want to show society the benefits of marriage, its commitments and responsibilities, we can show that it can work for both Adam and Eve, as well as Adam and Steve. In a world so bereft of responsibility, the fact that groups so diverse choose to enter into a committed and legalized relationship and make it work, will be proof that it is not only meant for saints or religious fanatics, but it is also meant for anyone in good faith.
Some might argue that this can be provided within the framework of a “civil union,” wanting to keep the word “marriage” for heterosexual couples. While I understand their emotions, hasn’t “separate but equal” been proven a failure in the past? History teaches us that this always means “separate” but never “equal.” When women were given the suffrage, it was “the right to vote” and not “binding opinion.” Perhaps it is worth looking at the European model, where couples are required first to go to the registry for a legal (secular) ceremony, and then, for those who choose, to have that union blessed in their churches.
Commitment, responsibility for one another, mutual love, integrity, trust, and faithfulness are not abundant in our society — we Christians need to cherish them in both “straight” and “gay” relationships. So, when I speak with my skeptical friends about marriage I don’t only give my parents and grandparents as an example but I look to other marriages I know. As shocking as it may sound, I give the example of a Dutch Reformed Church minister I know, who has been living with his male partner for the past 40 years. If, as Andrew Sullivan argues, marriage “will bring gays home,” then Christians should be the first people to welcome them there. Let us not be selfish. Let’s share the joys and responsibilities of marriage with others who desire it. The sky will not fall on our heads.
Kazimierz Bern is a Presbyterian student and ministerial candidate at Yale Divinity School.
