Some Thoughts on Gay Marriage

This post is so late after what were recent events that I’m sure it will be perceived as totally random.  But I’ve been bouncing around some thoughts on the issue of gay marriage for a few months and only now have I achieved enough clarity to adequately address them.  What has occupied my thinking has been how gay marriage, which is much more specific than a quesion about homosexuality, entails the jurisdictions of church and state in addition to the nature of marriage itself. And since political theology is an area that I am only superficially acquainted with, I hope I can perhaps entice Brad Littlejohn over to this humble hall of mine to give his insight.  The conflict in my mind has not been over whether to accept to reject gay marriage, nor has it even been regarding homosexuality that much, but rather over the extent to which the specific issue of gay marriage alone should concern us as American Christians and/or enlist us in a cultural battle.  Lest anyone be worried, rest assure that I am thoroughly orthodox in my position toward homosexuality and any thoughts questioning the manner of opposition toward gay marriage amongst conservative Christians does not suggest that I am an advocate of it.

The first step I made in my thought process, referenced previously, was to separate the broad sin of homosexuality, one that touches just about every sphere of human life, from gay marriage specifically.  Obviously, homosexuality doesn’t need gay marriage to exist and since most of the culture war over this issue is over gay marriage, it’s helpful to distinguish the two.  Having absolved myself from having to consider homosexuality in relation to gay marriage, I could focus in on the two (relatively) easier-to-handle issues contained therein: (1) the nature of marriage and (2) the relationship of the magistrate to it.  So the first questions I asked myself were these:

• Is marriage primarily an ecclesial or a civil institution?
• In what capacity does the state serve in relation to the institution of marriage?  Is it merely one of passive recognition?  That is, should the state merely look upon the marriages that the Church churns out and at most, for the purpose of civil order, “officially” acknowledge them as such?  Or does the state actually share in the preservation of the sanctity of marriage as a sort of co-guardian alongside the Church?  If the latter, does the sanctity of Holy Matrimony depend at least in part on how the state defines it?

_

Now as to the first question, marriage is most assuredly both an ecclesial and a civil institution.  Ecclesial because St. Paul tells us that it shows forth the sacramental union of Christ and His Church and civil because all manner of practical things (property, children, etc) are entailed within it.  But where is it primarily located and which is its ultimate guardian?  As a catholic Christian, I would have to say that marriage finds its essence and identity within the Church since it is fundamentally animated by Christ’s relationship to the Body.  Ecclesial in nature with civil ramifications.  And if it is Christ and His Church which ultimately maintain the sanctity of marriage, then no matter how many states take it upon themselves to grant marriages to gay couples, Holy Matrimony in its true state suffers no harm.  Consequently, there is no such thing as a gay marriage anymore than there is such a thing as a square circle and just because some states try their hand at the sacrament business and distribute marriage licenses to any two people who “want to share a bed and a tax form” doesn’t mean that gay marriages all of the sudden actually exist.  A state-sanctioned gay marriage is a nominalist fiction.  A true marriage in its fullness is obtained only within the Bride of Christ and is, in the poignant words of James Matthew Wilson, a “reality unalterable by human choice because [it is] determined by the dual-grip of natural law and divine sacrament.” (Wilson’s a Roman Catholic and I’d differ perhaps a little on that minutia behind that quote, but you get the idea)

 

_

And yet, I’m not blind and this confidence would seem to be weakened by a cursory examination of the state of heterosexual marriage in this nation today.  Just about everybody, including much of the Church which is supposed to be marriage’s guardian, is confused and compromised not only over homosexuality but of the reality of marriage itself.  As Wilson noted in the previously linked Front Porch Republic piece awhile back:

Regardless of whether same-sex “marriage” ever becomes the legal fiction of our land, most persons have already assented to the principle on which it is based: the only thing requisite for a binding familial union between two persons is sincere affection (needless to say, the “binding” may be dissolved should that affection abate).  To speak of marriage’s broader social function, or the inadequacy of feeling as a basis for (rather than a complement of) the indisoluable tie of man and wife that makes possible the coming-into-being and the sustaining of households across generations is, at present, to speak a language that makes sense to almost nobody.

And when I survey the predominant position of conservative Christians toward gay marriage, I not only see the anemic ecclesiology and but the subsequent view of marriage evacuated of sacrament and cosmic reality that Wilson described as well.  I get the feeling that the majority conservative opinion is that it is the state which bears the sole responsibility of guarding the sanctity of marriage and since our government is floundering in its protection, it’s our job to rise up and lobby them to protect it.  The Church is merely the special interest group that works to ensure that the state keeps its definitions correct.  And accordingly, witness the James Dobson types talking as though marriage itself either stands or falls with the pronouncements of the various states in favor or not of granting marriages to gay couples.  This is what has always puzzled me about the common rhetoric from the Christian Right.  You’ll see Dobson putting the “marriage” of gay marriage in scare quotes as if it’s counterfeit but then act as though marriage in its real state would take a serious blow if gay marriage were to be legally sanctioned.

 

_

But even if I were to grant that the sanctity of marriage was in some way dependent upon its definition by the state, with all other aspects of our culture being held the same, I’m neither sure how much worse things would be if gay marriage became legally-sanctioned nor how much better things would be if every state passed amendments to define marriage as between “one man, one woman”.  I mean, seriously, if our culture is as infected with assumptions about marriage and sexuality as false as those that Wilson described, then even if our efforts paid off and gay couples didn’t get to receive a piece of paper that says “marriage” on it, it would be like rejoicing that a disease that had already possessed an entire body didn’t spread into a pinky toe.  And on the flip side, what’s a pinky toe if the whole body is infected?  Maybe I’m being naive, but I have a hard time seeing how truly consequential the gay marriage issue really is to the state of things we find in our culture today.

 

_

I’m going to take an alternate position.  While acknowledging that the Church in America has largely succumbed to modernity’s assumptions about marriage and sexuality of which we must repent, we’re still the referees of the game.  And just because referees sometimes have difficulty discerning what’s foul or fair doesn’t mean that it’s time for a self-assured congressman, confident in his own understanding of the rules of the sport, to walk out on the field and start making calls.  Even if he happens to make a good call doesn’t change the fact that he’s out of his jurisdiction.  And this is why I’m a bit uncomfortable even with states’ proposed constitutional amendments that happen to get the answer right on the “what is marriage?” test.  Given the marginal place that the visible Church inhabits in the psyche of the average American Christian, I get uneasy at the thought of marriage having any of its sanctity or legitimacy tied to a pronouncement of the state.  Maybe it wouldn’t be so distasteful if we as American Christians had a sufficiently robust ecclesiology and rightly located the institution of marriage within the Church.  Then, if the Legislature of the State of Oklahoma came around and passed an amendment defining marriage as “one man, one woman”, we’d say “hey, thanks” in the way that one expresses gratitude for a complimentary brochure.  But, unfortunately, we don’t have this solid certainty and as long as we lack it, I’m going to have a hard time being ok with marriage being brought into House Chambers to be defined and protected, correctly or not.*

 

No, we the Church should humbly submit to the revealed will of God in His Word and in the testimony of the Christian Tradition and continue marrying couples properly in the eyes of God and His People.  And I am sympathetic to the concern that the legal sanctioning of gay marriage is one step closer to the persecution of Christians who are bold enough to preach the truth concerning marriage and sexuality.  But the specter of homosexuality and self-centered assumptions are still deeply malignant with or without gay marriage, so our work is cut out for us and it is likely to be wearisome.  God grant us strength.

 

_

So with that, I’m opening this up for discussion.  I’d especially like you all’s take on my bulleted questions toward the beginning.  Since these are still the impressionable thoughts of mine, I’m absolutely open to critique, revision, correction, or whatever.

 

*Addendum*

I wanted to specify the type of feedback I am most anticipating and my thoughtful brother-in-law Stewart beat me to it in his comment below.  Namely, what I most distrust about my own position and want to be refuted is how smacks of R2K Theology, which is odd, given that I reject such a paradigm.  Stewart already specifically addressed this matter quite fully but for anyone else, any additional thoughts on the scope of marriage in its social function or how the Lordship of Christ over the principalities of the world relates to the relevance of the state’s definition of marriage would be great.  Perhaps what I didn’t clarify enough in my post was how I desired to be proven wrong and to be shown how the cosmic, sacramental character of marriage was a reason for Christians to be concerned in how the state perceives marriage, rather than a reason for us to absolve ourselves of such concern. 

 

_

Image Credit

Advertisement