Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Gay Marriage: Our Mutual Joy

This Newsweek cover story is causing a stir ... What's Your Opinion Venango County?

=======================================================================================

Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.

by Lisa Miller for Newsweek:


Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.

The battle over gay marriage has been waged for more than a decade, but within the last six months—since California legalized gay marriage and then, with a ballot initiative in November, amended its Constitution to prohibit it—the debate has grown into a full-scale war, with religious-rhetoric slinging to match. Not since 1860, when the country's pulpits were full of preachers pronouncing on slavery, pro and con, has one of our basic social (and economic) institutions been so subject to biblical scrutiny. But whereas in the Civil War the traditionalists had their James Henley Thornwell—and the advocates for change, their Henry Ward Beecher—this time the sides are unevenly matched. All the religious rhetoric, it seems, has been on the side of the gay-marriage opponents, who use Scripture as the foundation for their objections.

The argument goes something like this statement, which the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister, gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June: "The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition."

To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. "Marriage" in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.

Article Continues HERE

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I usually don't comment on blogs but I had to here. You site seems like a place to generalize and bash people who have faith. This site in and of itself is hypocrisy. If you really wanted to stop bigotry you would stop generalizing all Christians as "gay haters" and look at gay bigotry as a whole coming from many other areas besides Christians. This site is simply a way to attack people of faith, it is a sham. Move on!

Anonymous said...

The previous comment is wrong. I think this site is helpful in pointing out that those who use religion and the bible to bash gays are not true Christians at all. And as a person of faith myself, I resent the alignment of Christianity with a radically conservative political agenda. If you don't like this site's perspective, don't read it.

Anonymous said...

Christians and people of faith in general are facing a great challenge. It is painful to acknowledge the reality that anti-gay activists are deeply rooted in American churches. Try standing up in your church to say you believe in Gay rights. What would happen?
Yes, there are other bigoted people who are not faith based but they do not generally organize to deny rights. They are just bigots.
Anti-gay political efforts have come right out of the Christian churches. Those Christians who may not agree with this agenda have simply remained silent and allowed the more vocal to rule the day.
This site is telling the story. If you can name another group who has done more damage to gay people, you should let us know.

PseudoPiskie said...

"Christians" provided millions of dollars to deprive LGBTs of their rights in California. "Christian" organizations publish lies and myths about LGBTs. Real Christians inhabit places like All Saints, Pasadena, and All Saints, Chicago. Anyone who claims to be "Christian" and refuses to accept the message of love without judgment in the New Testament is fooling him/herself. Anyone who seeks to deprive any US citizen of the rights and privileges of everyone else is just plain wrong and unAmerican.

Why can't people sign their comments?