■ . >r —' I j- J
>' * ' ^ -v* *1
r aiirii ir ri
“Marriage: Sacred? Says who?” ... from page 9
who support full marriage equality for same-
gender couples. Besides Kucinich and
Sharpton, almost all of the other politicians
like to pontificate on the “sacred and
immutable institution of marriage.” But
what exactly does this mean? Does such an
institution exist? Looking at the historj^ of
the institution(s) of marriage, it doesn’t seem
that way.
First, the “sacredness” of marriage has no
singular meaning. To some religious
Communities and the politicians in them.
Sacredness implies that marriage is an
institution set apart for a specific purpose by
God. It is not only a special relationship
between a man and a woman but between
the couple and God and thus a “sacred”
institution. But many other people of faith
see marriage as a relationship between a couple
^d between the couple and God no matter
what the genders of the partners involved.
For others still, “sacred” has more to do
^th the fact that they see marriage as a
building block for society. Marriage (between
^ man and a woman) is sacred because
'vithout it, these people contest, all of society
Would be thrust into chaos. “Authentic”
family bonds would not exist, children would
be brought up in inadequate homes, and
“values” (whatever the individual defines
ihese to mean) are not passed on from
generation to generation. Some even claim
^at recogni2ing same-gender marriage will
be the destruction of humanity’s relationship
'vith God. I find it hard to see how basing
public policy on such an assertion could be
Sound or fruitful.
Second, the immutability, or unchanging
*^ture, of marriage is dted often as one reason
^at allowing same-gender marriage is a
^Orally disastrous idea. US. Senate Majority
f^ader and Republican Bill Frist even has
proposed that marriage has remained
^changed for at least “3000 years.” The claim
immutability taps into a common human
desire for stability and constancy. The familiar
Comforts us — and different-gender marriage
is engrained deeply in the heterosexist fabric
of
Our society.
But how sound are these claims of
^^credness and immutability? Since individual
^dtes issue marriage licenses, should they base
policy decisions on subjective notions of
^^credness and the relation of an institution
God? Is marriage when facilitated by the
State a secular institution? Furthermore, is
the immutability thesis a defendable one? Is
marriage tpday really the same institution it
was 3000 years ago? Or more precisely, is
different-gender marriage — the “traditional”
marriage between “one man and one
woman” that we hear about all the time —
really what marriage has akvays been in the
US. or in odier nations not so hea\aly effected
by Christianity? VChere do these claims of
sacredness and immutability come from?
Religious Studies scholars and historians
might point out tliat claims of sacredness
and immutability of marriage are rooted in a
fundamentalist Christian theology. While
other Near-Eastern rehgious traditions,
notably Islam and Judaism, often get
wrapped up in similar fundamentalist
defenses of different-gender marriage, these
religious traditions do not have nearly the
influence in the U.S. as the dominant
fundamentalist Christian ideology.
Fundamentalism is connected to, but should
be differentiated from, a “literal interpretation”
of the Christian Bible. Fundamentalists
might interpret their sacred texts “literaU)^’
(or at least claim to) but more frequently they
base their judgments on the authority of their
pastors (local, national and worldwide) and
their pastors’ guidance on marriage. Taught
to tliem since birtli, heteronormative notions,
proposing heterosexuality as the only good
and authentic sexuality and the “norm” for
human beings, also play a large role in their
resistance to same-gender marriage.
However, it is very difficult, maybe even
impossible, to ever render a “literal”
interpretation of the Christian Bible or any
other religious text. Interpretations of texts
are necessarily subjective. While it might well
be argued that the probability of one meaning
of a text to the society’ that wrote it is more
likely than another, coming up with the sacred
and immutable thesis about marriage after
doing one’s best to render a “literal”
interpretation of the Christian Bible is near
impossible. WLere persons like Sen. Frist
come up widi 3000 years as the age of marriage
is certainly beyond me and beyond all credible
Religious Studies scholars. The best guess is
that he simply took 2000 years (back to the
advent of Christianity) and added 1000 years
for good measure - why not?
One could possibly do an exercise to
iUustrate what a “literal” rendering of the
“Biblical notion” of marriage would look like.
Perhaps marriage should consist solely of a
union between one man and one or more
women — a notion illustrated (and seemingly
advocated) by the author of Genesis 29:17-
28 and II Samuel 3:2-5. Of course, this
shouldn’t impede a man’s right to take
concubines in addition to his wife or wives
according to the authors of II Samuel 5:13,1
Kings 11:3 and II Chronicles 11:21. Make
sure though that your wife is a virgin before
you marry her, because if you find out
otherwise after the fact, it will be necessary to
stone her to death if you follow
Deuteronomy 22:13-21. Of course, marriage
between a “believer and a non-believer”
(whatever these terms mean) are forbidden
in both the Hebrew Bible and the New
Testament. And what if a if a man dies and
leaves his wife a widow? Then of course the
brother of the deceased man must
consummate a new marriage with her. If he
does not wish to consummate a new marriage
with the man’s wife, she should take off his
sandal and spit in his face (Deuteronomy 25:5-
10). What do we do if the man wears no
sandal? We are not told — and it remains a
mystery to this day. If the immutability of
marriage is based on the Christian Bible, we
get nowhere fast. Indeed, marriage
throughout the text changes — from
polygamous to monogamous — and from
indissoluble to dissoluble and back again.
What the Christian Scripture’s “literal”
message is that the intimate and sexual
relationships between human beings have are
diverse and mutable - changing always and
everywdiere.
When proponents of “traditional
marriage” talk about it, they are appealing to
the Biblical texts and history in an isogetic
fashion; that is, they are “reading into” the
texts what they want to see there. But more
often than not, these same people are really
basing their notions about marriage on the
views of their respective pastors and churches.
The main issue is about reliance on authority,
a lack of critical thinking and revisionist
history. These pastors and churches might
base their belief in marriage in part on their
isogetic reading of sacred texts but they also
heavily rely on a carefully crafted theology about
marriage that is based on revisionist history,
primitive and heterosexist notions of
sexuality and the comfort of reliance on the
continued on page 16