In the global struggles and movement towards marriage equality, we have gone well beyond the simplistic assumption that this is a contest between conservatives fighting for religious belief and family values on the one hand, and liberal struggles for civil rights on the other. Many notable conservatives are promoting marriage equality to support queer families and conservative values, and significant numbers of faith leaders are advocates for gay marriage, based on Gospel values of inclusion and justice.
However, there are complexities to the marriage issue that have still not been properly aired, but should be. Some secular gay activists (particularly the men), are unhappy that public acceptance of gay marriage is putting them under pressure to tie the knot, which they see as being co-opted into a lifestyle they had rejected, and a betrayal of hard-won sexual freedoms. (This is precisely why some conservatives want to see us married off – to tame what they see as the less acceptable aspects of “the gay lifestyle”). But there’s another reason also why some in the queer community, including queer people of faith, are wary of full marriage – a suspicion of the institution of marriage itself, as it has developed historically. This is neatly illustrated in the current British application to the European Court of Human Rights, in which four LGBT couples are asking for the right to marry – and four straight couples are asking for the right to civil partnerships, instead. Why should heterosexuals, who already have the right to full marriage, want to settle for civil partnerships, which so many gay activists see as second best?
My friends Martin and Julian, both deeply committed Catholics, celebrated their civil partnership some years ago, but are implacably opposed to having it converted to full marriage when the British legislation is finally passed. This has nothing at all to do with any notion of the “sacramental” nature of traditional marriage. In their view, their relationship, being totally committed to each other and undertaken with as much religious ritual as church and secular law would permit, is as much a sacramental union as any other. The problem, as they see it, is that marriage is an inherently unequal, patriarchal and hence unjust form of relationship.
The real issue, beyond the matter of gay equality, is to develop a form of relationship that embodies full justice between both parties in a relationship. Opening up the debate over same-sex marriage could lead to a re -evaluation of all marriage and how it is practised.
The clearest exposition of this line of thinking from a faith -based perspective that I have seen comes from an openly gay Presbyterian minister Marvin Ellison, speaking as part of a day-long colloquium on religious discourse in same-sex marriage debates hosted by the Elon Center for the Study of Religion, North Carolina. Here’s an extract:
Ellison, whose talk was titled “Is same-sex marriage a ‘must’ or a ‘bust,’” said there are three voices in the same-sex marriage debate. The first voice is that of marriage traditionalists, who resist marriage equality because they fear it will erase gender differences. Marriage advocates represent the second voice, who feel marriage exclusion is a form of discrimination that violates equal protection under the law. They believe the debate is not just about homosexual marriage, but rather confirming the highest form of social approval possible.
The third voice is that of marriage critics, who support the right of same sex couples to marry but are not convinced it will inevitably lead to greater relational justice.
“For marriage critics, same-sex marriage is an ambivalent good,” Ellison said. “If not quite a bust, not entirely a must.”
Ellison himself is also skeptical of placing too much emphasis on legalizing same-sex marriage.
“While gaining equal access to marriage is a worthy goal, I fear that limiting justice to the acquisition of equal rights may in fact be problematic,” he said. “Especially if other compelling requirements of justice are ignored.”
-full analysis at The Pendulum.
Ellison, who has extensively researched and published on the history of marriage, says his explorations led him to some surprising conclusions. First, the bit that most Christian advocates for marriage equality would accept:
While writing his book, Ellison discovered that historically, Christians have often been on the wrong side of marriage debates. But in Biblical traditions, justice is meant to right relation both interpersonally as well as communally, he said.
“(Justice) is about showing respect for persons and honoring their humanity,” Ellison said. “To deny, therefore, a group of people the freedom to marry and the moral right to love and be loved is therefore not a minor inconvenience or merely unpleasant, it is rather an exclusion that is dehumanizing, unjust and wrong.”
But some of his recommendations for people of faith in the current marriage debate are more controversial – but thoughtful, reasoned and worth thinking about seriously.
For many centuries, the purpose of marriage for most Christians was to restrain sin and to regulate sexual passion, Ellison said. While men and women were considered spiritual equals, they were not socially equal. But Christianity, Ellison said, is engaged in a dynamic evolving process that has resulted in a shift in the meaning of sex, marriage and intimate love.
Ellison said he would encourage the church to not view marriage as a duty expected of all people. He said the church should promote only egalitarian, justice-loving marriages and other intimate relationships.
“I would encourage all of us, in our own ways, to become wedding industry resistors,” he said. “Why not place marriage ceremonies back within the context of public worship. Friday night in the synagogue or Sunday morning in the church, and then follow the ceremony with a spiffy coffee hour.”
and
Ellison emphasized, change is possible, and while inclusion is good, transformation is better. Expanding marriage rights is important, but an agenda that aims at relational justice for all, rather than legal remedy for a few, is what the focus needs to be on, Ellison said.
“The change many of us desire so deep down is not mere inclusion but rather spiritually, moral, economical and cultural transition toward genuinely right relations,” Ellison said. “From the grassroots upwards, and in our bedroom and far beyond.”
Read the full report at The Pendulum – and think about it.
