I have received several emails from friends recently reminding me of the upcoming special election on November 8, 2005 in which Texans will be voting on whether or not to add a prohibition against same-sex marriage to the Texas constitution. Americans have recently been scared by the 2003 decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to legalize same-sex marriages against the will of the Massachusetts legislature and the people of Massachusetts.
The purpose of this amendment to the Texas constitution is to prevent the same thing from happening in Texas. Judges must look to their constitution as the highest law in the land, and if they feel that any law passed by the legislature is contrary to their constitution, they can (and should) overturn the law. So, even though Texas already has laws on the books that ban same-sex marriages, the fear is that some judges might someday decide that those laws violate the "equal protection" clause of the Texas constitution. By demonstrating that denying homosexuals the right to marriage denies them the equal protection of the law, some Texas judges in the future could legally overturn our existing laws against same-sex marriage in Texas. If the new Texas constitutional amendment passes on November 8th, no future judge will be able to overturn the laws against same-sex marriage because those laws will be expressly permitted by the Texas constitution.
For those who respect the sanctity of marriage it seems obvious that any attempt to strengthen the bulwark against same-sex marriages can only be good, and many Texans will turn out to vote "Yes" on this constitutional amendment thinking that they are helping to defend the institution of marriage against those who wish to violate it.
It is my opinion, though, that this knee-jerk response on the issue turns out to be the incorrect one. A "No" vote on this constitutional amendment will actually be more likely to preserve the Biblical institution of marriage in Texas' future. Please follow my reasoning carefully; if the citizens of a democratic society do not carefully consider their constitutional amendments, the highest law of the land, there is no higher institution that can correct any mistakes. We have to get this right.
Marriage is a spiritual union. A wedding is similar to a baptism in that it is a physical act with spiritual significance. In this spiritual act of marriage, one man and one woman pledge to love, honor, and remain faithful to one another as long as they both shall live. Regardless of what the State of Texas, the US Congress, the Supreme Court, or the US Constitution has to say about the matter, this will always be the definition of marriage as God ordained it in the Garden.
Because the concept of marriage is so firmly ingrained in our culture, though, it has also become institutionalized in our laws. The problem is that there are legal benefits that encourage people to participate in this act called marriage even if they have no intention of life-long faithfulness and if the marriage has no spiritual significance. People, regardless of their spiritual beliefs, still like to share insurance benefits and retirement benefits. They like to have hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights and the right to make burial decisions. There are close to 1500 special legal privileges given to people with a marriage license that people without a marriage license do not have, so it’s no wonder that people will drop a few bucks at the local courthouse for a marriage of convenience.
Christians have spent a lot of time worrying about the high divorce rate in America. It disturbs us to see so many marriages ending in divorce because we view the act of divorce as an act of rebellion against God, tearing apart by our own will what He has joined together. We also see it as tarnishing a sacrament we hold to be sacred and holy. And when we consider broken Christian marriages we certainly have reason for concern, but does it really tarnish the spiritual institution of marriage when a couple who promises to stay together only "as long as I love you" decides to divorce? I would argue that these marriages of convenience were never really marriages in the first place, at least not in the sacred sense of the word. Their divorce, similarly, is nothing more than the termination of a legal contract. Their divorce has no more spiritual significance than their marriage had to begin with.
Maybe the problem is not that we have a high divorce rate, but that we have a high marriage rate. If the only people who married were those who were seriously committed to remaining faithful to each other for life, the divorce rate would be significantly lower and marriage would have significantly more meaning and value in our culture. But this is not going to happen as long as there continue to be significant legal benefits to marriage that encourage marriages of convenience.
The way to preserve the sanctity of marriage, then, is to separate the concept of the legal union from the concept of the spiritual union. The goal should be to completely remove the institution of marriage from the authority of the State and to return to the Church the practice of uniting a man and woman as one flesh.
In order for this to happen, though, we must create a new type of legal union, separate and apart from marriage, for people who desire the secular, legal benefits currently available to married couples, but who have no desire to be married in the eyes of God. A good name for this is a “civil union”. The civil union is administered by the State and has absolutely no spiritual significance; it is simply a legal construct that allows any two people to be considered jointly in the eyes of the State.
In order to best preserve the holiness of the concept of marriage, it is important that the society make a clear dinstinction between the two concepts. These civil unions should be as far removed from the traditional concept of marriage as possible. Civil unions should be available for any pair of people who would like their shared life to be legally recognized by the State. So, groups of people who would benefit from these civil unions would be elderly siblings who live together, or young singles who share a house together, or a pair of widows supporting each other in their old age. Paul and Barnabas would have been good candidates for a civil union as well.
The civil union has nothing to do with sexuality or physical intimacy, it is simply a legal recognition of a shared life, and as such it poses no threat to the spiritual institution of marriage separately administered by the Church. The civil union only creates “partners”; marriage creates “spouses”. A civil union means “we do our taxes together and share our insurance and retirement benefits”; a marriage means “we have been united by God as one flesh”. Newly married Christian couples would probably want to file for a civil union at the courthouse like everyone else so that they would receive the legal benefits of doing so, but they would recognize that it is their publicly expressed vows of lifelong love and faithfulness and being united in the sight of God that actually makes them man and wife.
It seems to me that if marriage is left in the hands of the State, it will eventually lose all spiritual relevance as more and more people, seeking only its legal benefits, claim its sacred title. The only hope is for the Church to reclaim the spiritual sacrament of marriage, leaving the State to administer a Godless civil union. The complaint of homosexuals is that they are being denied the same legal privileges as heterosexual couples. The response of the Church should be that homosexuals (and anyone else who wants to) may take whatever legal privileges they like as long as they don’t try to redefine the millennia-old concept of marriage as a spiritual union between a man and a woman.
It has been my hope for years that civil unions would one day rescue the institution of marriage from its inevitable decline, but this Texas constitutional amendment will make that impossible. According to the wording of the amendment,
This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
So, the amendment expressly forbids the creation of civil unions which are so necessary for preserving the sanctity of marriage.
I think that if Texas voters think about it a little bit, they will realize that this amendment on the ballot is more of an ideological battle than it is a wise addition to the law. The emphasis is really more on "winning" than on meaningfully affecting marriage in Texas. We already have laws on the books that ensure that marriage is between a man and a woman, and, unlike Massachusetts, Texas judges are popularly elected and will pay dearly at the ballot box for any attempt to overturn those laws. So, there is not even a clear political gain if the amendment passes. Voting "No" to the amendment is not going to legalize homosexual marriage, but voting "Yes" pretty much guarantees that the spiritual institution of marriage will be forever left in the hands of the State, and the past half century should have taught us that God and the State don't share well.
The upcoming vote is seen as an ideological battle between the forces of family values and the forces of moral decay, and the main point of the vote is just to make a statement to the world that there are more of “us” than there are of “them”. But constitutional amendments make poor pulpits for ideological statements. If the amendment passes it may very well be a Pyrrhic victory in which we win the battle but ultimately lose the war. Texans interested in preserving the sanctity of marriage should consider voting “No” to the amendment.
5 comments:
Interesting view point, Jeff. I still don't buy that homosexual marriages are ALL about the benefits that would come with "civil unions." There are far too many existing homosexual churches to think that those congregants wouldn't want to be married in the "eyes of God."
I think there has been so much emphasis placed on the shared financial benefits and tax cuts because it plays up the "civil injustice" side of the issue which plays to much more of the population than does Christianity. Granted, majority may not be interested in the spiritual aspect of marriage but they are interested in their own love for each other. Civil unions won't cut it for a couple who are convinced they want to be joined for life.
Good to hear from you!
Congrats to both of you!!!!!
jeff said: The emphasis is really more on "winning" than on meaningfully affecting marriage in Texas.
I had been trying to figure out what this amendment was all about, and now I think I understand.
jeff said: The response of the Church should be that homosexuals (and anyone else who wants to) may take whatever legal privileges they like as long as they don’t try to redefine the millennia-old concept of marriage as a spiritual union between a man and a woman.
First, I'm not sure how the age of a concept relates to whether it is good or bad. Patriarchy, for example, is older than marriage, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Same goes for time-honored institutions like, oh, War.
Second, I think the church would do better to extend the sacrament of marriage to homosexual couples, rather than withholding it. I don't think this conflicts with scripture any more than the idea of church buildings, and it would help homosexual people by encouraging monogamous homosexual relationships. Furthermore, it would be a first step toward reconciling homosexual people to the church that has long ostracized them. (By "ostracized them", I mean burnt them at the stake, that sort of thing.)
clarissa said: If the definition of Holy Matrimony involves God, civil unions would not be similar or identical to marriage.
Actually, if you look at the history of revisions to the wording of this amendment, it's clear that the phrase "identical or similar to" is meant to explicitly exclude the possibility of civil unions.
clarissa said: we have to make a stand against those wishing to violate the institution of marriage.
This seems to suggest that there are a bunch of villains sitting around in a room somewhere, twirling their mustachios and saying to one another, "we must come up with a plan to violate the institution of marriage!"
I don't think anyone who opposes this amendment wishes to "violate the institution of marriage." Some want the legal benefits of a civil union, and others want the sacrament of marriage to be extended to them in the same way it is extended to heterosexual couples. If you're looking for someone who wants to violate the institution of marriage, chase down the folks who came up with no-fault divorce.
Jeff, you have a very well articulated position. I have had similar thoughts about the amendment. I am conflicted because we, as the church, rail on homosexuals for their promiscuous lifestyles, and then takes away any kind of institution for them to commit themselves to monogamous relationships.
The fallacy in your logic however is the practicality of expecting the state to submit to the church's definition of marriage now that the church has submitted to the state's definition of marriage. Legal "marriages" began as a state-endorsement of a sacred act. In other words, the state was recognizing what the church was doing. But long ago, the state recognized marriage as a secular institution - people don't have to get married in a church or even by a "minister" to be legally married. So, NOW that the church does not like what the state has done to marriage (because the state is simply taking the secular nature of the institution to its natural conclusion - homosexual union), the church wants the right to define the institution. This is not going to happen because the state will not give the title "marriage" back to the church - make sense?
For me personally, I don't care what the state does with marriage - it really doesn't affect what the church must do. If the state recognizes or doesn't recognize homosexual unions, the church will still have to teach a Christian view of marriage that is distinct from a secular view of marriage. Do we really think that the legal recognition of homosexual unions will suddenly cause many people to become homosexual or live in homosexual relationships that weren't before? Personally, I doubt it. So, I guess my premise is that the church should have never given the state the ability to define marriage at all (which is what you argue should be reversed today). I only disagree with you in the sense that I am too pessimistic (read realistic) to think that this will ever be done.
Jeff, thanks so much for your transparency on this debate. You have given us much to contemplate.
First, a quick response to Matthew. He said:
"I think the church would do better to extend the sacrament of marriage to homosexual couples, rather than withholding it. I don't think this conflicts with scripture any more than the idea of church buildings, and it would help homosexual people by encouraging monogamous homosexual relationships"
That is quite a theological leap, sir. Both Old and New Testaments clearly teach that God hates the sin of homosexuality, monogamous or otherwise. Granted, He hates divorce, fornication, and all other sexual sins as well. The Christian and her church need to proclaim with perspicacity that the only God-honored sexual relationship is a marriage between one man and one woman.
But now a response to Jeff. I believe the church needs to get out of the legislation business in all matters except for freedom of religion and social justice.
First, freedom of religion (not the crazy anti-Christian slant that the ACLU pushes) should protect the church to worship and work as she pleases in peace. This should naturally extend to all religions. Many Christians want to legislation Christianity, though a decent grasp of church history (Constantine’s church or the Crusades as examples) should teach us that using the state to push Christianity never succeeds in making devoted Christian disciples. While I am convinced that there is only one way to heaven, we must all coexist peacefully here and share our convictions with each other. I believe this applies to marriage as well.
Second, the church working to legislate social justice means we should do everything in our power to protect the poor and the innocent from exploitation and physical harm. This means passing laws against child abuse and prostitution and abortion. And, to agree with you, it should mean giving legal rights to “civil unions.” But extending “the sacrament” of Christian marriage to homosexual couples is not a social justice issue. I agree—let’s separate these out and let the State decide the legal stuff while the church extends Christian marriages to Christian couples (one man and one woman).
But here’s the wrench thrown into all this: Allowing the State to decide that same-sex couples can marry will carry other consequences. With nations like Canada considering legislation that any speech condemning homosexual behavior is a crime, churches and ministers are threatened with fines or prison for teaching what the Bible says or refusing to marry a same-sex couple. There goes freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Therefore, I’m only in favor of legalizing civil unions if it is explicitly stated that religious groups can freely teach and practice what they believe to be true about marriage without fear of State involvement.
Thank you all for your insightful comments. I tried to answer most of your concerns in my second post on the matter.
I do agree with Sarah that some churches would choose to allow homosexuals to marry, but this is a Christian issue and not a worldly issue. I would much rather continue the dialog about homosexual marriage among the Christian community rather than fight it out in public at the ballot box. Different congregations already differ with each other over other sacraments like baptism and communion, but fortunately we haven't had to have a state-wide vote on those issues yet. I would much prefer to keep Christian issues among Christians and leave the State out of it.
I appreciate Clarissa's agreement about the importance of civil unions, and I'm not sure how to resolve our difference of opinion regarding whether or not this amendment will prohibit them. All I can say is that it seems to have been designed to specifically prohibit civil unions, and if not then I'm not sure what "legal status similar or identical to marriage" was meant to mean.
I can certainly understand Keith's agreement in principle and pessimism about the likelihood of the State to give up marriage in reality. I agree that it is going to be difficult, but the first step is just to convince the Christian community that it is in everyone's best interest for the State to leave marriage alone. Once the majority realizes the truth of this, the implementation is only a few short votes away.
Like Kevin, I am also concerned about the prospect of the State denying our freedom of speech and freedom of association. We shouldn't have to have an explicit guarantee protecting the Church's freedom to teach what we believe, but with Americans' freedom of speech coming under continual attack these days, it certainly couldn't hurt to be prudent.
Post a Comment