A response on the nature of Holy Matrimony
I frequently get plenty of feedback from my regular column on American Daily. I received one that was anonymous and unsigned about my column on marriage and divorce. It read as follows:"I'm very glad that you encourage participation in covenant marriage. It is way to easy to say no to the commitments we make in marriage. But what exactly do you mean when you say, 'save marriage from the gay agenda'?My agenda (as a gay man) is to protect my family in the same way that you do. Are my concerns for my family something that marriage needs protection from? I don't understand why conservatives wish to exclude certain families from the same rights and protections that others have. I would think that you would want to encourage familes to stay together."
I thought this deserved some level of response.
It seems to me that some people in our society operate under the notion that marriage is a contract between two people, and that it can therefore be entered into by anyone seeking to enter into a contract. Since it is just a contract, it can therefore be entered into by a man and a woman, two men, or two women. Operating under the assumption that it is a contract, into which people of age are able to enter in a binding way, why limit marriage to two of anything, why not three, or four, or as many as those entering into the contract may choose to allow to enter into said contract? If one group of two people entering into that contract choose to limit the participants in the contract to two people, they may do so. If other participants in a marriage contract wish to open that contract to multiple signatories, why should they not be allowed? It is, after all, just a contract, and everyone should be allowed to enter into contracts, and have the same rights as everyone else, regardless of their sexual orientation, right?
Or is marriage more than a mere contract...
What is apparent (and becomes moreso every day) is that the two sides of this debate really come from two different and totally opposing perspectives. One side believes marriage to be essentially a contract, and that two (or more) parties may enter into it at will, and should not be denied that right. The love of two people should be the only factor in determining whether such a contract, heretofore known as marriage, should be entered into.
The other side believes marriage, heretofore known as Holy Matrimony, is a sacred and holy sacrament, designed by God for the procreation and advancement of the human family. It exists as the divine means by which the Almighty demonstrates his love for humanity, as well as the means which He intended for the propogation of the human race. The family was indended as a model of the Church as a whole, indeed the family, Pope John Paul II has insisted, is a sort of "domestic church."
Nearly all orthodox Christians accept that there was such a thing as the "first marriage," whether they accept a literal six day creation or not. The Biblical account of that first marriage can be found in Genesis 2:18-24:
And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself.
And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name.
And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself.
Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it.
And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam.
And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.
Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.
Now this is the nature of Matrimony if one believes the Sacred Scriptures. The nature of marriage as a mere contract (the prevalent opinion in society today, if one believes the statistics of our high divorce rate) is the position embraced by those who believe marriage is a mere matter of "love."
There is really no compromise between the two, either people believe in one or they believe in the other.
posted by Deacon David Oatney @ 11:33 AM
2 Comments:
I think I can understand your reasoning if you assume that Adam and Eve were the first married couple. Biblical marriage, however, took various forms. King David and King Solomon had wives (plural) and concubines. And David was a "man after God's own heart". Paul the apostle actually recommended being single over being married. And he recommended marriage for those who could not stand to be apart from a physical relationship--he uses the term "burn".
I actually see myself somewhere between the either/or duality you suggest, but if you don't see my family as a function of your faith's understanding of marriage as holy matrimony that may not matter. Even so, my family would be happy if even the "contract" piece was available, just so we could have the same protections that your family may have. We, our family, our extended family, our relationship to God and Christ, and our church, can handle the "holy" part of our matrimony. But the state where I'm orginally from has just passed an amendment so that now even the contract option is impossible. The state where we live now is considering the same.
Not trying to be difficult. But there are many gay families with children who are falling through the cracks in this often bitter debate. Thanks for posting my original question and considering it in a thoughtful way. I'll make this my last post so that I don't overrun your comments column.
Troy;
First of all, please feel welcome to post comments as many times as you like on this or any other topic I may write on here that you feel compelled to respond to. I encourage people to post regardless of whether their views agree with my own or not.
You are right about a biblical view of marriage if one subscribes to an Old Testament view of marriage. I certainly can't speak for every Christian in America, my views are very much my own, but I'd be willing to bet that most orthodox Christians of one hue or another accept the New Testament view that marriage is singular (one man-one wife) and monogamous, or at least they SAY they accept that view. (Yes, I am aware that many of those who say they embrace that view do not live it out in the reality of their life.
About St. Paul: You are right, he did prefer a celibate life and he recommended it to others as the best way to go, going so far as to say that he wished others would do as he did in that regard. Most traditional Catholic scholars tend to believe that the tradition of priestly celibacy began with Paul. Paul's acceptance of a celibate chaste life is not necessarily a repudiation of marriage, or even a suggestion that marriage is bad, but rather is an example of how life ought to be lived for any unmarried person, most especially those who are not called to sacramental marriage.
You are also correct about the seeming bitterness of this debate, but I also think that this depends on who you talk to about it. Those who don't have regular contact with gay people, or don't have any gay friends, and who might feel about this as I do may feel a lot more "bitter" about this than I do. For my own part, I have no bitterness in my heart toward those who feel differently about this than I do, I just happen to think that they are wrong. It is important to remember that on election day, when many of these marriage amendments passed, they weren't merely a Southern trend. Ohio and Oregon are not exactly known for being exclusionary places for people who are gay (and if you don't believe me insofar as Ohio is concerned, check out German Village in Columbus sometime). For a lot of people, it was an issue of preserving the natural order of things as they saw it, it wasn't about telling others how they could or couldn't live. This is evidenced by internal polling data in Ohio and several other states that show that these amendments did well even among Democrats and Kerry voters.
It is most definately a debate, though, and it isn't going away. I think the most we can ask for is to be civil in the way we go about the debate itself.
-DMO
Post a Comment
<< Home