What is Marriage?

“Bush is correct… when he states that allowing same-sex couples to marry will weaken the institution of marriage. It most certainly will do so, and that will make marriage a far better concept than it previously has been.”

Victoria Brownsworth, I Do/I Don’t: Queers on Marriage (2004)

The ongoing debate over homosexuality and marriage in America is difficult for many Christians, including me. I resonated with this depiction of the situation in a recent blog post by Kevin DeYoung at the Gospel Coalition:

• If we are speaking to cultural elites who despise us and our beliefs, we want to be bold and courageous.
• If we are speaking to strugglers who fight against same sex attraction, we want to be patient and sympathetic.
• If we are speaking to sufferers who have been mistreated by the church, we want to be apologetic and humble.
• If we are speaking to shaky Christians who seem ready to compromise the faith for society’s approval, we want to be persuasive and persistent.
• If we are speaking to liberal Christians who have deviated from the truth once delivered for the saints, we want to be serious and hortatory.
• If we are speaking to gays and lesbians who live as the Scriptures would not have them live, we want to be winsome and straightforward.
• If we are speaking to belligerent Christians who hate or fear homosexuals, we want to be upset and disappointed.

The complex web of responses boils down to Christians’ desire to simultaneously love and support our brothers and sisters without compromising our convictions regarding the sinfulness of homosexual acts. Tension exists in the pursuit of this end because of the organized movement to normalize homosexuality. Indeed, the gay rights lobby in America couches their ultimate goal in the language of rights, describing their “struggle” for “equality” as something akin to the African American civil rights agenda. Within such a construct, the belief that homosexual acts are sinful is on par with racism; the insistence on traditional marriage an antiquated remnant of Jim Crow. (It should be noted that this construct is offensive to many blacks.)

Such claims have pull with Christians for many reasons. First, our faith compels us to be on the alert for the presence of injustice, and to remedy it wherever it is found. Second, the majority of evangelicals and Catholics in America are white, aware of the terrible wrongs committed against African Americans, and therefore sensitive to comparisons. Third, proponents of marriage have largely failed to make their case using non-biblical arguments in the public square. In a pluralistic society such as the United States, the connection between God’s intended purposes for marriage and public policy must be made using arguments that carry weight with those for whom scripture is not a credible source. This is not to say that the biblical witness has no bearing on the public square. Indeed, the truths of scripture are manifest throughout the creation, which allows Christians to make biblical arguments without relying on scripture explicitly, relying instead on logic, sociology, history, science, and other means.

A masterful example of such an argument is Sherif Girgis, Robby George, and Ryan Anderson in their article “What is Marriage” in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. (Free download available here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155) I won’t attempt to restate their arguments in full in this limited space, but the essence of the piece is an answer to the crucial question, “What is marriage?” The authors contend that nature of marriage, “what it fundamentally is,” settles the debate.

Their argument is formulated as an analysis of two competing views of marriage: conjugal and revisionist. The conjugal view is that “marriage is the union of one man and one woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other that is naturally fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together.”  The revisionist view is that marriage is a union of two people who are romantically inclined to one another and care for each other, “sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life.” The authors contend that the conjugal view is the only one to uphold three widely held principles for what makes a marriage.

The first principle is a “comprehensive union of spouses.” Unlike other forms of human relationship, the marital relationship is all-encompassing including, crucially, bodily union (sex).  Only heterosexual sex can fulfill the requirement of organic bodily union due to the unique capacity for sexual reproduction. Sexual coordination towards the biological act of creating a new human is unique to heterosexual couples.

The second principle is a “special link to children.” The authors state, “Marriage is a comprehensive union of two sexually complementary persons who seal their relationship by the generative act (coitus) – by the kind of activity that is by its nature fulfilled by the conception of a child. So marriage itself is oriented to and fulfilled by the bearing, rearing, and education of children.” Same-sex relationships cannot be marriages because they “lack any essential orientation to children.”

On this point it is relevant to point to the wealth of sociological research demonstrating the link between child welfare and parental situation. Studies show children reared in intact homes of biological parents have higher rates of literacy and educational attainment, suffer less from anxiety, depression, and substance abuse, and are less likely to experience out-of-wedlock pregnancy and incarceration.

The third principle is “norms of permanence, monogamy, and exclusivity.” The comprehensiveness of the first principles includes “temporal comprehensives,” meaning fidelity all the time, forever. Building on the principles of bodily union and childbearing, permanence and exclusivity “create conditions suitable for children: stable and harmonious conditions that sociology and common sense agree are undermined by divorce… and infidelity.”

Obviously, the state of marriage in America today seems to undermine the validity of the third principle. With divorce and infidelity so rampant, how can we defend the institution? The premise of this critique ought give Christians pause. The extensive failure to uphold God’s intent for marriage harms the credibility of marriage advocates and denies culture an example of a better way to live. However, these failures in no way serve as an argument for the further degradation of the culture of marriage; they do the opposite. The social ills resulting from divorce and infidelity will only grow if marriage continues to disintegrate.

Having argued that what marriage is cannot be modified, let me turn to a few common points in the marriage debate.

Proponents of same sex marriage and unsure citizens often ask, “What’s the harm?” They may grant that gay couples can’t meet the principles described above, but fail to see why the state should not offer some special status to those who want to enshrine their love in a formal way. The concept of “civil unions” derives from this line of thinking and is often considered a “middle ground” position.

First, it is necessary to recognize that no serious marriage advocate wants to limit rights of gays. There are many churches in America that joyfully “wed” homosexual couples in ceremonies symbolic of their commitments to one another. I oppose discrimination and violence in all its forms. So, though I am personally opposed to such action, I am pleased to live in a country where gays are free to choose.

Second, society can meet the desire of individuals to grant certain rights and privileges to loved ones without infringing on the freedom of others or redefining a historic social institution. Powers of attorney can be (and often are) granted that extend to non-familial persons inheritances, hospital visitation rights, and the other benefits often cited by gay rights activists. That gay advocates continually appeal to these scenarios despite the simplicity of solving the problem is evidence that the debate isn’t about these small points, but broad social recognition.

Third, granting legal protections to “gay marriage” would restrict the rights of others. Churches, religious schools, and other organizations would be required to violate their consciences by recognizing the relationships through provision of benefits. Additionally, parents and teachers would be subject to prosecution for teaching that homosexuality was a sin, as is already occurring in Europe and elsewhere.

Finally, we must understand that though politics is downstream from culture, the law is a source of moral instruction. Civil unions are an incremental step towards watering down the institution of marriage, pushing society closer to the social ills described earlier. Parents and religious leaders would be hindered in their desire to educate their children according to their own beliefs if the law of the land affirmed something contradictory to their teaching.

I am way over my word limit, so I must close concisely. I want to reiterate my desire for positive relationships with those who align LGBTQ. I am aware of the hardships that often accompany such an identification, including insults, violence, and strained familial relationships. I don’t envy that struggle. I have been inspired by friendship with a man who has embraced the fact that he is gay after years of struggle. He continues to face hardships, but over time he has also experienced the transforming power that comes from putting his identity in Christ, not in his sexual inclinations. May we all, gay and straight, be so faithful.