JaBbA's Hut

A friend of mine, a Unitarian-Universalist minister, sent an email that I thought needed to be shared. With his permission:

If President Bush's amendment banning gay marriage were to pass, it would be, to my knowledge, the first amendment to the Constitution that restricts the rights of a group of people. The 18th amendment took away the right to alcohol for all people and, of course, the Consititution originally did not give women the right to vote or African Americans any rights at all but subsequent amendments have been written to expand the rights of all people not limit them.

The most commonly held argument for why we need a Constitutional Amendment to "protect" marriage is that the Bible intended marriage to be between one man and one woman. As much as some people would like to believe this, it just is not true. What would marriage look like if we followed the example of the Bible?

• Marriage would consist of one many to one or more women.
  (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2,
  Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2,
  3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).
• Nothing would prevent a man from taking concubines in addition to the wife or wives he already has. (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).
• A man might chose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man's wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or his [half-]sister (Lev 18:11, 20:17), nor the mother (Lev 20:14) or the sister (Lev 18:18 ) of a woman who is already his wife. The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the Biblical mindset.
• If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned (Deut 22:13-21).
• A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29) - unless she was already a fiance, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).
• If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28 ).
• Women marry the man of their father's choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).
• Women are the property of their father until married and their husband after that (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).
• The value of a woman might be approximately seven years' work (Gen 29:14-30).
• Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).
• Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).
• Better to not get married at all - although marriage is not a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38 ).

My point is that there are plenty of Biblical injunctions that we do not follow today because they violate our modern sensibilities of justice and the one injunction that is lacking there is that marriage is between one man and one woman. In fact, the more accurate statement is that the Bible teaches that marriage is a covenental relationship between one man and as many women as he could want or afford.

I think most of us would consider many of these models of behavior to be repulsive today, many of them being a violation of women as the concept of marriage has evolved over time to include more freedom for all parties involved and a whole lot less of a sense of a property contract. Why would we say that marriage should not continue to evolve? Certainly not based on the ideas from a culture that is over 2000 years old and essentially saw marriage as a transfer of property.

What did Jesus say? Well, not much about this particular issue. But, in Luke 10:25-28 and in Matthew 22:34-40, and in Mark 12:28-34, a lawyer asks Jesus what are the most important commandments. Jesus asks the question right back and the lawyer replies "To love God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself." And if there is any confusion about who your neighbor is Jesus later (in Luke) tells the story of the Good Samaritan which demonstrates that all are our neighbors and that love should expand to include all not exclude some.

For me this is an issue of personal and religious liberty. While I think I have demonstrated why I believe that my faith calls me to recognize the relationship between same sex couples with the rite of marriage, I don't believe the state should force a religious institution to perform religious rites any more than the state should tell me that I cannot nor tell a couple that their relationship cannot be recognized and ritualized. The state should recognize the creation of families as is needed to acknowledge other issues of legal rights but it should leave the religious language and rituals to the religious institutions. If President Bush insists on looking to the Bible for legislation, he is going to come up with something completely foreign to our culture.

Finally, if President Bush is interested in protecting marriage, perhaps he should consider closing down the Wedding Chapels in Las Vegas and requiring people to take a sobriety test before speaking their vows. If marriage needs protected it is from the heterosexual couples who treat marriage like the Burger King drive thru. ("Choose from the menu. You can have Elvis or Marilyn witness your wedding. If you would like to supersize it, both will witness.") It is the Brittney Spears (and exhusband whose name I forget) of the world that damage the sanctity of marriage not the marriage of two women or two men who love each other and make a commitment to one another with the best intentions.