Same-sex marriage’s closest analogies
Today on Facebook I’ve been engaging in a number of discussions involving gender and sexuality issues that have arisen as a result of me sharing a blog post written by Kevin DeYoung called “Prop 8 got struck down, now what?” and my comments on a friend’s posting of a FOXNews.com blog entry entitled “My fellow Conservatives, think carefully about your opposition to gay marriage” (especially noteworthy because my friend who posted it is unashamedly Liberal and was amazed that he actually read something from Fox News that he agreed with!). In both discussions, I tried to focus on what I believe is one of the least-recognized facts in the whole same-sex marriage debate–the closest analogies to it are same-family marriage and polyamorous marriage.
The Gay Rights movement has become our generation’s Civil-Rights movement. Whether or not one agrees with it or not, this is the tone that the cultural debate has taken and proponents of same-sex marriage draw heavily from the rhetoric and strategy of the Civil Rights heroes nearly everyone looks back on as acting nobly in the face of cultural hatred and bigotry.
However, what I’ve tried to point out to many I talk with about this issue is the large degree of inconsistency (and obliviousness to its presence among them!) most of the same-sex marriage proponents have exhibited when close analogies are presented…particularly the analogies of consensual, committed, adult incestuous relationships and consensual, committed relationships between more than two adults.
These are, BY FAR, the closest analogies there are to same-sex marriage from a legal, ethical or societal perspective. Putting aside any notions of religious traditions or Scripture, the arguments used by those who support same-sex marriage are EXACTLY the same arguments used by those who support adult incestuous marriage and polyamorous marriage.
Here is a paper by Dr. Robert Gagnon, (Ph.D – Princeton, Associate Professor of New Testament – Pittsburgh Theological Seminary) in which he demonstrates the analogical relationship between adult-incestuous/polyamorous relationships and same-sex relationships:
What was your reaction to reading this? As Gagnon notes in the summary, the suggestion that same-sex relationships are similar to these other two alternative forms of sexual relationships is often met with anger, outrage, and labels of “bigotry” or “hatred.”
However, isn’t this EXACTLY what those who are polyamorous or in a relationship with a close family member claim that society is when it comes to them??
This precisely how Patrick and Susan Stubing of Leipzig, Germany feel. They are married with four children…and they are brother and sister. German law forbids incest and as a result, their children were put in foster care and Patrick has spent a few years in jail. As reported by the British press:
“Their supporters say they will fight until incest is no longer regarded as a criminal offence, arguing that the law is out of date. They say it harks back to the racial hygiene laws of the Third Reich and should be overturned in favour of freedom of choice and sexual determination.”
The Stubings lawyer, in a statement that is constantly echoed by proponents of same-sex marriage in America, declares: “Everyone should be able to do what he wants as long as it doesn’t harm others.”
This is not just a hypothetical issue dreamed up by homophobic conservatives. It is a very real issue that our country will have to face. Yet so many who champion full recognition of same-sex marriage are extremely hesitant to champion marriages like the Stubings, or the marriages of groups like 4TheFamily.us, a polygamist-advocacy group.
Why is this? And why are those who oppose these two alternative forms of marriage not likewise considered “bigoted”, “hateful” and “_____-phobic” (fill in the blank with the appropriate terms!)?
Now to their credit, many who I’ve talked with who favor same-sex marriage end up recognizing this and end up allowing for these other alternative forms of marriage receiving legal status. To such people I have little to say other than that I applaud there consistency and ask that they recognize the consistency of those who believe that by its very nature marriage must always involve the coming together of male and female. These are foundational worldview issues which will inevitably lead to different beliefs and different desires for social policy. But that’s what living in a pluralistic democractic republic entails! We won’t always agree with one another!
At this point, let me be clear about what I believe regarding the overall same-sex marriage debate in our culture. I don’t oppose unions between adults who want to be joined in a way that recognizes all the legal, Constitutional, financial and societal rights available through marriage.
Some object on the grounds that anything but full recognition of such unions as “marriage” is unfair and therefore a violation of their constitutional rights. I’m not convinced by this because marriage in its historic, common and near-universal definition has always revolved around the concept of “husband(s)” and “wife/wives.” It is, by definition, a gendered word.
Therefore just as I have no right to demand access to a woman’s restroom, join women’s-only gym or get a scholarship designated for women (because I do not fit the gender requirement inherent in such things), neither do same-sex couples who have access to a type of civil union which entails all the legal, financial and societal benefits of marriage–cannot demand the right to have access to an institution that entails gender requirements such as the institution of marriage.
Does this relegate same-sex civil unions to a “second-class” status? No moreso than it would polyamorous or incestuous civil unions. One may not be happy about this, but that doesn’t mean that it is unconstitutional or intrinsically legally oppressive (after all, I remember being livid as a high school and college student that I got charged more on car insurance than women my same age with the same driving record did!) My point is not to equate same-sex marriage with gender-based insurance premiums; it’s just to point out that sometimes gender requirements entail us not getting what we ideally would like to have in our society.
I also believe civil marriage and Biblical marriage are different things and Christians should strive to uphold the latter (something we have to be honest about doing a HORRIBLE job of overall!). I think the meshing of religious and civil marriage as it currently stands among the various state marriage laws, is ambiguous. Marriage is an institution of God’s common grace, however, and when it reflects the New Testament portrait, should be recognized and celebrated. But we Christians should hold ourselves to higher standards and not enforce Christian definitions on our fellow citizens who don’t share our Christian faith (or as Paul said, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?”).
At the same time, in a pluralistic society, Christians should not be required to affirm or endorse something that goes against Scripture–though we should be required to accept the legal status of things we don’t endorse or affirm. We should not be automatically labeled as hateful bigots for believing that alternative forms of marriage (whatever society chooses to call such unions) such as same-sex, polyamorous or incestuous ones, do not express the true definition of marriage in its intended form.
The issue of whether or not our secular culture allows legal marriage status to same-sex couples is one that I do not fret over too much (unlike some of my more politically-conservative Christian brothers and sisters). I think the Biblical Covenant of marriage remains what it is, regardless of what the wider culture believes about marriage.
I also think that given the way Christians are perceived by the gay community as a whole, we do nothing but further the stereotypes and alienate them even more from the Gospel of Jesus by fighting this political battle.
In the end however, the Gospel is spreading like yeast within a lump of dough and permeating the world as people give their lives to Jesus as their Lord and enter His Kingdom one by one. In our culture it doesn’t ultimately matter what public policy is because the fate of the Kingdom of God is not tied up with the fate of America…regardless of the nationalist rhetoric that often emanates from a vocal segment of Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christian preachers and leaders.
Of course I’m not saying that Christians shouldn’t use their legal democratic positions in various levels of society to enact laws which they believe are in the best interest of the nation’s ethical outlook. We need more Lincolns, Bonhoeffers and Wilberforces among us!
But what I am suggesting is that just as most of my Christian brothers and sisters who live in countries where polygamy is still widely practiced (such as in some Muslim countries or African nations) do not spend the majority of their time trying to get the country to change its laws on marriage–just as Jesus and His Apostles did not spend much time appealing to Caesar to change Rome’s marriage outlook–so too I believe that Christians in America should not get overly-committed to ensuring that civil society lines up with Biblical requirements.
As America does become a post-Christian, secular culture, Jesus will still be on the throne at the Right Hand of God the Father Almighty and His Church will still be His ambassadors to a fallen world ruled largely (but only temporarily) by Sin.
In the meantime however (and specifically with regard to the current political debate over same-sex marriage), those who oppose those who oppose same-sex marriage need to be consistent and rely on solid argumentation to advance their position rather than simply dismissing–or worse, demonizing–those who believe that marriage in its intended form is the union for life between one man and one woman.
Believing this, in and of itself, does not deserve to be labeled “bigotry” or “hatred”…unless one is likewise prepared to label those who oppose adult sibling marriage or polyamorous marriage equally bigoted and hateful.
In a pluralistic society we can (and will) disagree on issues such as the legality of same-sex marriage. However, in our disagreement let us at least strive to be consistent and fair toward those with whom we disagree.
JM
Categories: Arts and Culture, Blog, Ministry, New Testament, Political/Social issues, Relationships, Theological issues
I think the distinction between these behaviors IS real harm.
Incest and rape DO cause real actual harm, both psychologically and physically, and this has been proven by many psychological studies.
As far as polyamory and polygamy goes, I don’t think anyone of an Abrahamic religion can cast any stones at that, seeing that these behaviors and/or orientations are part of the Abrahamic tradition, both in God giving wives directly to David and in the form of Leverite marriage. I think those two sexual orientations/ sexual customs aren’t morally wrong either.
But in the case of rape and incest, these have produced reliable demonstrable harm, and until you can prove that homosexuality in and of itself produces the same demonstrable harm that rape and incest does, they are in different categories.
by Chris McCauley on Aug 12, 2010 at 2:49 am
Chris, did you even read what I wrote? Who’s talking about rape?
I’m talking about consensual adult incest such as the German couple. Please don’t muddy the already emotionally murky waters by introducing red herrings such as rape or exploitative relationships. I’m not making an argument that has anything to do with such concepts.
by jm on Aug 12, 2010 at 3:20 am
I’d appreciate a bit more detail about “Biblical marriage” and how it relates to the current “1 man 1 woman” bumper-sticker advocacy. Obviously the Bible has lots of different marriages in it – how about a run-down on the various traditions, laws, and proclamations and how you interpret them today?
Also, another very close analogy to same-sex marriage is interracial marriage. Biblical arguments were often used against miscegenation, and they seem silly now, just 30-something years after Loving v Virginia. Many people used to have (and some probably still have) the same gut-wrenching “ick” response to a black man marrying a white woman that most people probably have to the brother-sister marriage.
by Darin Fitzpatrick on Aug 12, 2010 at 3:52 am
Darin,
Good questions. First, I should clarify that by “Biblical marriage” I am referring to the concept of marriage that the New Testament espouses (i.e. Matthew 19:3-12, 1Corinthians 7:1-17). Jesus pointed His listeners back to the original mandate for marriage given in Genesis 2. Later in Genesis (beginning with Lamech in Genesis 4) we see humanity begin to move away from this ideal…and the consequences are, from a spiritual perspective, never good. What’s interesting is that whereas such things as marriage between family members (usually half-brothers/sisters or cousins) and polygamist marriages are recounted, though never endorsed, same-sex marriages are never recounted and openly condemned. To be sure, societal influences played a part and there is not space enough here to get into all of the passages and their socio-historical backgrounds (for that, see Rob Gagnon’s “The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics”). However, by the time of the New Testament we see Jesus and His Apostles validating marriage as only between one man and one woman for life. This is the Christian ideal, regardless of which direction society itself ends up taking.
As for the interracial analogy, while many people have felt the “ick” response (as you very astutely phrased it! :)) it’s important, at least for Christians, to note that no appeal to any Biblical text can justify this. Interracial marriage, unlike inter-religious marriage, is never condemned in the Old Testament or the New Testament. In fact, one of my favorite passages in the OT is Numbers 12 where Aaron and Miriam complain and start to oppose Moses because he married a black woman (a “Cushite”, that is, Ethiopian); in response, one of the things God does is turn Miriam’s skin white with a skin disease…as if to say “Oh, so she’s too dark for you, huh?” 🙂 That’s somewhat of a colloquial interpretation, of course, and there’s much more going on in that passage; but it provides for the reader clear precedent in Torah itself that God has never opposed interracial marriages (especially since all humans are the same species and “race” is a later term that is almost impossible to empirically define with any precision).
by jm on Aug 12, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Ok, I may grant your point about the consensual incestuous marriage point. Although I find the idea distasteful, it is a norm that is societally programmed. Might we not consider some pairings in the OT to be incestuous by our standards (Abram and Sarah come to mind).
On the polyamory issue, I would argue that there is a qualitative difference between the mutuality of a stable committed monogamous partnership and a polyamorish (how does one spell the adjective form?) web of relationships. I guess stable, balanced, committed relationships of the sort are possible. That being said, I’ve never even heard of one (in my admittedly limited experience) and am inclined to see them as a mythical beast until I do.
So… it looks like the Bible gives at least one (positive?) example of one flavor, and the other may be only hypothetical and not really exist in the universe we live in.
I would definitely agree on the separation of Church and State issue. I’m of the opinion that the state should only grant civil unions, and each religious group should be able to self determine what “marriage” means for them. Both could possibly be granted by the same officiant (I’m kind of undecided on this, as it would give a religious person a function of state that I’m not terribly happy about) or could allow for people to opt for only a civil union, with no religious component, or just a religious ceremony without them having to submit to Caesar on the issue. It would also allow for whack jobs to start their own religion and marry their cactus, but the state would be in no way obligated to recognize the pairing.
Marriage is religious in nature, but has been co-opted by the state. This has lead to people feeling the need to impose their religious definitions on others by, as a matter of law, making their religious definitions binding on everyone. This strikes me as unjust.
On marriage’s “intended form”… the text gives examples of incestuous relationships being apparently sanctioned by God. The specificity of the Adam and Eve pairing is descriptive (in a mythical sort of way… no I don’t think they were historical people) and not necessary prescriptive. Polygamy is rife in the text, even with the man “after God’s own heart” being polygamous. Polygamy is not outright condemned (although restrictions are put on religious leaders)… I don’t think your inference (which is an operation of your mind rather than the text) is so clearly *the* position of God on the matter.
by Patrick Boatman on Aug 12, 2010 at 4:52 am
You don’t appear to have thought this through and you definitely haven’t read the 136 pages outlining what happened in the trial.
Because of the separation of church and state, arguments on the basis that homosexuality is a sin are irrelevant. The interest of the state is in measurable harm. So let’s examine measurable harm in all three cases: gay, incestuous and multiple marriage.
The opponents of Prop 8 produced a total of 14 witnesses supported by peer-reviewed research, other factual material and the endorsement of most leading medical experts. The American Anthropological Association, the American Psycho-Analytic Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Paediatrics all support gay marriage on the basis of research. Gay marriage harms no one or if it does there’s not a scrap of proof.
Those who defended Prop 8 claimed to be able to prove 23 separate areas in which gay marriage would be harmful, particularly to children. They failed completely. They produced no factual evidence. They produced 2 witnesses, as against the plaintiff’s 17.
As David Boies, one of the winning lawyers said “it’s easy to… appeal to people’s fear and prejudice, cite studies that either don’t exist or don’t say what you say they do. In a court of law you’ve got to come in and you’ve got to support those opinions. You’ve got to stand up under oath and cross-examination. And what we saw at trial is that it’s very easy for people… to make all sorts of statements in campaign literature or in debates where they can’t be cross-examined.
But when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away. And that’s what happened here. There simply wasn’t any evidence. There weren’t any of those studies. There weren’t any empirical studies. That’s just made up. That’s junk science. …A witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court, you can’t do that. And that’s what we proved. We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost.”
Both incest, however loving, and polygamy/polyandry cause demonstrable social harm, harm which can be proved and measured. This is why they are banned and incest is a crime in most communities.
Christians in states where polygamists hang out run rescue schemes for what they call “the lost boys” – boys turned out of their polygamous communities at puberty because all the girls their age are earmarked for middle aged men. Either system produces “surplus” adults and children brought up in polygamous families are demonstrably damaged. You might like to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_%28polygamy%29
Also both polygamy/polyandry are relationships of integral inequality and this in itself is unconstitutional. People are free to enter into totally unequal sadomasochistic relationships, even master/slave ones, but this not something the state is able, under the Constitution, to endorse and formalize. Polygamy/polyandry can only exist in societies where there is no concept or legal support of individual human rights.
You can indeed argue that if there is no possibility of any children being conceived that a loving, committed but incestuous marriage harms no one. However to permit incestuous marriage to all blood relatives on the basis that they remain childless (and it would have to be on that basis alone) would require the state to intervene when couples breached this condition. You’d end up with a situation in which the state might be obliged to enforce abortion or force medical examinations on the couple concerned. This would be unspeakable, not to mention illegal and unconstitutional. It’s not workable as law and a moment’s thought should have told you this.
Like I said, you haven’t thought this through. Before comparing gay marriage to familial marriage or polygamy/polyandry you need to examine the research on whether there is evidence of harm. Evidence of harm doesn’t include religious objections, distaste or claims that it’s “common sense”. If it’s common sense, there should be evidence. The whole point about District Judge Vaughn Walker’s judgment is that the opponents of Prop 8 proved their case. The evidence is entirely in their favor.
This video puts it very well: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/08/gay_marriage_0
by Sophie on Aug 12, 2010 at 10:52 am
“Like I said, you haven’t thought this through. Before comparing gay marriage to familial marriage or polygamy/polyandry you need to examine the research on whether there is evidence of harm.”
Sophie, there is no “harm” in a sibling marriage such as the Stubing’s (who have given birth to 4 healthy children). Nor is there always harm in the polyamorous marriages which are found in cultures throughout the world. The “potential for harm” argument is not enough to deny such alternative marriages if indeed marriage is a Constitutional right of consenting adults.
by jm on Aug 12, 2010 at 1:32 pm
People argue about a slippery slope with same-sex marriage, but I have never heard an actual mechanism explained by which we could slip to anywhere bad on it.
Same-sex marriage is okay because it grants the same rights to gay people as are granted to straight people to have formal legal recognition of their loving partnerships. There is no harm to the people involved, or to society at large, from granting legal recognition of these partnerships.
Should those same rights be extended to people in relationships with more than one other person? Or to people in a relationship with more consanguinity than is allowed in their state laws? I don’t know. Those are separate debates. It’s quite possible — if the argument can be made that there are no harms to others in those relationships, that they are not inherently coercive and damaging, that there is a benefit to the state recognizing them. Sure! What is the problem?
by NFQ on Aug 12, 2010 at 3:42 pm
NFQ,
As I said in my post, as long as you are consistent in your willingness to grant marriage to all consenting adults who desire it, then I respect your view. It is the subjective inconsistency on the part of those who favor one but not the other that I’m challenging.
by jm on Aug 12, 2010 at 4:10 pm
[…] having a loving committed sexual relationship?” (In fact, I discuss this very comparison here.) Or “What’s so wrong with a loving committed sexual relationship between more than two […]
by James-Michael Smith's Disciple Dojo – JMSmith.org » Same-sex discussion between two Methodists (part 2) on Oct 3, 2010 at 8:08 pm