Same-sex Marriage Again

Given the likelihood of the eventual legalization of same-sex marriage, it is appropriate to step back a little to gain a broader perspective. Same-sex marriage can be viewed as bringing under statutory control that which had previously been unregulated. In this sense it is like the legalization of marijuana and the  mandatory registration of all guns. It is unlike the first in that same-sex relationships are not regarded as illegal; and it is unlike the second in that same-sex marriages are not mandatory. From the stand point of freedom, it is the voluntary acceptance of an infringement upon our freedoms, which is what marriage has always been, whether state-sponsored or not. It has long been held that one of the chief functions of institutions is the organization of society for the good of all. From the Christian perspective, they are accommodations to sin for the good of others and havens from sin. In particular, marriage is viewed as an institution ordained by God for the good of those married, their children, and society as a whole. It is not good for men and women to be alone. Marriage reflects in microcosm the attitudes and relationships of the society as a whole. In this way, its role in the rearing of children is of fundamental importance for society. Moreover, marriage is viewed as a haven from the sin of promiscuity. It can be viewed, then, in George Gilder style, as intended to reign in the activities of men and women for the good of both society and those that marry.

From the point of view of those who want to bring every activity under state aegis, same-sex marriage is a victory. One might argue that this is not the case here since the marriage is enjoined and dissolved voluntarily.  The state, however, has the power to bestow and deny benefits as it pleases, resulting in us willingly restricting our freedoms. Where special tax benefits, and other privileges, are bestowed upon those married, we might easily be tempted to take the bait. This is often a good thing. It is good for us and for others that our freedoms are restricted. Indeed, that every legislation does just that.

 From the perspective of traditional marriage, it might too be seen as a victory. How can this be since they have fought so hard against it? In this long debate, it has often seemed that homosexuals and lesbians, at least some of them, are the last bastions of traditional marriage. Marriage has in the preceding decades been increasingly devalued, as has much in American life. Yet in this debate regarding same-sex marriage what has not been doubted is the view that marriage is a life-long commitment of fidelity, just what large numbers of heterosexuals deny. What so many Americans reject has been won in same-sex marriage: Monogamy. Were marriage law more faithful to that intention, it might be more secured. Sadly, faithfulness and even sacrifice are viewed by many of our neighbors as dispensable, and in this there are many legislators who are ready and willing to come to their aid. What is lacking in this victory is the view that marriage is a haven from sin, and this because promiscuity is not viewed as one. Nonetheless, what is often missed in the focused debate upon the sex of the couples, is that same-sex marriage has unequivocally been sold as an embrace of the traditional, and even Christian, view of what marriage entails and binds us to. And this can rightly be viewed as a victory for traditional marriage.

A marriage will not long endure where it is not viewed as binding us.  This is so whether the marriage is sanctioned by law or not.  And this voluntary acceptance of the binding will not stand lest we embrace the good that it works in us and in those near to us.  Inasmuch as that which works can often come against us, we suffer. For this reason, marriage, as all our vocations, are seen as a cross, which like that which was first upon Calvary, works good in us and for others. Statutory marriage deals not only up privileges, but also obligations. As such, it can serve to bind us to that which we pledge. Without, however, those very same commitments that establish unsanctioned marriage, fidelity and the embrace of our bonds, sanctioned marriage will not long endure, nor serve the purpose for which it was established. Marriage, as all law, seeks to tame and civilize us, lest sin and disorder reign. But if that law remains only as deep and strong as the shackles that bind us, little is gained. Somehow it must take up residence in some refuge of our heart. That way is the way of humility and brokenness. How strange and foreign falls those words upon the cobblestones of our times, what not so long ago could have been heard, but now is garbled or hated. Perhaps same-sex marriage will yet save us from ourselves. Will they call us back to fidelity and long suffering? How odd it should rise up from the stones that were rejected.