In Defense of Marriage

Andrew Foster Connors

August 28, 2005

A year and a half ago, my eight months pregnant marriage partner, Kate, and our two year old daughter, Anna, both fell ill with a nasty stomach flu. I was not so lucky. On one occasion as I ran from Anna's bedside, trying to deliver the stainless steel mixing bowl to my green-faced partner in time, Anna jumped out of bed, ran to the doorway with tears welling up in her eyes, and stammered, "Daddy, that's my throwup bowl." When Kate and I pledged ourselves to each other in marriage these were not the moments of trust and love we had in mind. But almost ten years later, I've come to believe that our love for, and commitment to each other is often evidenced through stainless steel mixing bowls delivered on time and other seldom celebrated moments in our relationship.

With all the grandiose rhetoric of "the sacred institution of marriage" flying around in the current gay marriage debate it's easy for the wisdom of marriage to be buried beneath all the grandstanding. I dare say that most of us who have taken those vows spend less time contributing to the "sanctity of the institution" and more time negotiating how to spend what little cash is leftover after paying the bills, coming to agreement over whose turn it is to cook or to clean, and learning how to support each others' deepest hopes and aspirations in the process.

Religious communities ought to have some nugget of wisdom to offer to a debate about the purpose of two people making a lifelong commitment to one another. In the current marriage equality debate it seems as though churches are doing just that -- bringing our theologies to bear on the contemporary questions of our time. But most of the rhetoric so far has been, frankly, disappointing. That so many of our fellow citizens are so easily duped by claims of "biblical authority" says less about our corporate faith and more about ourctive biblical illiteracy.

Any religious discussion on marriage must begin with an admission that marriage has taken many forms and shapes throughout the pages of the Bible and throughout the history of the Christian Church. It would be impossible to recreate these same forms and shapes in our own time; neither would it be desirable. We live in a world vastly different from our ancestors. Until relatively recently, one sex existed in the minds of our forebears -- the male sex. As one scholar put it, "Females were defective half-cooked specimens of a 'male' sex." Within the communities that produced the Bible, marriage was first and foremost about property. The prohibition against adultery in the Ten Commandments, for example, protected a husband's proprietary rights. Male heads of households were free to engage in sex with other women as long as those women did not belong to another man. These are not the biblical values to which we should return.

Biblical study does require faith, but it also requires discipline. It is unfair to dump our contemporary questions and ethical struggles before the altar of the Bible, expecting that the Bible will magically give us the plain responses we are looking for with no struggle or effort on our part. So when we read in Genesis that "a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh" we cannot simply conclude that the Bible excludes the possibility of same sex unions or same sex marriage. We have to suspend our contemporary inquiries long enough to let the Bible to speak to us on its terms. God says, "It is not good that the human should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner." It is not good for us to be alone. We are created for relationships. God does not name any distinction. It is the human who names the difference -- this is woman; I am man. But even in naming the distinction what is most pleasing to Adam is not difference but similarity. "This is at last bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." Even the Hebrew points toward similarity -- ish, "man" and ishah, woman. In fact, one scholar suggests that the attraction to similarity is so strong in this text, that to leave it without comment would be to encourage incest. The person who is closest to the bones of one's bones and the flesh of one's flesh is one's parents. So when the text says plainly "therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife and the two become one flesh," the emphasis is on leaving one's parents for sexual union, not on the gender of one's partner.

Certainly this text assumes a heterosexual norm. That is the worldview in which this text is written. It also assumes a misogynist norm. The text refers to "the man and his wife," meaning the woman is owned by the man, a reflection of the worldview which produced it. In fact, there is no word for "wife" in biblical Hebrew -- only "his woman." Just because the Bible contains a certain worldview which sometimes goes uncritiqued does not mean that the Bible prescribes that same worldview for our lives. Reading the Bible with the aim of recreating ancient patterns of relationship and behavior is both impossible and deceptive -- it gets in the way of deeper truths that are being revealed to us. If the words "man and woman" are all we pay attention to in this text, we miss God's words to us today. We miss God's approval of human relationships -- "it is not good that humans should be alone."

It is also not good when any pattern of human relationships becomes a god unto itself. Jesus says to the disciples, plainly, "Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple." Can you imagine if we approached this text the same way some approach the text in Genesis? We would have to put a banner right outside that says: "Welcome to Brown Memorial -- we hate all families in the name of Christ." We'd have to offer parenting classes like "learning to despise your loving teenager." After all, that's what the Bible says in red letters -- these are words from Jesus. Paul doesn't do much to rescue the family in his letter to the Corinthians, either. It's easier to remain 100% committed to God without the messy attachments of marriage and family. Unmarried people are "anxious about the affairs of the Lord," but married people are "anxious about the affairs of the world," how to please each other.

The language used today to oppose same sex marriage may be traditional but it is seldom biblical. Some argue that marriage is for conceiving, bearing, and rearing children and therefore gay couples should be excluded from it. Nowhere in the Bible is childbearing mentioned as a legitimate reason for marriage. Some argue that it's fine to be gay but that gay people ought to remain celibate in the church. But celibacy in the Bible is always viewed as a gift given to some not a requirement to be imposed on others. Some argue that heterosexuality is the norm. So is right-handedness but I see no need to force my left-handed daughter to switch from what comes naturally.

What few words of guidance the Bible offers toward marriage are almost always set in discussions of discipleship -- of what it means to walk in the way of Christ, rejecting any worldview of dominance in favor of God's peace, serving others, giving one's whole life to God. As a mark of discipleship, marriage is a sign of God's coming reign -- marked by lifelong faithfulness and commitment, honesty, intimacy, and mutuality. To the extent that any relationship genuinely deepens our relationship with and commitment to God cultivating a life of faithfulness, commitment, honesty, intimacy, and mutuality, the Church ought to give its blessing. And any relationship that undermines our relationship with and commitment to God ought to be rejected by the Church. Same sex relationships are capable of doing both just as heterosexual relationships are.

There are a great number of people in the Church and beyond who have changed their minds about same sex relationships. They are now willing to agree to gay unions, but not gay marriage. Many of my colleagues in the Presbyterian Church have adopted this position, as have many politicians in the Democratic Party (just a coincidence, I'm sure). Frankly, this is a politically safe position in changing times, but not a helpful direction for the church or the nation. If the church believes that gay and lesbian couples are capable of making the same vows of lifelong fidelity, love, and support promised by straight couples, are capable of raising children just as ably, and are entitled to receive all the protections and privileges of marriage afforded to heterosexual couples, the Church ought to call it marriage because marriage is what it is.

The Church has always wavered between two conflicting views on marriage -- one view elevates marriage to a level higher than it deserves. As a result, single persons are seen as defective until they tie the knot. Patterns of spousal abuse are either justified or tolerated to protect a new god in the church known as "marriage." Those whose marriages end in divorce are stigmatized with the mark of failure. On the other end of the spectrum, marriage has been denigrated either as a result of the Church's historical teaching that the celibate male is somehow the idealized human, or through our culture's teaching that the idealized human is one who is unhampered by commitments. I reject both of these teachings -- first, because I view celibacy as a gift given to some, not as a requirement to be imposed, and never as a prerequisite for church leadership. And second because love -- as I have come to know it through Jesus -- cannot be experienced outside of commitment. It is only in the safety and grace that commitment offers that we are able to reveal our true selves to another with all of our fears, our sins, and our joys. That kind of holy intimacy is not guaranteed by marriage but it is made possible by it.

In the coming days we are all going to hear quite a bit about the need to defend marriage. And I agree that marriage in these times needs defending. The idea that freedom can be found more readily by embracing commitment rather than by fleeing from it needs defending. The idea that sex might be a means of deepening relationships marked by trust and commitment instead of a product to be greedily consumed needs defending. The understanding that making a good life with your best critic might lead to deeper growth than running from your pain needs defending. Marriage needs a good defense in our time. But marriage does not need to be defended from same sex couples. If anything, gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry will strengthen the institution of marriage. I agree with the Episcopal priest who said, "I just can't bring myself to oppose somebody who wants to commit monogamy."

Not too long ago, I asked a couple celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary what it takes to keep a marriage healthy for 50 years. The elderly lady thought just for a moment and said, "A lot of forgiveness." The elderly man quickly added, "and some good sex." The laughter that ensued among the three of us was yet another key to their joyous longevity -- the ability to spontaneously enjoy the goodness of human love and companionship. Marriage at its best is the place where two people support each other in their faith and are tested by it. It is the place where commitment is both given and tested; forgiveness given and received; mutuality enjoyed and strained; love experienced in great joy and great pain. It is one place where we are given the possibility to learn what it means to forsake the world's ways of dominance and instead choose a way of mutuality and trust. It is the place, as one scholar put it, where two people work out their salvation before God.

That has been my experience in almost ten years of marriage where love and trust have not shielded me from pain but held me through it; where I have learned to grow in the face of difference instead of fleeing from it; where in times of personal doubt and fearfulness a courage and faith much larger than myself or my partner have lifted me up; where even a stainless steel mixing bowl delivered on time gives evidence of the reign of God in our midst. That is the joy and the strain of marriage than I would never impose on anyone; neither would I exclude from its grace those who have been called to fulfill its obligations. A pastor was once asked his opinion on gay and lesbian relationships to which he responded, "I believe love, whenever it happens, is a miracle." I agree. Love, whenever it happens, is a miracle; a miracle that ought to be celebrated, nurtured, and blessed by the church.