May 10, 2012
-
Gay Marriage: Like Polygamy?
I do think the issues of gay marriage and polygamy are linked. That is, I do believe there are ethical or religious reasons to object to both, but I’m not sure there’s a single compelling legal or legislative objection to either. (For that matter, I’m not sure why the State is involved in marriage at all.)
As a Christian, I’m very much invested in what the Bible says about homosexuality. And the Bible isn’t too keen on polygamy either, even if it does record the polygamy of several patriarchs. But as a Christian, my faith places me in the role of a stranger and a traveler: someone who is not supposed to treat this world like my home. Therefore I’m not supposed to waste my time trying to make laws based on Christianity, or forcing nonChristians to act like Christians. 1 Corinthians 5 flat-out tells me that what nonChristians do with their lives is none of my business: I should worry about introducing people to Jesus before I worry about changing their behavior. Grace first, then sanctification.
And so Christianity doesn’t really give me very much to base the laws of a democratic pluralistic society on. I could look to the theocracy of ancient Israel (i.e. the Old Testament) for inspiration, but that’s old news, old wineskins. (And besides, I’m a bacon-loving Gentile.) Christianity equips me for operating within a nation, even within an oppressive nation like Nero’s Rome, but doesn’t equip me for making a “Christian nation.” Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.”
So while I have religious objections against both gay marriage and polygamy, religious objections are not enough to make laws on. If I want to make a legal or legislative statement that “marriage should only be between one man and one woman,” I need a legal or legislative reason to do so.
As I understand it, the Founding Fathers were very much influenced and inspired by Locke’s Natural Law. Compare the Declaration of Independence’s “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” with Locke’s three natural rights: Life, Liberty, and Estate. In short, the American system of government is based on the following premise: that the job and purpose of government is to defend the “natural rights” of its people. This idea of “natural law” underlies both the Declaration and the Constitution.
So, by this way of thinking, if you want to know whether the U.S. Government should or should not be doing a thing, you have to boil the government down to its essentials. Is this action protecting the Life, Liberty, or Estate of its citizens? (If you’re not satisfied with this, the words of the Preamble of the Constitution work as a decent substitute: does this action establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, or promote the general welfare?)
When phrased like this, I don’t see why either form of nonmainstream marriage should be prohibited for legal reasons. The only arguments I could muster against either are entirely religious and ethical in nature. The government should only deny marriage to people if such a marriage violates the goals and purpose of the government: that is, if it would infringe on someone’s Life, Liberty, or Right To Property (such as in a marriage involving someone below legal age or involving a non consenting partner). Marriage is not a right–I wish people would stop saying it was–but it’s also something that the government should have a good reason for denying. All the government needs to be concerned with is the protection of its citizens’ life, liberty, and right to property–vague concepts like “decency,” when separated from their religious/ethical sources, become nonsensical when they are used in government. The function and purpose of government is to protect its citizens and its citizens’ rights. Going strictly by that as a guideline, there are only a few reasons that would justify denying someone State-marriage.
So in that sense, at lease, gay marriage is like polygamy. I think that these are two forms of marriage which are illegal in many parts of our nation without a good reason why they are illegal. And yet at the same time, I myself have ethical/religious objections against both.
Thoughts?
(In other news, I’ve been looking for a place to toss this lit match. I think I’ll just use that powder keg over there.)
Comments (28)
I agree! I think they should both be legal.
Going further, I don’t think the government should hand out marriage licenses to anyone to begin with. Religious organizations or other groups can pass out their own certificates.
I will comment on this clinically. Marriage laws are traditionally prohibitive. That is, anyone can get married, with listed exceptions. I think every state has long listed “already married” (bigamy) as an exception. This and age restrictions are the extent of most states marriage laws, so allowing polygamy is legally more complicated and requires removal of long-standing laws. If you want to get technical, homosexual marriage is already legal in most states, which is why many states are trying to make it illegal.
The more important question, from a legal standpoint, is the peripheral aspects of marriage. We have inheritance laws, tax laws, property laws, and custody rights entangled with marriage laws. Many of these laws are gender-specific. For example, name-changes for a woman getting married (not at other times) are expedited. It is currently an epic battle with the red tape for a man to change his name at marriage. Also, custody rights are gender-specific and favorable towards the wife. These difficulties seem minor (custody right need to be equal anyway) compared to the legal tangles polygamy would introduce. It would probably get to the point that each family would have to make up their own versions of the above laws in a set of legal documents, which no one would ever do.
In short, yeah, the government should have the function of protecting its citizens and their rights, but its actual function is to generate massive amounts of forms. Polygamy will not fit in that system the same way homosexual marriage would. I mean, they’d have to change all their databases and everything.
I’m touched by your ability and willingness to keep your objections personal. That seems to me to demonstrate a great deal of wisdom and maturity – and generosity. I don’t know enough about polygamy to comment, other than to note that the federal law against polygamy was part of specific prejudice against Mormons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Anti-Bigamy_Act I do agree that legal marriage and religious marriage are very different things and that the conflation of the two has been problematic in many ways. Perhaps ironically, while my upcoming wedding would be legal in our state, we’re not particularly interested in being legally married (since without the benefits conferred by a federally recognized marriage, we gain little) – but being married by our church and religious community and family is hugely important to us – and that is the wedding we’re planning so excitedly for. And are so grateful to belong to a church that can and does recognize and celebrate our love.
I’d also put incest somewhere on that list as a practice that might make a lot of people uncomfortable but is harder to logically argue against than one might think. There were some interesting studies done on that, as I recall.
Thank you!
I appreciate your open-mindedness on this topic. You make some really good points.
Define life.
If it is defined as the propagation of a species, then denying homosexual union is a protection of life.
from Wikipedia;
Defining life is difficult—in part—because life is a process, not a pure substance.
from Merriam-Webster;
a [condition] characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
Also, we live in a democratic society where what the majority of the people wants is what the rule of law is meant to be. It is why we have voting. So anything the majority objects to, is objectionable in that society. The people get to decide the rules by majority rule.
Great thoughts you express here!
@GreekPhysique - It’s fun for the whole family.
Good government fosters virtue which is necessary for the existence of a republic. So it is the government’s interest to foster marriage between man and woman since that forms the optimum covenantal union upon which to start a family.
And since the family is the basic building block of any society it is best if the family is of the optimal form.
Redefining marriage to include gays would necessarily mean redefining marriage to include all sexual preferences since homosexuality is not superior to any other sexual preference.
Such a redefinition of marriage would destroy it as a social institution for which family and child rearing are the ultimate goals.
And that would lead to a heathen society whose nature would be hostile to Christianity and its values. Western Civilization would end.
@PrisonerxOfxLove - ”And that would lead to a heathen society whose nature would be hostile to Christianity and its values.”
Have you looked outside lately? If that’s the criteria, Western Civilization ended long ago. I don’t think it has, necessarily, but as I told you long ago, it is not the job of Christianity to defend the West. Our faith is designed to not be of this world, and to function and flourish even in hostile civilizations.
@JstNotherDay - Majority rule is limited in American government. For example, no matter how popular the idea is, no matter how many people vote for it, you could never pass a law that says, “Let’s kill Donald Trump and divvy up his money among ourselves.” We do not have a pure democracy like Athens did (who voted for the death of Socrates), but rather a democratic republic, with checks and balances and a central driving purpose.
Also, if the reason for preventing gay marriage was to “protect life,” why isn’t the law forcing singles to marry strangers? Why do couples not have to provide proof of fertility to get a marriage license? Reproduction is only one of the three functions of marriage.
@OutOfTheAshes - You’re absolutely correct. But a civilization doesn’t end overnight. Western Civilization reached such incredible heights that it will take awhile for it to descend into the abyss.
Since Western Civilization is a product of Christianity, it is indeed the responsibility of Christians to defend it since it was a product of grace.
I think the main problem that religious parties have (or should have in terms of validity) with it, is the fear that they would be forced to compromise their own beliefs in the process…even if it was made clear that it wasn’t now, I think it’s more ‘why get started down this path to begin with?’ by being forced to marry those who they did not think should be getting married, or allowing their premises to be used for what they deem immoral
@GreekPhysique - I’d agree with that. There was a study that proved that women over 40 were just as likely to have a child with deformities/disabilites as two first cousins. So, if you’re going to ban first-cousin marriage on the basis of deformities alone, woman over forty should all be sterilised too.
Very interesting post with very interesting view.
Fine post.
Oh what a mess society makes when it redefine words. Words such as license, marriage, and rights.
As a Christian myself, I love Christians that think like you. Thanks.
@OutOfTheAshes -
“And that would lead to a heathen society whose nature would be hostile to Christianity and its values.”Have you looked outside lately? If that’s the criteria, Western Civilization ended long ago.
and there are some who are interested in salvaging what is left… and in restoring society.
“Redefining marriage to include gays would necessarily mean redefining marriage to include all sexual preferences”
This here I think is the main concern… where does it stop.
Re: what you wrote to me… good points also.
This is why humans have the need for an absolute authority… the one that we have chosen to throw out with the bath water. When all members subscribe to an absolute authority it leads to stability within that society… but we are a rebellious people always choosing our own ways and creating chaos in the world.
My second to most recent post, which as followed by my most recent post that just so happens to be on this issue, was about Christians and voting. While I am still not fully decided on voting, and I don’t see myself voting in this election even if I decide it is a Christian’s role to do so (I see the candidates as both being absolutely terrible), I do wonder if trying to influence the nation politically is something we should be doing. While the passage was not written to Christians, Jeremiah 29 tells the Jewish exiles in Babylon to seek the best for the cities of the nation they are captive in. In Daniel we see an example of this being played out.
We are clearly not diasporic Jews, but I do wonder if the principle from these would apply to us. If so, then would it be in the best interest for the nation and cities we live in that we use our votes and other influence to seek to lead this nation to legislate against sin?
A somewhat more recent example is William Wilberforce and John Newton and their roles in ending slavery in England. While I have not read their biographies, I would imagine their Christian faith lead them to oppose slavery, and Wilberforce’s influence as a politician was one of the biggest forces in ending it. While we are talking about what two consenting adults do rather than what some do to people they feel are less than equal to them, is it at all similar? Also, the Bible outright forbids polygamy and homosexuality while it does not forbid slavery. Homosexuality is even listed in Romans 1 as part of the moral decline of civilization as they turned away from God. God clearly hates it, should we as salt and light fight against it, or only amongst ourselves?
I don’t have the answer to any of my questions, instead I’m just typing out my thoughts on the matter.
I am curious as to your thoughts on what I’ve said though.
@MagisterTom - God can’t even legislate against sin so for man to do so would be very dangerous.
However, government can foster virtue which is the pursuit of excellence.
I would not compare homosexual marriage to polygamy anymore then comparing heroin abuse to smoking cigarettes.
I would compare it to bestiality, incest, molestation. These are the things gay marriage are linked to. Polygamy is doing what is natural but not out of moderation. I speak of course where there is no cohersion or pressure of underage partners before the age of adulthood. On the underhand though homosexual marriage is doing what is unnatural and sinning against oneself, ones own body and sinning against the partners soul.
@MagisterTom - I think you make very good points. I do believe that all sin hurts the sinner, and so “seeking the good of the city” involves discouraging sin. And you’re very right about homosexuality being linked to moral decline–one of the rabbis said that the Flood was not sent until the antediluvians began writing marriage certificates between men.
Leaving aside all questions of legality, however, I think that this might be a situation where the government is too blunt an instrument for discouraging this particular kind of sin. Slavery was a big political and economic entity, and in some ways had to be combated on that playing field. Issues of marriage and what-goes-on-in-the-bedroom, however, historically don’t do well combated on the governmental plane. (Last century many well-meaning Christians campaigned to have divorce made illegal, for instance. Another example might be the ineffective prohibition of marijuana use.) I’m not sure what form of discouragement would be better, but I imagine it would be more social than legal in nature.
That is how I feel. If it isn’t hurting others, then it should be ok. I mean I understand the bible points, but being Bisexual, I also understand that I don’t choose to be attracted to women, it happens when I see a women, and I also know I being christan have to surpress those urges because they are sinful, just like any lust is. So it has a lot of conflict religiously, but it shouldn’t be the governements decision, it should be the peoples to choose this way of life. Even if others disagree, the relationship is only complicated because other people make it so. Society has a outlook that is wrong, so the children of the married gay couple, then are treated bad, we shouldnt stop them from marrying and adopting, we should stop bullying. But that in of it’s self is impossible, because adults drive children, and the only way for adults to be reasonable is to be loving, and most people aren’t. Facts of this world, sadly.
Ethically I don’t agree with the concepts, but I don’t believe in outlawing them either.
@GreekPhysique - Relates slightly – isn’t it legal to marry your first cousin in Hawaii?
Is part of the government’s function to look out for the good of society?
If it is, then I have heard reasonable arguments for why homosexual marriage should be outlawed.