The Sacrament of Gay Marriage?

Perhaps this is a bit belated, but nonetheless I feel the need to address Lisa Miller's Dec 6. Newsweek cover piece about the Biblical case for gay marriage, a proposition that disturbs me for a variety of reasons, theological and political alike.

Miller begins by criticizing the Bible's approach to romance - citing Old Testament polygamy, Jesus's celibacy, and Paul's lukewarm take on nuptial bliss as examples of why the text fails to stand up relevantly in the modern world.

• Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple - who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love - turn to the Bible as a how to script? Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it so..
  

This clear dichotomy between the relevant left (also responsible, according to Miller, for ending the subjugation of women, abolishing slavery, and a host of other virtuous accomplishments) and crotchety conservatives twirling their mustaches from the right continues throughout the piece, with Miller comfortably convinced that opponents to religious marriages for same sex couples - let alone secular ones - are the theological answer to crusty geriatrics hoping those new-fangled gays would get the hell off their lawn. The lessons of tolerance and inclusiveness preached in the Bible, Miller argues, mean that not only should Christians accept gays as part of their community, but also that the religious same-sex unions practiced by more liberal congregations are the only natural progression of "Christian values"

This sort of argumentation is worrisome for two reasons. First of all, it represents a basic lack of understanding of "Christian values," watering them down to a nebulous fuzziness more appropriate to bedtime stories than to intellectual grapples with faith. Certainly it goes without saying that, ideally, Christianity is a religion of love, of acceptance, and of other magnificent concepts similarly diluted by gratuitous bandying about. But the fulcrum of Christianity is the contrast - the degree to which man can debase and raise himself alike in his fatally flawed condition. If we are going to speak about "love" in a Christian context, we must say the degradation engendered by sin is as real, as present as the all-encompassing grace of God, which according to Christianity occurs in spite of our sins. In order for the mystery of God's grace to have any significance, it must coexist with human imperfection. The "tolerance" and "acceptance" Miller mentions are not denials of wrongdoing - in the case Miller cites of Jesus revealing himself to the woman at the well, the woman admits her sin and resolves to live well; Jesus loves her, but by no means encourages her to continue in her behavior. Miller's interpretation of "true" Christianity may go for the comfortable humanism of "do what feels right" - but it has the substance of cotton candy.

This is not to say, of course, that we should condemn homosexuality in any sort of secular or political context. Nor do I believe that homosexuality is in fact sinful. However, if we must, as Miller insists, view homosexuality from within a Christian context that cites the Judeo-Christian tradition, let alone the Bible, as a source, the only intellectually coherent and historically conscious response is to allow that perspective to be carried out to its natural conclusion. It is difficult, however, to take intellectual coherence seriously from an author who refers to the "fragile monotheism" of the "ancient Jews" or cites the Torah as speaking to the "Hebrews," centuries after the conquest of Canaan.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, is the question of why Miller feels the need to bring Christianity into the tribunal to witness her argument. By doing so, Miller places undue responsibility on religion itself. It must, Miller argues, respond to cultural needs by becoming increasingly progressive - terminology like "man and wife" has been replaced by the more politically correct "husband and wife," and the days of Jacob's polygamy have long since passed in much of the West. At the same time, religion is given the task of remaining a cultural arbitrator - even as followers are called to overlook or ignore parts of Scripture in the name of greater tolerance, it is somehow the job of religion to soothe the doubts of those who wish to align theological conservatism with political progressivism - an admirable, and not impossible task, but by no means as easy as Miller would have it be. Gay marriage may well be legalized as a civil, not religious, process. Homosexuality indeed ought to be widely accepted, and the disgusting acts of bigotry perpetrated against gays ought to be regarded with universal disgust. It is not the job of any religious sect, however, to "make" being gay "okay." If we want to break the near-theocratic hold of fundamentalist Protestant sects on the American government, it is vital that homosexuality and gay rights become a discussion that does not involve religion at all, regardless of whose side the Bible is deemed to be on. It is only by breaking the link between religion and politics altogether that we can find a solution to the endless standstill on the issue of gay rights - Miller need not force God further into the issue.

I do wish, however, Miller had spent more time on what I find to be one of the more interesting, and most convincing, arguments for gay marriage from a non-political perspective. Miller quotes CT Presbyterian pastor Terry Davis as arguing for gay marriage on the grounds of believing "family values" to be more precious - and threatened - a commodity than man-woman marriage. "I'm against promiscuity — love ought to be expressed in committed relationships, not through casual sex, and I think the church should recognize the validity of committed same-sex relationships," he says. The complexities of his argument seem to be too much for Miller, however, who immediately skips over to arguing that "If we are all God's children...then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color."

Such a generalization overlooks the fact that most denominations take a clear moral line on "homosexual acts" - as distinguished from any state of being or attraction, and that extending the sacrament of marriage to same-sex couples (which we shall distinguish, naturally, from the legal status of non-religious marriage) is in direct violation of that ethos. I do not believe at all that any other sacrament should be denied to gays - whether celibate or in a committed same-sex relationship - as previously mentioned, so much the beauty of Christianity lies in the coexistence of sin and grace. But while the church can certainly extend its love to all its members, it is under an equal obligation to practice the very morality it seeks to enforce - it must temper its acceptance of its flock with an adherence to its standards stronger than can be expected of any individual member. Asking churches to extend the sacrament of marriage to same-sex unions would thus be requesting them to engage in a hypocritical repudiation of their own committment

Let it be mentioned that I myself am a supporter of gay marriage in the secular sphere. I do not believe, however, that shoehorning political correctness into established religious traditions, or in pressuring progressivism established institutions - who are well within their rights to believe in the acknowledged moral standards of their holy texts - will have any effect but to further the paradigm of a "guns, gays, and God" kulturkampf.

Andrew Sullivan makes the very salient point that Scriptural authority is a very tricky area, and perhaps not intellectually sustainable for the right. If so, however, there is no ground there for the left, either.