JUNE 2004

Marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman. Such a union is blessed by God, and anyone who tries to change that is wicked, sinful and vile. So say the Christian fundamentalists, along with many other religious fundamentalists, and the furor over the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts last month will be a long time simmering down. I know it won’t happen in my lifetime. It’s a good thing the founder of true Protestant marriage, Henry VIII, is not here to see this. He would be shocked to the core to see marriage so fouled. And so would his wives, Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr.

When you hear the news sound bites from people protesting same-sex marriage, the fuzzy thinking leaves you staring into middle space with your mouth slightly ajar, as you try to figure out the reasoning. Referring to gays, irate protesters claim, "It’s not just marriage they are trying to destroy. They are determined to eliminate all family values and all morality in general." Well, that seems rather ambitious. Could "they" do it even if they tried? Don’t think so. Besides, non-gay Christian Republicans right here in the good ol’ USA, home of Christian Family Values, have done a pretty good job themselves of making marriage less than a "many-splendored" thing. Here is a brief sampling:

Ronald Reagan—divorced. Bob Dole—divorced. Newt Gingrich—divorced (and presented this news to his wife as she lay in a hospital trying to beat back cancer). Dick Armey—divorced. Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas—divorced. Gov. John Engler of Michigan—divorced. Gov. Pete Wilson of California—divorced. Conservative pundit George Will—divorced. Sen. Lauch Faircloth—divorced. Rush Limbaugh—divorced several times. Bob Barr of Georgia—divorced twice, married thrice (so far). Barr had the audacity to author and push the "Defense of Marriage Act" and people want to know which of his marriages he would like to defend. Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York—divorced. Sen. John Warner of Virginia—divorced. He was once married to Liz Taylor, who had as many spouses as Henry VIII. Gov. George Allen of Virginia—divorced. Henry Kissinger—divorced. Sen. John McCain of Arizona—divorced. Well, enough. This could go on forever. Point made?

As I said back in 1999: "There is a common misperception about the nature of marriage. Almost everyone would say that it is a union between a woman and a man; and many would add that the union is blessed by God. But God or no God, they would be wrong. In this country, marriage is an uneven three-way partnership, and the State has the controlling hand. The State, not the loving couple, dictates who may marry, and when and where. In many states, it requires a blood test beforehand, taking a bit of the romance out of the occasion. You must purchase a license to get married, just as you must to go fishing, or to drive a car. It is a licensed event.

"The State has the sole power to dissolve a marriage, and to distribute the assets tied to that marriage. Child custody and child support payments are determined by the State. Marriage is about inheritance, insurance benefits, powers of attorney and tax exemptions. Somehow the rose-covered cottage gets lost in the paperwork….there is no conservative clamor to remove any of the crass financial aspects from the sacred bond of holy matrimony. Community property laws are alive and well in Christian circles." Amen to that.

So what exactly is being threatened by same-sex marriage? How are gays going to destroy all morality and values? Gays are no more likely than non-gays to commit any crimes, from littering to murder. Corporate crime, which has left millions of people jobless and savings-less, has been overwhelmingly committed by non-gay white males. Most crimes, heinous or otherwise, have been committed by non-gays for the simple reason that gays are a small minority of any population—anywhere from 10% to 20%, depending on your area—and they therefore have little voice about most societal issues. And in any event, what do legal unions between gay couples have to do with morality? Unless you adhere to the Judeo-Christian Bible, there is no basis for criticism of such unions. So once again, it all boils down to religion. Let’s take a look.

The Bible on Gays

Regarding homosexuals, the Bible’s teaching is simplicity itself. They should be murdered. From the Old Testament, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Lev 20:13 (KJV) And again in the New Testament, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet….Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death…." Rom 1:26-32 (KJV) [Italics mine.]

Well, there’s no ambiguity there, is there? Gays must be murdered. God said so. So, all you fundamentalist Christians, why aren’t you insisting that such punishments be put on our lawbooks? Your Bible says you should be killing gays, and, if you’re going to be consistent with your own faith, you should get on this right now. But you’re not calling for the slaughter of gays, I see. Hmmm. Why not? Could it be that such illogical, hateful actions would be viewed for what they are? Illegal, unconstitutional, prejudiced beyond any human reason, filled with intolerant hate and just plain stupid? To call for the death of homosexuals would make you look primitive and barbaric, wouldn’t it? But that’s what most of the Bible is, so unless you’re going to fall into that secular humanist trap of "relative values" you have no choice. You must petition your lawmakers to get this biblical "kill all gays" directive on the books now. You’ll look like medieval, scab-scratching cretins, but you’ll be honestly serving your God.

Also worth considering is this valid point: What do gays do that heteros do not? Before you answer, think carefully. I cannot think of one, single thing. Try to finish the following: "Heterosexuals are…." "Homosexuals are…." Anything you might say in either sentence will be so vague and general as to apply to the whole human race. Do gays engage in oral and anal sex? Yes, and so do heteros. Do they fail to have offspring? Yes, and so do heteros who use birth control, or have had vasectomies, or have gone through menopause or hysterectomies, tubal ligations, or illnesses/ injuries that make fertility impossible, or anyone who chooses celibacy for whatever reason. Do gays often split up? Yes, and so do heteros. Look at the divorce rate!

Marriage is about pensions plans, Living Wills, inheritance and medical coverage. There is no logical reason why a gay couple should not enjoy the same benefits as everyone else. They love each other as much or as little as everyone else, so to differentiate is the height of hypocrisy and small-minded bigotry, which of course the Bible is big on. Bigotry.

The Bible on Marriage

The Religious Right Mob in the current administration wants a constitutional amendment regarding marriage. (Shouldn’t they be worried about more weighty issues, such as dead and tortured people in Iraq?) They want it to say, "Marriage in the United States of America shall consist of a union between one man and one woman." Well, the Bible itself has a lot to say about marriage. Beginning in the Old Testament, there is the stellar example of the sanctity of marriage with King Solomon. "And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart." I King 11:3 (KJV) Seven hundred wives. And three hundred concubines. Oh, what a noble example of Family Values! Just think: Solomon could sleep with 2.7 females every single night of the year without ever having to repeat! Sounds like good, wholesome fun, doesn’t it? And of course it exhibits the utmost respect for the institution of marriage. So maybe the amendment should be worded, "Marriage in the United States of America shall consist of a union between one man and, oh, anywhere from one to several hundred women." It would be consistent with biblical teachings.

Also from the Bible: "But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you." Deut 22:20-21 (KJV) Stand by. More killing called for. OK, so if a young woman was raped by her uncle, then sold off in marriage to a man who found no "tokens" she would be stoned to death. Seems fair enough. So maybe the amendment should be worded, ""Marriage in the United States of America shall consist of a union between one man and, oh, anywhere from one to several hundred women; and if the bride is found to be non-virginal, she shall be put to death." It would be consistent with biblical teachings.

From the New Testament: "And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage." Luke 20:34-35 (KJV) So much for the eternal blessedness of marriage! Doesn’t last past the grave, so who cares? But a more scathing review of marriage comes from Paul: "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." 1 Cor 7:1-2 (KJV) Paul waxes eloquent on this theme: "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." 1 Cor 7:7-9 (KJV)

Whoa! Pretty clear, huh? The only reason to get married is if you’re just so horny you can’t stand it. Marriage is about sexual intercourse and nothing more, according to Paul. So maybe the amendment should be worded, "Marriage in the United States of America shall consist of a union between one man and, oh, anywhere from one to several hundred women; and if the bride is found to be non-virginal she shall be put to death; but the only reason to marry at all is if you are burning with lust and cannot control it and need a way to avoid fornication." It would be consistent with biblical teachings.

Secular Humanism on Gays and Marriage

As long as two consenting adults want to be together, what they do together is no one’s business but theirs. As long as they hurt no one else, and especially if they truly love each other (a rare thing anywhere) then more power to them. This is the secular humanist position on gays and marriage and living together. It’s a far cry from demanding deaths and using ugly name-calling, which is the Bible’s way of dealing with almost all things sexual. The desire to make a marriage commitment is admirable in today’s world of swiftly shifting relationships. That so many gays want to make that commitment is something to be celebrated, not ridiculed.

So maybe the amendment should be worded, "Any adult couple who wants to live together and love each other may be joined legally and considered married in the eyes of the law, regardless of gender or sexual orientation." It would be consistent with the tolerant, secular view that appreciates humanity in all its richly variable forms. And there are no stonings involved! 

 © 2004 Judith Hayes 

Back to Main Page                              Back to Previous Columns