What if there is a win-win approach to settling the debate over same-sex marriage?
Bob Hyatt, Tony Campolo, Kurt Willems, and others have advocated a “common sense solution” to the debate over same-sex marriage, but are evangelicals listening?
As I mentioned yesterday (see “Stanley Hauerwas destroyed my hermeneutical paradigm.”) I am perplexed by the unspoken methodology with which Christians approach addressing the matter of the legalization of same-sex marriage. I think most Christians use the logic of (A) Scripture forbids homosexuality + (B) same-sex marriage (SSM) affirms homosexuality = therefore, (C) we should vote against same sex marriage. There are more complex, well-argued versions of this, but most Christians don’t seem to have given adequate attention to formulating their reasoning for their views.
Last year Kurt Willems wrote a satirical piece asking Christians to sign his petition banning divorce (see “Sign My Petition for a Constitutional Amendment to Ban Divorce!”) that strikes at the heart of the problem I have with evangelical jargon on this subject. We use language regarding something being “biblical,” therefore we determine what should be “legal,” but we are inconsistent, especially regarding sexual ethics. Most of us would not want a constitutional amendment to ban divorce, even if Jesus gave very little wiggle-room on this matter. Why do we want people to have the freedom to divorce legally when divorce stands in opposition to a Christian understanding of marriage? While someone may ignore Willems’ post as being too tongue-in-cheek there remains an unanswered question: “On what premise do we fight against same sex marriage in the courts, but not against divorce?”
Today Bob Hyatt–pastor of the Evergreen Community here in Portland, OR–wrote a fine short piece titled, “Last Chance for a Win-Win on Same Sex Marriage” wherein he presented a view I share on this matter (a view that Tony Jones alluded to as a “common sense solution”). He wrote,
On one side, the Church is going to have to realize that gay men and women, in wanting what everyone else has, are asking for something reasonable. Rights of inheritance and property, custody and visitation- all of the rights granted currently by the state in marriage are good things, things we can affirm, even in relationships that we wouldn’t necessarily endorse. After all, even if we hold a more conservative view on divorce, I don’t see many churches advocating for divorced couples to lose the right to have custody over their step-children should something happen to their spouse. We may not endorse the relationship, but we can certainly try to understand the desire of those in it to have the same legal rights as other couples. And more than understand it- I think we can advocate for it, and practically demonstrate that we do in fact “love everyone.”
Then he acknowledged the deep sacramental and religious significance the word “marriage” holds for Christians:
On the other side, those pushing for SSM need to understand the depth of feeling involved in and around the word marriage- what is for many Christians a sacrament and for all Christians sacred. To have the State legislate an understanding of what is essentially a religious term, and to legislate it in a way contrary to the faith and practice of so many is profoundly offensive. This goes beyond legalization into the realm of endorsement and definition, and as such, is qualitatively different than many other culture war issues.
Then he provided his solution:
The State needs to get out of the “marriage” business. It should recognize that as long as it uses that term, and continues to privilege certain types of relationships over others this issue is going to divide us as a nation, and is only going to become more and more contentious. We need to move towards the system used in many European countries where the State issues nothing but civil unions to anyone who wants them, and then those who desire it may seek a marriage from the Church. When I pastored in the Netherlands, this was the system- you got a civil union certificate at the courthouse and then a Marriage ceremony at the church. This division largely negated the culture war aspect, and allowed those churches who objected to same sex marriage on biblical grounds to not only opt out, but to be able to continue to teach their biblical view of marriage, uncontradicted by the State.
I recommend reading the whole article. That this approach is being use elsewhere, successfully, ought to peak our interest. Sadly, I think many on both side are blinded by their desire to “win” this debate. There are Christians who think marriage is compromised unless the state reflects their views on the matter. There are others who think the “fundamentalist” win if they settle for anything short of the use of the word “marriage.” But if the heart of the matter is found in Hyatt’s first paragraph–that homosexuals want equal rights when it comes to sharing property that is their’s, or custody over children they raised together, or various tax benefits, then this isn’t about whether we say “civil unions” or “marriage.”
Let us leave “marriage” to the churches, synagogues, and mosques and the civil unions to the state.
If someone finds a religious body who will acknowledge same sex “marriage” then let that be a difference between various religious bodies, not a difference of civil standing in a pluralistic nation.
May 15, 2012 at 3:53 pm
YES. I thought I was the only one who held this belief. Awesome, thanks for this post Brian.
May 15, 2012 at 4:00 pm
You’re welcome! I think there are many more who hold this view and I think it is the best compromise. We are so blinded by how this debate has been contextualized in the United States that we don’t realize that other places have found a way around our impasse.
May 15, 2012 at 4:01 pm
This is a very fine solution, and one I endorse wholeheartedly. At the very least, the Christian priests and ministers ought to get out of the business of conducting any acts on behalf of the state.
But the state needn’t stop calling what it does “marriage” on the dubious grounds that marriage is “essentially a religious word.” It is not. From a philological point of view, “marriage” comes, through the Old French marier, from the Latin maritare–a perfectly pre-Christian Latin word used precisely in the same sense. And it would be very hard to argue that the word carries religious connotations even today.
May 15, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Esteban
This is a good point, though I wonder if part of any such “compromise” would be conceding the word to religious groups because as long as the state says “marriage” a very particular union is understood. For instance, I don’t think Barack Obama’s views on this subject changed all that much, even if he moved from civil unions to marriage, but I do think people on both sides think that a major shift (or “evolution”) had occurred.
May 15, 2012 at 4:13 pm
I find myself resonating with this view, esp. the part about the state getting out of the marriage business. On the one hand, I don’t think granting civil unions is that big of a deal. On the other hand, I would hope we can stop using the word “rights” to signify what comes with a state recognized civil union. They are privileges and rewards, but certainly not rights. I don’t morally have a problem with the state granting those rewards to SSM, but at the same time, historically there is not a very optimistic outlook for cultures that normalize and thus reward same-sex relationships. Certainly we could be the exception, but I’d rather not bank on it. That being said, I am neither promoting SSM, nor actively doing anything to get in the way of the state authorizing them. I’d rather not see it happen, but hey, we’re not really a Christian nation anyway and America and the church aren’t synonymous.
Thanks for sharing this, it does give me more food for thought!
Nate
May 15, 2012 at 4:16 pm
You’re welcome! Thank you for reading and interacting.
May 15, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Please, I beg of you, don’t advocate the European solution. Advocate separation of the church and state from marriage. These are different things. I can’t speak of every European country, but when I was in Germany and talking to French people, they both told me that you were obliged to get a state marriage first, and then a church marriage. This is bad. What you want is for a person to get a state marriage if they want one; and to get a church marriage if they want one; and to get both if they want both.
(Also, it seems to create confusions about what “marriage” means. You talk about a division between state civil unions and religious marriages; but some friends of my sister’s have gone over to Germany to get married; but when I was in Germany, the Germans were all adamant that same-sex marriage wasn’t available there, despite Wikipedia being equally convinced it was.)
Albeit, speaking as an Australian, I prefer the approach that has developed here and needs to continue by eliminating state marriage entirely: namely, so called defacto relationships, where the fact that you’re in a marriage-like relationship gives you marriage-like rights and responsibilities to your partner (whether it’s opening a joint bank account or letting the court decide how to distribute property when the relationship is dissolved). The government shouldn’t be regulating close personal relationships any more than friendships; only dealing with the things they throw up while they exist.
I see absolutely no reason why a culture that only nominally (if that) believes in sacred, life-long partnerships between a man and a woman or between two people or whatever it is, should base its law around the concept. Christians, along with any members of religious traditions that want to, can take marriage and divorce and keep them.
May 15, 2012 at 7:05 pm
I am curious how in Australia they account for a family and any additional charges a family might have? Suppose, for example, a child of two parents wants to go to college. Does the Australian government account for that in their system? How would that work?
May 16, 2012 at 12:55 am
My cousin was married in France a few years ago and the system seemed eminently sensible. Because they were also going to get married in church the civil ceremony was a very quick affair and felt as if it was just legalising the union with paperwork then we were straight off to the ceremony in church which was the major event. The state ceremony certainly didn’t take anything away from the importance of the religious ceremony at all.
I can’t see the problem in having two aspects to marriage – it is both legal and sacramental – if some people don’t agree with the sacramental part then let them be. It won’t change or alter what marriage actually is for those of us who do see it as more than a legal commitment.
If we want other people to respect our beliefs then we have to show some respect for their convictions as well even if we disagree with them. Trying to limit the benefits of marriage to only those who agree with us seems unreasonable and arrogant in a post Christiandom world.
May 16, 2012 at 4:06 am
Kari, I really don’t understand what you mean. Why should the government account for a child of two parents wanting to go to college? There’s obviously some “common sense” there that is, alas, not common to you and me both.
If it helps, almost everything from the government takes about “your partner” and not “your spouse” or “your husband and wife”, and then defines “your partner” to refer to a married, registered or defacto partner. To see this in practice in welfare, look at the last page of the PDF file linked to at http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/publications/co034.htm called “Newstart Payment Rates”, section “definition of a partner” (notice how they regard people who are married but the relationship is over—so they’re not living together—as single; but if you’re circumstantially separated, for instance, for work, you count as “usually living together”. Marriage just doesn’t matter. I have a more extensive definition from Centrelink I could quote, but I can’t find it online, and the comments policy asks me not to cite or link, not quote. I will quote on request).
Or there’s a brochure talking about de facto separation at http://www.familycourt.wa.gov.au/_files/defacto.pdf
Also, be aware that we still have marriage—I’m claiming that defacto relationships amongst unmarried couples do everything government marriage relationships do, albeit under a different legal framework. But I’m advocating we (Australians) end government recognition of marriage.
But I really don’t understand your question, so if I haven’t answered it at all … please clarify what concerns you. I mean, a persons parents are … their parents, right, no matter if they’re married or divorced or where never married in the first place? My parents are both named on my birth certificate; the fact that they’re (still) married is immaterial to whether they’re my parents.
May 16, 2012 at 5:08 am
Thanks for the great post. Interestingly, I believe that CS Lewis argues for the exact same thing (as a solution for a different problem, though) in Mere Christianity.
May 16, 2012 at 6:37 am
Here’s how not to handle it: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5077
May 16, 2012 at 7:04 am
Great article, thanks–it’s nice to hear some reasonable discussion rather than hysterical yelling (from either side)–
I think the C.S. Lewis quote that Eluros Aabye (above) was referencing is the following:
C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity on Christian versus secular marriage:
“Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish
two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of
marriage is one: the other is the quite different question-how far
Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try
to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by
embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think
that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce
difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should
be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from
drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly
recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians
and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There
ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State
with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church
with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought
to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a
Christian sense and which are not.”
Again, thanks so much for your article.
May 16, 2012 at 7:49 am
The example of a petition to end divorce is a great way of examining the multiple issues involved here. A Satanist or an Athist can get married and no “rights” debate swirls around them. I am charismatic enough to be convinced that putting unrighteousness laws in the books is bad for our standing as a nation before the court of heaven. However, I am equally as convinced that we need to get the framework of legal rights for those in same-gender attraction relationships to be just. Do justice, love mercy, walk humble.
May 16, 2012 at 7:55 am
I wish it were that easy. Yes, I am for the rights of same-sex couples regarding inheritance, property, visitation, etc, etc. and not for a redefinition of marriage. But are you willing to grant civil union status to polygamists and other forms of unions we discourage? I have yet to hear a proper response to this very real concern. Last night I heard a SSM advocate answer issue with, “well, that’s not what’s on the table.” It may surprise people that there are polygamists attempting to get legal status even now. I suspect SSM advocates have thought this through less than Christians have thought their responses through. One more thing: the caption “Bob Hyatt, Tony Campolo, Kurt Willems, and others have advocated a “common sense solution” to the debate over same-sex marriage, but are evangelicals listening?” seems bizarre to me. I extend great grace to anyone on a deadline, but I would barely insert “St. Paul, St.Peter, and St. John” into such a statement.
May 16, 2012 at 8:28 am
Ellen
Thank you for sharing that quote! I will have to look that up.
rkamrath
I guess our first question should be, “Do those countries that advocate this distinction have trouble with polygamy?” It doesn’t seem to be the case, but let’s be honest, the “state” side of marriage has little to do with sanctity and holiness and more to do with organizing assets, determining how to tax income, finding a home for children, etc. The state is involved in the “business” side of marriage because that is what they sense impacts how the state functions. The state doesn’t care if you are married to one person while having sex with twenty. So I imagine that unless it is easier for the state to create civil unions that accompany multiple participants (something foreign to western culture, but not completely unknown to other cultures), and it works for the state, then this might be something discussed in a future election. But the mere “slippery slope” warning isn’t enough for us to ditch what I think is a good idea.
May 16, 2012 at 8:36 am
Also, I should add that it would be odd to write, “St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John advocate a new way for Christians to address climate change.” Then again, that is why God raised them up for their generation. We are responsible to our own.
May 16, 2012 at 9:35 am
I don’t think the state should get out of the “business” of marriage and the Harvard Philosopher does a good Job creating a interesting dialogue with his ethics class in his course on justice, http://youtu.be/EzD9P-9sj4M
May 16, 2012 at 9:38 am
Sorry, the Harvard Philosopher is Michael Sandel.
May 16, 2012 at 9:39 am
Kenneth
I do enjoy watching Sandel’s discussions. I don’t think I’ve seen this one. Thank you for sharing. I will take a look.
May 16, 2012 at 10:32 am
SSM has been legal in Canda since 2005 (and since 2003 in Ontario), because the courts ruled that excluding same sex couples from the definition of marriage was against our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Not all churches have supported this decision, and so if a same-sex couple wishes to be married in a church, they must find one who is willing to do so (namely, the United Church). I think the civil unions are a good idea, but as you quoted, there are deep feelings surrounding the word “marriage” – and that includes with homosexual people. There may be a lot of biblical associations that lead to these feelings, but I would argue that the main associations are no longer associated with the bible and more with society as a whole. At this point, I think same sex partners wish to be MARRIED – not have a civil union. It may be just as much about the title as it is about the permissions that are associated with it. It’s worked in Canada…
Pingback: C.S. Lewis on marriage governed by the State and marriage governed by the Church. « Near Emmaus
May 16, 2012 at 10:50 am
Alison
I agree with what you are saying and I agree that there is a cultural “meaning” to marriage. I think this is what Esteban was noting above (see comment #2). That said, at least at this juncture, there may be a difference in the mind of some Americans. As I stated above, I don’t think President Obama changed his views on this all that much, but when he used the word “marriage” it created a storm. I think for Christians in the U.S. this word may have been made into a religious word and that is why so many struggle with conceding it to same-sex partnerships.
May 16, 2012 at 12:53 pm
This article is CRAP
May 16, 2012 at 5:55 pm
On a pragmatic level, your point makes a lot of sense. You’re absolutely right that the main concern of the government in instituting marriage is for legal, financial, and other purposes, and that the principal purpose of marriage for the church is of making a covenant of life-long fidelity and partnership before God and men. However, although your solution sounds easy and practical on paper I still think it would be disastrous in reality. If the state only acknowledged civil unions then this would have disastrous effects on Western society.
Here are some obvious consequences of what would take place if your proposal became official:
1. Marriage would be considered solely a religious act much like baptism, confirmation, bar-mitzvahs, etc. Thus, anyone who is not religious (which is the majority of America these days, especially people under 30) would simply not get married. They would just get a civil union with the government.
2. The Institution of Marriage would become a religious relic of the past. “I don’t want to get married, that’s what religious people do and I’m not religious.” That’s what most people in our post-modern age would say. Thus, marriage would quickly become forgotten as old fashioned, ancient, or even distasteful and taboo (Much like chivalry is for feminists today).
3. If the above two take place then we would live in a society of Co-habitation. People will have civil union relationships with an even lesser level of commitment then what marriage currently has (I know marriage is depressingly devalued in today’s society, but civil unions will cause the commitment level to sink even lower).
4. If we end up living in a society of Cohabitation, families will be destroyed much more easily and frequently then ever before. Sexual promiscuity will become even more common and accepted then it is now. More children than ever will be in foster care, being adopted, or being aborted. If you think our families are dysfunctional now wait until the majority of families are founded upon the shaky foundation of a civil union.
5. Lastly, if families are destroyed then all of society will collapse. The bedrock of every society is the family and without families civilization as we know it will not stand. Then who knows what will happen? Maybe a more family-oriented civilization will take us over…maybe Islamic culture or Asian culture or Hispanic culture??? Who knows right? I know this is way down the line and I’m jumping way ahead of myself, but we history/anthropology buffs like to do that sometimes
In Conclusion, same-sex relationships, cohabitation, divorce, and dysfunctional families are increasing exponentially in Western society whether the law changes or not. These are some of the current trends of our age and there is pretty much no way of stopping them. So the real question is should we just allow people to do whatever the heck they want and simply let history take its course regardless of the inevitable destruction it will bring to society or should we try with everything in our might to stall or (miraculously) halt the downward spiral of Western civilization?
So we are left with 3 options:
1. Legalize Same-Sex Marriages
2. Divide marriage as strictly being a religious institution and civil unions as the state’s institution
3. Continue opposing Same-sex Marriage in hopes that the religiously conservative view will win the day and halt the institution of marriage from complete collapse (although I’m aware it’s already very collapsed because of divorce and adultery anyways).
Options one and two will be catalysts for the destruction of marriages and families, but option three will only create deeper and deeper conflict, resentment, and enmity between opposing groups. Frankly, none of these options are healthy! They all suck! Alas, what will become of us America???
May 16, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Shorter Joshua Carvalho (if you’ll forgive my sarcasm):
You can’t legislate people into being good any more than you can legislate them into being Christian.
But even if you could, in Australia despite all the legal protections of defacto relationships, people still seem to get married before they have kids, because they know it’s important to swear/affirm before their community that they’ll be together for the children’s sake. Yet surely the important thing is that it’s two people saying this is what they’ll do now in front of their friends and family, and not the fact that there’s some government representative there! So if you don’t have a civil celebrant, but just get an esteemed and respected friend—or a JP, or someone endorsed by the Atheist Marriage Society—what different will it make to the non-religious? And separating two lives and children doesn’t actually become easier because you don’t have a magic piece of paper from the government! If the union was meant to be for life and involves children, many couples will need a court to act as an arbiter anyway.
Now that doesn’t mean it’s a bed of roses—our divorce rate is lower than the US one though, but I doubt they’re strictly comparable—but if you can find me the human society that is, I’ll bake you a cake. That, or just wait a few months; it’ll be a thorn bush anyway.
May 17, 2012 at 7:25 am
Joshua
I understand your concerns, but I feel like our society is already going through a time when more people are choosing to cohabitate; many heterosexuals think marriage is an outdated institution (there is irony in that); sexual promiscuity is already rampant, etc. It could be argued that legislation again divorce would help this, or legislation against living together unless married could help this, and that bring us back to the important question of whether or not the Christian calling is to legislate these matters or live as an alternative society in aims of being that salt and light.
May 18, 2012 at 8:10 pm
This perspective is interesting and compelling on some level of thought….
i am considering the concept more and more given that the USA is most certainly a pluralistic nation…….
Pingback: Christianity and Same-Gender Relationships around the Blogosphere
May 30, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Interesting idea. The issue I see is with a Christian marriage becoming dependent on a state sanctioned civil union. I dislike the idea that the state has the authority to supersede a sacrament. I do fully support civil unions and the rights of same sex couples to share in the same legal rights as everyone else.
November 11, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Okay, so i used this Biblioblog for research on an essay in my English class and I was wondering if you could tell me who your website’s publisher is, I am citing my sources.
November 11, 2012 at 12:53 pm
We use WordPress.com.
November 11, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Thank you.
Pingback: Our most popular (read and interacted with) posts written in 2012 | Near Emmaus
Pingback: Further Thoughts on a Win-Win on Same-Sex Marriage | Bob Hyatt
April 4, 2013 at 9:45 am
Brian,
My sister forwarded me this link recently and I had never heard of your blog before. First I’d like to say I don’t necessarily disagree with your, or CS Lewis’, take on the separation of civil vs religious marriage rituals. On the contrary, I think that may be the only constructive way forward for Christians in this post-modern world. However, I would caution you to be more careful philosophically and intellectually especially as it pertains to your argument’s methodology. By using the divorce analogy as the centerpiece of your argument you take a convincing but totally flawed case of apples v oranges and present it as analogous. Divorce is in fact stigmatized both by civil institutions and the Church still today. By favoring marriage both financially and socially in over 1100 statutes today, the state is essentially disfavoring divorce. Just because divorce is legal does not mean it’s not morally wrong or that it’s not disfavored both financially and socially by both the state and the Church. This is the case with some but not many of our laws (think: abortion). Further, and the most misleading of your points, the Church argues correctly against divorce as an act of sinfulness, or as the culmination of a longstanding failure to successfully remain married. However, were we to “condone” same sex marriage, we would be condoning a union that has, as its centerpiece, an unapologetic and unending degree of sinfulness. This would be like saying to a congregant in your church, “it’s perfectly fine for you to sit next to me every Sunday even though we all know you are sleeping with the preacher’s wife.” All of this is not to say that I disagree with your main argument (esp as it relates to property/money/death benefits/etc), because, in many ways I don’t, it’s just not prudent to use flawed reasoning to get there. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with the masses.
Chris
Athens, GA