THE WAR BEGINS

A new phase in the gay marriage debate began in earnest today, when Jason West, the mayor of New Paltz, New York, was charged with 19 counts of solemnizing marriages without a license, based on West’s performance of wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples. The phrase “media circus” was coined to describe what’s about to happen in Ulster County, NY.

But elsewhere in the Empire State, another front has opened (pay attention to the last line of this quote):

The New York city of Ithaca also weighed in on the gay marriage issue on Tuesday. Officials there said they have received seven marriage applications from same-sex couples and will forward them to state officials — a move that could open the way for gays to sue if denied marriage licenses.

OK, all you conservatives who think that the New York Supreme Court (which, let’s face it, would ultimately hear any case resulting from a marriage-license denial) is likely to deny the right of same-sex couples to marry, raise your hands. Remember, New York is one of those states which did not pass a “Defense of Marriage” act.

And need I even mention that the US Supreme Court probably wouldn’t even hear this matter without some sort of relevant federal question at stake?

That’s why I say, ultimately, the right of same-sex couples to marry in civil ceremonies will be made official. Maybe not everywhere, and maybe not instantly, but like I’ve said before, the ultimate outcome of this debate is not really in doubt. And, while I respect the opinion and perspective of one of this blog’s first readers, the majority of Americans who are unsure about this turn of events are the same majority of Americans who keep re-electing the same judges and local politicians, year after year, because those same Americans can’t be bothered to turn off “Survivor” long enough to educate themselves about what’s happening amongst the judiciary or down at City Hall.

OK, you all got that? I think gay civil marriage is inevitable. I’ve tried to point out the social reasons why, and the theological/historical reasons why the church has last the ability to speak on the issue. I’ve even mentioned that the church is probably wasting its time trying to fight the battle to prevent gays and lesbians from gaining the right to legal recognition of their relationships. If you want, I can even give you a case why it could be considered immoral to oppose that recognition.

Do you notice anything I haven’t said?

I haven’t spoken at all on the matter of whether or not I think same-sex ceremonies are religiously permissible, and whether or not I would perform one. The answer, in both cases, is “no.”

Much commentary about Biblical references to homosexuality centers on the Levitical holiness code, a code whose precepts are only selectively followed by Christians. This selectivity has led to some noble efforts at ironic humor, but totally ignores the fact that the dietary provisions of the holiness code were overturned early in the book of Acts. Still, for the sake of argument, let’s ignore the holiness code.

You’ve still got some touchy passages in the New Testament to contend with. Romans 1 and 1st Corinthians 6 still make reference to homosexual acts, in a context which makes it clear that the early church (or at least Paul) did not consider homosexual acts to be compatible with Christian life. It’s possible to interpret the Romans text as referring more generally to sexual promiscuity of any sort than specifically to homosexuality, and the 1st Corinthians text as referring to prostitution (possibly of a cultic nature) rather than to a freely-chosen sexual relationship of equals who happen to be of the same gender.

It is frequently argued that the ancient Greek language (in which the New Testament was written) had no word comparable to today’s “homosexual;” nor did they understand same-gender sexuality as we do; therefore, whatever Paul may have been talking about, it really shouldn’t be applied to loving, just, committed homosexual relationships.

Never mind that we don’t have such a word in English–just a clunky, three-place predicate that doesn’t function well as a description of a marriage or other romantic relationship. All such relationships are occasionally unloving, unjust, and uncommitted, mostly the middle of those terms. The lack of a directly translatable term itself doesn’t imply Biblical consent for our current understanding.

However, it’s well to note that in both Romans and 1st Corinthians, Paul lists homosexual acts as just one item on a list of sins lengthy enough to condemn virtually all of humanity. I’ve complained before about those in the church who would cast homosexuality as “the ultimate sin.” There is no evidence to suggest that the Bible says it’s a lot worse than many other, more commonly-committed sins.

But there’s no evidence that it’s not a sin exactly like every other sin, either.

So I hope now I’ve made myself clear: I see it as inevitable that gays and lesbians will receive some sort of legal recognition for their relationships. I also see homosexual conduct as sinful and against the teachings of the Bible. For this reason, I would not, personally, perform a wedding, blessing, or solemnizing ceremony for a same-gender couple. But I would not bar a same-gender couple from attending my church, either. Nor would I be any more hostile and aggressive to them than I would be to any of the liars, gossips, cursers, coveters, cheaters (both marital and economic), parent-haters, idolaters, would-be murderers, and so on, and so forth, that populate both my church and every other flippin’ church on the planet, whether they acknowledge such or not. Acknowledging that any congregation is made up entirely of sinners who stand in need of the Gospel is not the same thing as endorsing the particular sins they commit. (Do you think your cardiologist is in favor of heart attacks, even though he or she, personally, gets paid to treat them? Well, it’s sort of the same deal for clergy.)

Like many people, there’s a world of difference between the way I feel about this matter politically and the way I feel about it religiously. Society already allows all sorts of marriages I would not, personally, permit, if it were solely up to me. But that doesn’t mean I don’t recognize those marriages as valid. I do not have the right, in this country, to use my religious beliefs to deny others rights due to them. People have the right, in this country, to get married without the consent of any religious organization. I might consider such marriages lacking something because the people involved pledged only to each other and not to God, but my religious opinion doesn’t affect the legal status of those marriages.

But any church also has the right to refuse to perform any wedding to which it does not cotton. I’ve stated my case–I’m not at all convinced that same-sex religious marriages are even permissible, let alone a good idea. Individual denominations set their own policies on this matter. (Mine currently has no formal policy.)

In other words, at the courthouse, sure; in God’s house, probably not. Call my stance hypocritical if it makes you feel good; as a good post-Modernist, I’m quite comfortable embracing a seeming contradiction.