Back of the Envelope

Old Post: My last post on the Federal Marriage Amendment is here.

One of the arguments against gay marriage is that by redefining marriage you weaken the institution. Those in favor of gay marriage argue that gay marriage won't do any more harm to the institution of marriage than heterosexual divorce has already done. To which the response is that since marriage is already in such bad shape, why in the world whould you want to deliver the coup de grace?

I have two reasons to oppose gay marriage:

1. Religious: In the Bible, God clearly defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman, so that's what it is. You may call something else "marriage," but that doesn't make it one. That doesn't prevent the state from calling something else marriage (and indeed they do), but this is only a legal definition, and doesn't make it so in God's eyes or mine.

2. Process: It is up to the state legislatures to decide how to define legal marriage (this does not affect the spiritual truth one way or another), not the courts or city mayors. Since aside from the spiritual aspect, the social aspect of marriage is the main effect, it is important that the legal definition of marriage follow the social definition, and thus be decided by the elected representatives.

To be honest, the survival of marriage argument never did much for me. Orthodox churches will continue to define marriage by the Biblical definition, they will continue to encourage marriage within their congregations, and they will continue to marry only those who meet the religious definition. That doesn't mean that marriage can't be damaged in society as a whole, just that it can't be killed as long as Americans are a religious people.

Still, the idea is to strengthen, not weaken, marriage, and I think the most damaging thing to marriage today is no-fault divorce. It's hard to imagine that the existence of gay marriage will do more harm than that. I'll give you a couple of guesses as to who gave us no-fault divorce. Hint: it wasn't the religious or social conservatives. It was largely the same people and groups who are now pushing for gay marriage. A cynic might think they were trying to harm marriage or something, but assuming that's not the case, and that the gays who want to marry have a vested interest in making marriage a stronger institution, I have a proposal: If you'll help me repeal no-fault divorce, I'll help you get gay marriage. We'll put them both in the same bill before the state legislatures. Yes, from my perspective, changing the legal definition doesn't really make it marriage, but sure, you can call it that, and in the process we'll be cementing the marriages which meet the definition.

New Post: Thoughts on President Bush's tactics here.

Old Post: I briefly mentioned the equivalency of marriage and sex in this post.

So you can see that I'm not the only Christian who thinks that the Bible treats sex and marriage as synonymous, I'll point you toward a sermon given by Daniel Harrell, the Associate Pastor of my former church, Park Street in Boston. This was a controversial sermon, and he didn't attempt to back it up Biblically in the sermon, although he does discuss it in more detail here. Personally, I would be much happier if he had given more Biblical explication. I will say, however, that Pastor Harrell is not responsible for my thinking on the matter, which I came to based on my own study of the Old Testament prior to hearing his sermon. I may discuss the Biblical verses more thoroughly at another point.

Update: Park Street Church is located in Boston, Massachusetts (we're not all liberals there). I added that above.

Donald Sensing has proposed splitting the legal and the spirtual sides of marriage, letting the government offer CICs (Civil Interpersonal Contracts) to any two adults who wanted them, which grant all the legal benefits of marriage without calling it that, while letting the churches (and other religious institutions) issue certificates of marriage, which have no legal bearing while bestowing the name "marriage," with all its spiritual and cultural significance. While there are a couple of things to recommend it, this proposal does have problems. First, the ACLU would be up in arms if certificates of marriage could only be handed out by religious institutions, and I think that any satisfactory compromise would end up with everybody and their brother being able to hand out the things. Second, marriage would become much less common. In Reverend Sensing's view this may be an advantage, as he's not a big fan of people becoming married just for the legal benefits.

The interesting question which he doesn't address is what the Bible says about who can perform marriages, and quite frankly it doesn't say much at all. The Old Testament is full of regulations concerning the contractual obligations of both sides, and the New Testament in particular describes the spiritual aspects. As far as I know, neither one says anything about who performs the wedding, what papers need to be signed, what the ceremony looks like, or what vows are exchanged. From what I've read, I think that the sexual relationship itself makes people married. "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh." (Gen 2:24) There are a few other verses that seem to support this (Deuteronomy 21:11-13, for example). If this is the case, then any man and woman who have a sexual relationship are married in God's eyes (the Bible clearly doesn't apply this to homosexual relationships), and all the legal, cultural, and ceremonial benefits and obligations are simply to support what is already a spiritual truth.

New Post: More on the subject of the equivalency of sex and marriage above.

Joe Carter responds to Matthew Yglesias's thoughts on Christian libertarianism with sarcasm. I'd like to address it more seriously. Here is what Matthew said:

At a different New America event I heard one guy briefly discuss his "Christian libertarian" outlook in response to Amy Sullivan's Christian liberalism. Basically, he said, all this stuff liberals (and particularly religious liberals) say about the moral imperative to aid the poor, etc. is all quite true. That's why he thinks he has a duty to live his life virtuously by giving time, money, etc. to helping others. When he does this, he does a good deed personally, and provides help to a second person. If, however, he were to try and force me to give my money to help someone else, that would not be a virtuous act on his part or on mine. Christian compassion is all well and good, but using the state as a surrogate Robin Hood is not.

Now I don't agree with that at all. Indeed, I think it's roughly the reverse of correct. Cultivating personal virtue, whether in myself or in others, is irrelevant. The key is to help those in need by hook or by crook and, indeed, in the ideal set-up everyone would just act selfishly and the mechanisms of the state would ensure that our selfish behavior winds up serving the general interest. Like Adam Smith's invisible hand, but with progressive taxation.

Nevertheless, it's a viewpoint worth noting, because liberals have a somewhat deplorable tendency to simply assume that the only cogent reason for opposing government action to alleviate suffering is an indifference to suffering. In fact, however, what's at issue really is the role of the state. We liberals do not, at the end of the day, endorse Robin Hood like behavior on the part of private citizens so we, too, see an important distinction between state and non-state action, albeit a different distinction.

Now I am not a libertarian, and I think there are times when the state is the only agent capable of alleviating suffering, when only it can mobilize the necessary resources in a timely manner, and it is thus appropriate to use the state. However, I think that those times are few and far between. In most circumstances, when there is a choice between the state and a private institution, I think the state is less efficient, less capable, less personal, and less compassionate than the private institution would be.

But that merely addresses the specific of why I'd rather have some vague, faceless institution helping people than some vague, faceless state entity. I think there's a bigger problem with Yglesias's thinking, and that's theological. I think his perspective is, in fact, the opposite of God's.

God is capable, pretty much all monotheists agree, of solving all the world's problems. Well, why doesn't He? Why does He let people suffer? Why let them doubt when He can prove his existence? Why act out His compassion through the Church, through fallible, corruptible human agents rather than doing the job Himself? In Reaching for the Invisible God, Philip Yancey expresses his belief that it is because God is more concerned with our faith than our happiness. He is more interested in our relationship with Him and with each other than in making sure all our physical wants are met. What Matthew Yglesias is proposing would deny people the need for each other, and the opportunity to serve that need. I think that his "ideal set-up [where] everyone would just act selfishly and the mechanisms of the state would ensure that our selfish behavior winds up serving the general interest" is the opposite of what God sees as ideal.

Update: Changed the wording to make it more clear that the block quote is what Matthew Yglesias said, not my response to it. Plus I capitalized Church.

Update: I spent a lot of time attacking Yglesias's view of the role of the state, but in doing that I glossed over the last paragraph, which I think is the main point of the post. I just wanted to make it clear that I appreciate that he takes the effort to understand and respect other opinions. And while I strongly disagree with his opinion on theological grounds, I don't think he is insincere in what he said. I'll also give him the benefit of the doubt on his ideal set-up. I think what he is describing is a system that would care for the poor even if everyone is selfish, not that he wants a system which encourages everyone to be selfish. I'm just not sure the two can really be separated. You don't learn compassion and self-sacrifice if no one needs them from you.