Marriage: Sanctity or Sanctimony?
I’m sorry God, but I do not believe you care much about marriage. As parts of the Western world look to allow or deny same-sex marriage, the religious groups seem to have the loudest voices. I have encountered many religious arguments against same-sex unions, some well-considered, some seemingly not considered at all.
Recently, a young gent on his virtual soapbox spouted something to the effect of marriage belonging to God and God designing it only between a man and a woman [there was something particularly crass about God creating Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve]. OK, let’s consider his initial statement. Firstly, “marriage” is not a biblical term as the use of this term did not appear in the English language until the 13th Century, well after the apparent writing of the Bible. Secondly, the Bible does not advocate one man to one woman unions as, frequently, there are references to multiple wives and concubines. Thirdly, marriage is not always about procreation and many people choose not to bring children into the world. Fourthly, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 does not limit itself to homosexuals; it rules out plenty of people that already have recognised rights in society.
So, is it actually feasible to define marriage from a religious context at all? Considering the change of it over time, marriage generally related to financial or political unions and procreation rather than anything to do with love between a man and a woman. Powerful kingdoms were forged by the union of a Spanish king to an English queen via Queen Mary’s Marriage Act (1554). Historically, the Catholic Church avoided the loss of wealth through the absence of the marital union by its clergy and that concept still exists to the modern era. The Pope refused to annul Henry VIII’s marriage to Catherine, thwarting his pursuit of a male heir, so the king seized control of the monastery’s wealth and handed out bibles to the masses, sparking the English Reformation. When the reigning monarch didn’t like the church’s decision on marriage, he justified forming a new church.
Marriage seems to be defined more from societal influence than anything else. Biblically, God favoured David, yet David had at least six different wives. It appeared God wasn’t too worried about how many wives belonged to David. Today, it is illegal to commit polygamy in Australia. Later, marriage was encompassed among the commoners to allow a man to track his wealth amongst his “legitimate” children. Today, a man is able to bequeath to “illegitimate” children as he sees fit. In many countries, arranged marriages were the norm and couples married having no knowledge of the other. In modern times, romantic notions of marriage have taken root. In the mediaeval era, young girls were married when they were very young and others were traded in the bridal markets. Once, divorce was unacceptable and divorcees outcast, yet today divorce is commonplace. Different cultures have afforded differing views on marriage due to the rights it bestowed, such as land ownership or control, sexual ownership, strong relationships with spouse’s siblings or parents, etc.
It is time for religious opponents to same-sex marriage to recognise the inevitability of this social change. The religious outcry is far too late and lacklustre in today’s social context. Their claim of marriage being a sanctified union is an outlandish one in the modern era as the interconnection between church and state is not strong. It’s no longer possible to rationally sell the religious opposition argument to same-sex marriage considering the current social landscape. Here are the points in recent social history where the religious voice upholding the sanctity of marriage and family needed to be loud and decisive:
Same-sex adoption and child-rearing already exists in Australia;
The church no longer oversees the marital union as civil celebrants are more popular and have the same legal recognition as clergy-led ceremonies;
“No-fault divorces” made divorce accessible to all and largely nullified its negative social ramifications;
Societal and legal recognition of single parent families without social stigma;
De facto same-sex relationships are legally recognised under Family Law Act 1975;
Same-sex relationships are already recognised for the purposes of superannuation, social security and taxation.
To be taken seriously now, the religious opponents to same-sex relationships needed to be far more active prior to the decision on same-sex marriage. Now, it merely looks like religious people are sanctimonious and don’t recognise or honour love when they see it. Don’t get caught up in spouting the viewpoint of marriage from over two thousand years ago when that social context is nothing like today. Acknowledge the social influence in the institution of marriage and understand its fluidity. It is going to change over time and may well loop around again to things mentioned in the Bible, like polygamy.
If you believe your marriage is a God-blessed union, then I’m quite certain God does not require you to possess a parliamentary-endorsed marriage certificate. After all, doesn’t a spiritual deity operate well above the confines of earthly law? In the same way, does denying a parliamentary-endorsed marriage certificate to another couple uphold the sanctity of your own marriage?