The [Non-existent] Religious Case for Gay Marriage

    Even for a intellectually wobbly magazine like Newsweek, Lisa Miller's “Our Mutual Joy” represents an especially self-delusional chapter in the “politically correct” war on Christian civilization.  The article claims to defend “gay marriage” from a biblical point of view, but proves the danger of private interpretation of the scriptures, and reminds us of the lesson of our Lord's temptation in the desert: “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.” [LINK:1596 Shakespeare Merchant of Venice i. iii. 93.]  Miller cites Scripture—indeed she cites some of the very passages one might cite in order to demonstrate conclusively that Christianity not only condemns “gay marriage” but disputes both that it is “gay” and that it can in any way be called “marriage.”  Among the “politically correct” it is generally assumed that contradictory propositions can be reconciled by placing them together—in the manner of Hegel, the “thesis” and “antithesis” will produce a new “synthesis”—produce a new "truth,” if you will for those who have convinced themselves that truth is cast firmly in the Jell-o of public opinion and media consensus, rather than being known in the unchanging mind of God.

    The Old Testament names sodomy among a dozen or so capital crimes. Miller acknowledges this. It takes very little imagination to realize that the dead are not capable of any sort of marriage, or much of anything else on earth.  Following the example of Christ with the woman who was to be stoned for adultery, the Church has generally been quite compassionate in Its carrying out sentences for the capital crimes of the Bible, but compassion on the part of the judge in no way reduces the serious nature of capital crimes. Christ told the woman caught in adultery to “sin no more,” and not that it was okay to sin.  If the adulterer, the murderer, the sodomite, blasphemer, idolator and the kidnapper feel that this compassion is somehow hypocritical, they probably would be even less happy if the claimed “hypocrisy” is eliminated.

    Miller tells us that “while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman.”  Even if we ignore the difficulties associated with marrying those who are dead, one doesn't have to look very far into the Bible to discover that “God created man to his own image ... male and female he created them.  And God blessed them, saying: ‘Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it’” (Genesis 1:27-28). Yes, I know that “subduing the earth” is “politically incorrect,” but Genesis reiterates:  “Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).  Not surprisingly, Jesus quotes this precise passage in explaining that marriage is a work of God: “Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6).

    Our Lord's counsel of poverty and chastity was just that, a counsel and not a command.  It was a necessity for those who would follow Him in the mission, and not necessarily a life time thing (Mark 10:30, Luke 18:30).  Eusebius (H.E., Bk III, 30), citing Clement of Alexandria {Stromata, Book VII, Chapter XI), relates that Saint Peter's wife accompanied him to Rome and to martyrdom, and that Saint Philip gave his four daughters in marriage.  Saint Paul's Corinthians (1 Corinthians 5 & 6) were people with moral problems who could well stand to exercise some of the discipline of the mission.  But note that in advising Titus and Timothy how to pick the men to serve as bishops, priests, and deacons, they were to look for evidence of a well ordered family life. Peter recommends this same well ordered life for its own sake.  As we have seen, our Lord, who worked His first miracle at a wedding, was explicit about the indissoluble union of “what God has joined together” for the man and woman who chose the married life.  Perhaps the most explicit commentary on what marriage ought to be like is found in the Old Testament book of Tobias.

    We are told that “‘Marriage’ in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one....”  Not in Christian America it doesn't!  That sort of notion is something out of the so-called “enlightenment,” the intellectual movement that brought us the French and Russian Revolutions, and the cultural Marxism that plagues civilization today.  Among Christians a valid marriage is a Sacrament, a joining together by God in all aspects, civil and religious. God the Creator is an essential part of the procreation desired in the married state.  Pope Pius IX condemned the proposition that “A true marriage can exist between Christians by virtue of a purely civil contract; and it is false to assert that the contract of marriage is always a Sacrament; or, that there is no contract if the Sacrament is excluded” (Syllabus of Errors, 73). Civil rights and responsibilities do arise from matrimony—Miller lists: “taxes, insurance, the care and custody of children, visitation rights and inheritance”—precisely because the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children, and society and  common law seek to foster that primary end by protecting those who are joined in a family unit for that purpose.

    The classic fallacy of Sunday-school students that “it must be okay, 'cause its in the Bible. ”  Yes, there are offences against marriage mentioned in the Bible.  The polygamy is the result of the survival mentality of people living under harsh conditions and fear of external enemies—the women whose husbands die must be taken care of, and may yet contribute to the tribal population—not a particularly moral outlook but practical.  3 Kings 11 tells us that his great number of wives led to Solomon's idolatry and ultimate downfall.  Even if David and Jonathan were homosexual, which is by no means clear, hinting at their sin is not an endorsement of this capital crime.  Nothing Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well suggests approval of her conduct.

    No, Miss Miller, inclusion does not mean approval of evil behavior.  Our Lord ate with sinners because they were in need of Him:  “They that are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill.”  “As I live, saith the Lord God, I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way, and live. Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways: and why will you die, O house of Israel?” (Ezechiel 33:11)

in XTO,
Fr. Brusca
Send him mail

This article can be viewed full screen at

http://www.rosarychurch.net/comment/newsweek.html

 

[ Home Page ]

[ Comment Archives ]