« Attacking the messenger | Main | Terrorizing Journalists to Preempt Real News? »

May 29, 2006

Support for Marriage Amendment Based on a Fallacy

Jeff Hall spells out in an excellent editorial entitled Since When Did Marriage Become a Christian Institution? precisely why the arguments in favor of Bill Frist's "Marriage Protection Amendment" (S.J. Res. 1, which the Senate will begin debating in a week) are based on a false understanding of Christian history. The amendment in question reads:

“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”

Christians are rallying in support of the amendment as a means of protecting an institution they believe was created by God and which they see as symbolic of Jesus's relationship with the Christian church. What they don't realize is that neither the Bible nor early Christian history supports their position. It is no secret that the Old Testament is replete with polygamy (one of the bogeymen that supporters of the marriage amendment say it would prevent) and disrespect of women and marriage (which we must only hope is not representative of how God views his relationship with mankind).

But what about the New Testament? Contrary to the assertions of The Da Vinci Code, Jesus was actually quite averse to marriage. He often preached against it, saying, for example, "I tell you the truth, no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life." (Luke 18:29) Jesus also claimed in Matthew 22:30 that no one would be married in heaven (if that is the truth, think about what it means for all those happily married Christians who won't be married anymore when they meet up with their spouses in heaven).

Early on, Romans felt that Christians were the ones who threatened the fabric of the traditional family. Conservative Romans like Celsus (ca.185) were disturbed by Christian calls to renounce traditional religion, the Roman state, and the traditional family.

When it came to marriage, historian Edward Gibbon writes that early Christians tolerated it as “a defect,” and exalted celibacy “as the nearest approach to the divine perfection.” According to Gibbon, the early Church fathers believed Adam would have best served God had he remained a virgin: “The use of marriage was permitted only to his fallen posterity, as a necessary expedient to continue the human species, and as a restraint…on the natural licentiousness of desire.” […]

In his book, The Confessions, church father Saint Augustine repeatedly acknowledges that chastity is the most Christian path to take. In one instance, he points to Matthew 19:11-12, in which Jesus recommends being a eunuch (a castrated or sexless man): “The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Two well-known Christian historians also disdained marriage. Origen wrote, "Matrimony is impure and unholy, a means of sexual passion." Tertullian characterized marriage as "more dreadful than any punishment or any death." I suppose many today might agree. Fortunately, I am not among them.

But make no mistake, the anti-gay marriage amendment is really about taking steps toward theocracy based on a particular, modern version of Christianity, which aims to claim the institution of marriage as its own and define it in a particular way when in fact, throughout history, it has been viewed in many ways by many cultures, including Jewish and Christian cultures.

Posted by Becky at May 29, 2006 11:42 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.preemptivekarma.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1422