Even Describing the Elephant is not so Easy
Alan F.H. Wisdom
June 29, 2009
Related Articles:
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Special Committee on Civil Unions and Christian Marriage, meeting June 17-20 in Louisville, was in no hurry to confront the elephant in the room [link to other sidebar]: the apparent disagreement among its members over whether same-sex relations should be recognized and honored in church and society in the same fashion as marriage. It would seem, in order to fulfill its General Assembly assignment to discern “the place of covenanted same-gender partnerships in the Christian community,” the committee would need to engage the debate about the morality of such relationships.
But, for this meeting at least, the committee preferred to concentrate on being “descriptive” rather than “prescriptive.” It considered early, incomplete drafts of four sections of its report to the 2010 General Assembly. Each draft section had been assembled by a working group of two or three committee members. The drafts were distributed in open meetings of the whole committee; however, they were labeled as “not for attribution.” Therefore, this analysis is based on what committee members said about the drafts rather than direct quotes from the drafts themselves.
Three of the four sections discussed—those dealing with the history of civil laws governing marriage, the history of the church’s theology and practice of marriage, and the effects of current laws on same-sex partners and their children—lent themselves to a descriptive approach. But even agreeing on how to describe this background information sometimes proved challenging. Descriptions sometimes took on a slant shaped by one’s position on the same-sex marriage question. And the descriptive approach proved very limiting in the fourth section, on the relationship between civil union and Christian marriage. Here are examples of the disagreements and difficulties arising in each section of the draft committee report:
History of Laws
*The Rev. Emily Anderson of East Tennessee Presbytery asserted, “If you ask what a traditional marriage is, you will get as many different answers as people you ask.” Others agreed. Elder Tony De La Rosa from Los Angeles wanted to correct “the misimpression that for 5,000 years marriage has been X.” On the contrary, he said, “It’s also been and is Y and Z.”
Remarks like these left the impression that marriage is an infinitely variable custom of no fixed meaning. It is a very useful impression to cultivate if one’s agenda is to smooth the way for a radical redefinition of society’s most basic institution. But many scholars would dispute that impression. While acknowledging the variations of social context, they would observe many common features of marriage across a wide range of cultures and time periods. Among those are its functions in bringing together men and women, legitimating sexual union between them, and obligating them to care for the children that emerge from that union. (See, for instance, David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage.)
*Anderson characterized pre-modern marriages as based on economic and political calculations, whereas modern marriages are based on love. (If modern marriage is indeed all about love, it becomes easier to accept the marriage of same-sex couples—who undoubtedly cherish affection for one another, even if their relationships lack other characteristics traditionally associated with marriage.) But the Rev. Tracie Mayes Stewart of Salem Presbytery (North Carolina) suggested that even today many motives may lie behind the decision to get married. One might add that romantic attraction was not absent from ancient marriages—witness the love of Jacob and Rachel in Genesis 29.
*De La Rosa devoted much attention to early 20th century segregationist laws barring interracial marriages, and the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Loving v. Virginia) overturning such laws. He quoted a southern segregationist congressman fulminating against racial miscegenation. De La Rosa saw parallels to today: “Much of the same kind of rhetoric that undergirded the adoption of these anti-miscegenation statutes is echoed again in the adoption of DOMA [Defense of Marriage] statutes.” Likewise, “The arguments that are used to undermine anti-miscegenation laws are the arguments that are being used to expand marriage to same-sex couples.”
The Rev. Bill Teng of National Capital Presbytery countered, “It’s a far stretch to say that the [Supreme] Court in Loving had same-sex marriage in mind.” The Rev. Clayton Allard of Dallas called the comparison “polarizing” and said, “My concern is that if the portrait is painted that if I stand with the Defense of Marriage Act, I am standing with that [racist] southern senator … that is not helpful.” Lisa Cooper Van Riper, an elder and political science professor from Greenville, SC, urged balance in presenting legal arguments both for and against same-sex marriage. She noted the precedent set when the Supreme Court upheld 19th century anti-polygamy laws, recognizing that the government had a legitimate interest in defining and limiting marriage for the good of society.
Church Theology and Practice of Marriage
The draft brought by Stewart and the Rev. Earl Arnold of Cayuga-Syracuse Presbytery took the form of an outline listing various Bible passages and church history references pertinent to marriage. This section provoked the least discussion and disagreement.
*Teng expressed a mild concern that the draft saw ambiguity in Old Testament marriage laws where the ancient Hebrews may not have perceived any ambiguity. He did not feel that there was any contradiction in marriage serving multiple purposes such as procreation, companionship, and economic sustenance.
*Stewart noted the absence so far of any material communicating what the PCUSA confessions say about marriage. She proposed to insert a chart or summary of relevant passages from the confessions. The Rev. David Gambrell, an associate in the denomination’s Theology and Worship office who serves as a resource to the committee, suggested including text from the PCUSA wedding liturgy—particularly the statement of the purposes of marriage.
Effects of Current Laws on Same-Gender Partners
*Stephen Salyards, a geologist and elder in San Gabriel Presbytery (CA), cited Census Bureau estimates showing same-sex couples as less than one percent of U.S. households, with only a quarter of those couples having children in the household. (Many of those children, moreover, are from previous heterosexual relationships. Obviously, if the number of children that might be helped through recognition of same-sex couples is relatively small, society’s interest in granting such recognition seems less urgent.) Salyards indicated that “Vernon [Broyles, an Office of General Assembly volunteer and longtime PCUSA social justice official, who serves as a resource to the committee] counseled us against” giving too much weight to those statistics.
*Anderson objected to use of the phrase “traditional marriage” to describe the union of one man and one woman. She did not propose an alternative phrase. She may have been trying to avoid the inference that same-sex marriage is an innovation that breaks with the understanding of marriage traditionally held in the United States (and many other cultures).
*Van Riper sketched the current situation of marriage laws across the country. She identified no fewer than six basic configurations of state law, ranging from states that established man-woman marriage in their constitutions and prohibited marriage-like benefits for same-sex couples to states that granted same-sex marriage as a constitutional right. De La Rosa indicated that the situation might be even more complicated, as some states do not recognize other states’ civil unions and some localities have their own distinct arrangements for same-sex couples. Committee members seemed resigned to the prospect that any generalization would have to be qualified by an asterisk noting local exceptions and the fact that the situation was rapidly changing.
*Where benefits for same-sex couples differed from those for married couples, Van Riper suggested that there were at least two perspectives. One would regard the difference in benefits as an unjust discrimination based on gender. The other would see the different benefits as appropriate, given the differences between the two kinds of relationships and society’s judgment that traditional marriage is the best setting in which to rear children. Other committee members expressed concern that the two perspectives be presented in a fair and balanced manner.
The Relationship between Civil Union and Christian Marriage
This subgroup had perhaps the hardest task. Laws regarding the relationship between man-woman civil marriage, same-sex marriage, and civil unions are variable and unsettled. Meanwhile, PCUSA policy on how all these relate to Christian marriage lacks adequate definition. The 2008 General Assembly seemed to be asking for some clarity about what should be the distinction between civil union and Christian marriage.
*Answering that question would seem to require some prescription; however, Allard and Derrick Weston, a newly ordained minister in Pittsburgh Presbytery, tried to handle it in a descriptive manner. They presented a chart comparing traditional civil marriage, redefined civil marriage, civil union, and Christian marriage according to the PCUSA constitution.
Allard emphasized that the first three were contracts between two persons, whereas Christian marriage was a covenant also involving God and the church community. He also saw a major difference between civil unions and marriage in any form. “Marriage is a social institution,” Allard said. “It’s not a private institution. It’s not for two people to be happy.” By contrast, he saw civil union as a private arrangement between two individuals, not necessarily serving any social purpose.
*Allard said much less about the distinction between traditional civil marriage of man and woman and civil marriage redefined to include any two persons of whatever sex. The only difference that he mentioned was that same-sex marriages are not recognized in many states. The sexes of the partners in these sexual relationships seemed to be treated as a minor difference. But biology, history, and social science all testify to the deep differences between a male-female union and a relationship between two men or two women. For example:
- The major social purpose served by traditional marriage is plain: It is society’s way of trying to ensure that every child has the care of its biological father and mother, with a lasting commitment to each other and to whatever children they conceive together. Same-sex marriage cannot serve this same purpose, as same-sex couples are biologically incapable of conceiving a child. Any children in a same-sex household are the fruit of a conception involving at least one party external to the couple. The children have been separated from at least one of their biological parents—not an ideal situation, from society’s point of view. Any social purposes served by same-sex marriage—for example, creating a household in which biologically unrelated adults care for each other and for each other’s children—would be different from the major purpose served by traditional marriage.
- The social power of traditional marriage lies in its normativity. Most people are expected to marry, and most people do marry. Marriage is the preferred context for sexual relations and childbearing. Persons who deviate too markedly from this pattern still face disapproval in many quarters, especially within the Christian community. But it is doubtful that marriage is or would become the norm among gays and lesbians. Where marriage is available to them (as in Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands, and elsewhere), only a small minority has availed itself of the opportunity. Lesbian and gay leaders demand marriage as an option; however, they do not insist on it as a norm. We do not hear anyone nagging cohabiting same-sex couples to “stop shacking up and make it legal,” as many parents of heterosexual cohabitors have been known to do.
- Traditional marriage carries with it the requirement of monogamy. Public opinion is harsh in its condemnation of adultery, as certain Republican politicians can attest. Surveys show that most married couples do, in fact, keep their vows of sexual exclusivity. But the surveys also show that strict monogamy is not the prevalent pattern within the homosexual community. Prominent gay advocates, such as Andrew Sullivan and Michelangelo Signorile, tout their greater sexual “flexibility” as an advantage that they would bring to marriage. In any case, it seems unlikely that a movement that affirms bisexuality would suddenly embrace strict monogamy as its ideal.
- Traditional marriage is consummated by what venerable legal texts delicately call “the marital act.” Under medieval canon law and English common law, no other sexual act was sufficient to consummate a marriage. It is “the marital act” that most literally embodies that biblical image of “the two become one flesh,” as the complementary male and female bodies join in an act that carries the possibility (at least formally) of creating a child that bears in its one flesh the inextricably intermingled genetic inheritance of the two parents. Same-sex couples are biologically incapable of “the marital act.” By whatever acts they may be said to “consummate” their relationships, those acts are not the same as the act that consummates a marriage. Society has no necessary interest in those other acts. It has a huge interest in “the marital act,” which it honors and channels through the institution of marriage.
At this point, it is not clear whether the special committee’s report will take any account of these significant differences between same-sex partnerships and marriage. One wonders how the church might be helped by a description that is so selective and incomplete. Making its descriptions more complete, while staying within an 11,000 word limit, will be a major challenge to the committee as it perfects its drafts over the summer. Finding the correct prescription for “the place of covenanted same-gender partnerships in the Christian community” will be an even greater challenge as the committee next meets September 13-17 in Louisville.