4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
Jesus’ words in Matthew 19 constitute the awkward rhetorical cornerstone of why gay marriage cannot be legal. A popular aphorism among anti-conservatives is: “What does Jesus say about homosexuality?” The unspoken argument warrant is the idea that Jesus says nothing about homosexuality and therefore Jesus’ followers should follow his lead of silence on the matter. I like to ask what did Jesus say about ‘heterosexuality’? It is at this point that it becomes possible to realize that the entire essentializing system of psychology surrounding human sexuality is highly suspect. This is a rhetorical system that is designed to reify sexual behavior and offer it as the cornerstone of human identity. This reification is highly unstable even in activist communities identifying as homosexual.
Jesus’ words go to the heart of the theological matter by harkening back to God’s original suggestions in Genesis. God made humanity in forms of male and female. That peculiar difference is the heart of the matter that makes marriage necessary. Men and women are different and find one another relatively incomprehensible. Marriage is the religious sacrament that provides the potential for keeping this incomprehensible pair together.
The lack of diversity in same sex relationships is perplexing to the proposal of founding marriage upon this. Almost every human being is presently involved in a same sex relationship. Many people go decades avoiding relationships with the opposite sex. In fact, same sex relationships make the long term avoidance of the opposite sex within the confines of a limiting relationship such as marriage entirely possible. The insistence that same-sex marriages are a statement in favor of diversity is plainly untrue. These relationships are profound statements of sameness. Jesus’ statement defends God’s purpose in maintaining diversity. It is not a statement about the psycho-sexual categories invented by thinkers such as Sigmund Freud.
In fact, the normativity of same sex relationships is apparent throughout human history. The greeks were apparently quite comfortable about this practice. The practice of same sex sexual relationship is apparent in almost any time period and most cultures. This exposes another peculiar argument fixation about same sex relationships and marriage. These relationships are exotic and peculiar. This exotic notion is its own form of heteronormativity. Presently, American soldiers are advised not to comment on the prevalence of same sex relationships among Taliban commanders and militants. Societies like the Taliban utilize same sex relations as a social vessel for sexual activity and then use different sex relationships for procreative goals. These societies exist throughout the world and history. Honest intellectual brokers of sexual history such as Michel Foucault acknowledge this but the complicated reality of global sex is hidden from Western and American audiences in order to play an irony against the normativity of “heterosexual sex.” Many of America’s sexual fundamentalists know better but play coy [a sexual fundamentalist is someone who essentializes human identity from sexual practice].
The emergence of long term monogamous different sex marriage is a peculiar and distinctive social practice that exists against global norms. Its emergence is undoubtedly predicated on statements like those offered by Jesus. The challenges are immense since biology demonstrates a history of difficulty with monogamy. The peculiar observation that same sex marriages might be more stable and long lasting is missing the rather obvious point that Jesus highlights— male/ female marriage involves the management of profound difference.
By now it is possible that any lingering readers opposed to this thesis have moved on to the notion that the separation of church and state does not allow the government to limit marriage on the basis of religious warrants like those offered by Jesus. Here again the gay marriage advocates are being profoundly ironic. Stop and look at the text of the first amendment in its first clause:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Anti-conservatives are generally delighted to invoke the religion clauses to protect the state from the influence of the church. They seem incapable of recognizing when the state threatens the church. Here is a perfect case. Marriage is an establishment of religion. It is sometimes difficult to imagine what might be an establishment of marriage. Surely marriage is an establishment of marriage. Regardless of how the government might interpret or modify marriage, it is unconstitutional to do so and such actions constitute a violation of civil rights for the religious communities that derive these customs. This is why both the Defense of Marriage Act and various rulings for gay marriage are both unconstitutional. Could the state make other rules modifying religious customs with which it disagrees? Might the state conclude that communion ought to be more broadly understood as honoring not just the body of Christ— but Buddha and Mohammed as well? If the convention of marriage is to change, only religious bodies could do this. For the state to do this would violate the ‘separation of church and state.’ While that metaphor is rather rough and possibly counter productive— if it is to have meaning it must apply as much to a hostile state as a hostile church. Gay marriage instituted by Courts and legislative bodies violates the expectations of the religion clauses.
Like most young people, when I graduated from college, I thought gay marriage should be legal. After watching literally thousands of people debate the matter and thinking through the competing views, it seems apparent that same sex marriage should not be mandated by the state.
I re paginated and welcome mods fixing my original post.
Sorry about that. Original paste job dropped returns.
That'll make some heads explode, lol.
I read it. Very good stuff, and you argue your points well. In fact, I can imagine it being argued in this way at the Supreme Court. Loved the part about altering communion.
Surely marriage is an establishment of marriage.
Should read:
Surely marriage is an establishment of religion.
This is nonsense. Poorly written, not factually correct.