To Be or Not to Be - Married

Marriage.  What is it all about?  Today we've heard on the radio from so many authorities, spokes-persons and passionate believers - all of whom know that they know what is 'right'. So what is 'right'?

Well according to the traditional Christian church the only true authority of what is right is the word of God, and the only recorded word of God is the Bible. Yes, I know that what we call the 'Bible' is a selection of sources sanctioned by the early Catholic church, but the idea is that these people were inspired - by God of course.  Some of what they proposed, sanctioned and did you would hope was not inspired by God as that would make God well... unpleasant at the very least and very dubious in motive...

I digress.  So what in the Bible is the authority on marriage?  The first and primary text arrives early in Genesis.  Yes, I know that is part of the Jewish text and we're not hearing on the media about Rabbis up in arms about the prospect of marrying two men or two women... In the second chapter of Genesis we hear that in creation Adam (man) was a lone member of his species until God took one of his ribs and formed a female - Eve.  In the NIV translation we then read: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh".  It is claimed that this was the first wedding and that this indicates marriage, between man and woman, is God's destiny for all.  But from what I can see there's no word 'marriage' - there's just a principle that man is a social creature and better with a partner than without.  Man is not a solitary species. And of course in accordance with nature all creatures have to breed - and for that you need sperm and an egg; so in nature procreation is definitely the province of opposing sexes. However, I think we can agree by this point in human evolution that procreation is not an essential outcome of romantic relationships - or marriage for that matter.  In fact if we don't temper our procreative proclivities as a species there may be serious issues in the long-term future with food and water.

As a one-time biblical scholar I was regularly stunned by the extraordinary extent to which such allegorical biblical statements could be used to justify all manner of social and religious devices.  Of course this is not the only reference to marriage and the behaviour of spouses in the Bible.  There are many references to the 'rules' for husbands and particularly for wives (in terms of obedience, authority, support, virtuous behaviour) in the old and new testament but it has to be remembered that the social device of marriage was well established when these texts were written.  Thousands of years of human socialisation and society, but still humans need guidelines in the form of cultural rules and moral principles.  These guidelines are largely cultural however, something we so often forget when enraged by the value systems of others whose lives we don't share.

And marriage has always been a cultural device.  According to Wikipedia, a priest was not even required to be present for a couple to decide to be married (by verbal consent) until 1545 in the UK.  Every culture has it's own marriage 'myths' and marriage principles.  Ours are not exclusive.

"Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time."  Wikipedia

So now, in the 21st century UK, we have already acknowledged that people want to spend their lives devoted to someone they love, not necessarily someone of the opposite sex.  Maybe it took society a little by surprise that so many gay relationships celebrated civil unions as 'marriage' - we know some ourselves and very precious and devoted they are too.  But maybe we also underestimated how important commitment is to a stable society.  Now our British government is suggesting we go one step further from civil unions and allow full legal marriages to those who want to celebrate the joy of a  commitment; maybe providing a stable environment for the rearing of children, maybe just making their lives a little bit happier and complete by being able to make that very public declaration - with the promises of faithfulness and devotion that it includes.  And contributing to a stable society, of course - something we all want.  Faithfulness and devotion - yes and sex, because sex is just a natural way of expressing love within a partnership.  What is wrong about a society seeking to promote commitment and stability?

Ah, but the church believes marriage is sacred, and to be sacred it must be sanctioned by the church.  So what is meant by 'sacred'?

Definition:  Adjective:  Connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration: "sacred rites"  OR
1. concerned with religion or religious purposes
2. worthy of respect or dedication
3. made or declared or believed to be holy; devoted to a deity or some religious ceremony or use
4. worthy of religious veneration
5. (often followed by 'to') devoted exclusively to a single use or purpose or person

Sacred then refers to that which is connected to religion, a principle of holiness (as defined by a deity) or something worthy of respect and dedication.

What then has 'sacred' to do with this new proposal, to extend the definition of marriage to include same sex unions? Actually as far as I can see no-one is suggesting the church has to conduct these marriages - of course a couple may WANT the church to recognise their marriage, but this is not going to be a given.  The church already has exclusions to marriage that are not upheld by civil society.  The church would not have recognised our marriage - marriage between two divorced persons is not an acceptable union. Civil marriage however recognises any commitment between a man or a woman - apart from bigamy; well in this country anyway!  Civil marriage has nothing to do with the sacred - unless we take the second definition: worthy of respect or dedication.  Any two people, regardless of their sex, who chose to form a positive, loving union where the needs of both are respected and promises are made to support and uphold their commitment in good times as well as bad - well it sounds to me like such a union is indeed worthy of respect and dedication.

So many laws are changed in our modern times to prevent crime and protect the innocent from abuse - here is the chance to make a change for positive reasons.  So come on people, this won't be the first time religion has not agreed with a civil process.  But maybe it's none of your business anyway.