February 19, 2012

Glynn Cardy

Epiphany 7

Video available on YouTube, Facebook

There will come a time when our country will decide whether same-sex marriages should be legalized, and the churches will decide whether they are sacramental and should be witnessed and blessed within their buildings.

There is much discussion on this subject in the UK and the USA, including in the gay and lesbian communities. Among the latter there are some who have significant misgivings whether this is desirable. Marriage has been closely allied with discrimination that favors heterosexuals over lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. 

On the other hand there are couples coming to St Matthew’s and other progressive churches every year asking clearly for marriage, and not a blessing service related to their Civil Union. 

Why is marriage exclusively the preserve of heterosexuals? Can any sacrament [for that is how the Anglican Church understands marriage] be the exclusive preserve of one dominant section of society? Given the scientific evidence pertaining to sexual orientation should the Church continue to discriminate and in doing so further weaken its credibility in the populace at large?

When the Church says marriage is a sacrament it means that in the mutual, loving, self-giving commitment of the couple something of God can be glimpsed. It is a visible sign of an invisible grace.

The role of the State and the Church in regard to marriage are different. The State recognizes the formalization of a relationship as a legal entity, whereas the Church recognizes and blesses the power and potential of committed love.

It is argued by some that the roles of the State and Church should be kept separate. In other words, every couple should be married in a Registry Office, and then those wishing to have a religious ceremony can do so later. One argument in favour of this arrangement is to keep the Church independent. Thus in theory if the Church agreed to same-sex marriages a couple could have such a service while being legally unable to marry.

Before however any change regarding same-sex marriage comes about we need to consider the changing history of marriage and what in this time and place is intrinsic to marriage.

In biblical times patriarchy, as well as polygamy, was normative. Marriage was for the purpose of granting property rights and protecting bloodlines. While the Jesus movement challenged a number of patriarchy’s assumptions, including the presumed inequality before God of men and women, as time passed male dominance returned. 

This overarching belief was prevalent in the Church’s understanding of marriage right up until the 20th century. The 1662 Anglican Prayer Book has the woman vowing ‘to obey’ her husband, but not vice versa. 

The 1928 Prayer Book however deletes the words ‘to obey’. Likewise the 1989 New Zealand Prayer Book has the assumption throughout of a mutual and equal relationship. 

What was considered for centuries to be intrinsic to marriage has over last 100 years changed, namely the unequal power relationship between men and women.

Another fundamental change to our understanding of marriage has been the necessity for this union to produce children. Although children have always been the result of both licit and illicit unions, marriage seemed to be a way to mark out who would be groomed to inherit and who would not. The idea of children being valued and cherished for their own sake, regardless of their sex or birth order, was foreign.

The 1662 Prayer Book states that marriage was “ordained for the procreation of children”. It says nothing about mutual affection and commitment between the couple.

However the 1989 New Zealand Prayer Book does not presume that a couple will try to have children, or must have children, or are unfulfilled or failing God if they don’t. Rather it talks about marriage providing “the stability necessary for family life, so that children may be cared for lovingly and grow to full maturity”. The wording does not preclude relationships other than marriage providing similar stability. 

At one time the procreation of children was seen as intrinsic to marriage. While the Church still cares deeply about the nurture and upbringing of children it does not see this as intrinsic to the sacrament of marriage. Rather it is the commitment of the couple, and the loving long-term quality of that commitment, that is at the heart of the sacrament.

It is time that the Church reconsidered what we understand by the sacrament of marriage. What were considered marriage’s unshakeable foundations in the past, like male dominance and procreation, are no longer. Likewise we need to consider how foundational is having two opposite sex partners. Should the sacrament of marriage pointing as it does to a depth of mutual love, equality, self-giving commitment, and fidelity be solely the preserve of the heterosexual majority?