But if Christian values, along with a desire to promote a pro-family agenda, are the motivations behind the gay marriage ban, one would expect that these same advocates would be advocating a ban on divorce and re-marriage as well, institutions at least as un-Christian as same-sex marriages. And yet, while 15 states have now approved referendums enacting gay marriage bans into their state constitutions, none of them has voted to ban divorce and re-marriages, or even to make them more restrictive.
Texas has one of the most permissive divorce laws in the nation. "Second and third marriages" -- concepts as foreign to Christianity as are same-sex marriages -- are not just common, but also accepted, both socially and under the law.
How can Christians possibly allow – and, worse, enthusiastically participate in – the continuation of permissive divorce laws which plainly violate Christian beliefs?
After all, there is little doubt that Christianity prohibits divorce every bit as much as it does same-sex marriages. As one Methodist minister and Associate Professor of Old Testament put it:
Jesus himself explicitly prohibits divorce and remarriage in the New Testament (in Matthew 5:31-32, 19:3-9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18). For Jesus, remarrying a divorced person constitutes adultery, a serious sin which the entire Bible has much to say about.Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D. of Andrews University, explains that while some liberal Christians claim that there is a narrow exception in the Gospels allowing divorce on the grounds of adultery, there is no question that:
The teaching of Jesus is fundamental to the study of the Biblical view of divorce and remarriage because Jesus clarifies the reason for the Old Testament concession (Deut 24:1) and reaffirms God’s creational design for marriage to be a permanent, indissoluble covenant. . . . .The permanence of the marital union is every bit as fundamental to the Christian concept of marriage as is the requirement of having a man and a woman. Christians are required, of course, to vow to God to remain with their spouse "‘till death do us part" and "for as long as we both shall live." Christian ministers routinely proclaim: "That which God has brought together, let no one put asunder."
God’s original plan consists of a man and a woman being united in a marriage bond so strong that the two actually become one flesh (Gen 2:26; Matt 19:6; Mark 10:8). The "one flesh" unity of the couple is reflected especially in their offspring who partake of the genetic characteristics of father and mother, and the two are absolutely inseparable. Jesus affirms that it is God Himself who actually joins together a couple in marriage and what God has joined together no human being has the right to separate.
And yet, the divorce laws of Texas could not possibly be further away from Christian teaching. Obtaining a divorce in Rick Perry’s Texas is shockingly easy. Texas law allows "No Fault Divorces" -- about the most un-Christian law possible. Under that law, to obtain a divorce, one need merely be able to demonstrate one of two very permissive grounds:
No-Fault Divorce Grounds: (1) the marriage has become insupportable because of discord or conflict of personalities that has destroyed the legitimate ends of the marriage relationship and prevents any reasonable expectation of reconciliation; or this no-fault ground (2) living separate and apart without cohabitation for 3 years.
That’s all there is to it. If you are a Texas citizen who wants to violate the marital vows you made before God by tearing apart your marital union -- a union which, according to Christian doctrine, God has mandated be permanent and indissoluble -- all you have to do is claim that you have irreconcilable differences with your spouse, or live apart for three years, and the divorce is yours.
And Texans, like citizens in every state which has banned gay marriages, are taking advantage of these anti-Christian divorce laws with great enthusiasm. While the lowest divorce rate in the country belongs to the first state to legalize gay marriages (Massachusetts, at 2.4 per 1,000 population), Texas is in the top half of divorcing states with a rate of 4.1. The highest divorce rates are in the Bible Belt.
Put another way, the states which insist on banning same-sex marriages because Christianity prohibits such marriages simultaneously enjoy laws which allow its citizens to divorce and re-marry whenever the mood strikes, even though such divorces and re-marriages are plainly prohibited by Christian teaching. Indeed, by allowing re-marriages, these states affirmatively recognize and legally sanction relationships which Christianity considers to be sinful and adulterous.
Worse, permissive divorce is not only undeniably anti-Christian, but, as a study released just this week reveals, it is a phenomenon which shatters the lives of our nation’s children.
And yet, not only do most pro-family activists focus on gay marriages to the almost complete exclusion of talking about the epidemic of divorce, many of them are themselves divorced and re-married, having taken advantage of the very permissive, anti-Christian marriage laws which they claim to oppose.
The congregations frequented by Gov. Perry are filled with divorced and re-married church goers, as are the mailing lists of the pro-family groups which are most vocal in their opposition to same-sex marriage. When Gov. Perry condemns same-sex marriage on the grounds that it violates Christianity, he is condemning very few of his constituents and political allies, since, presumably, virtually none of them want to enter such a marriage.
But if Gov. Perry were to condemn the equally un-Christian institutions divorce and re-marriage on the same religious ground, and if here were to advocate a Constitutional amendment banning divorce and re-marriage, scores of his constituents and allies would be personally implicated, since so many of them have either already divorced and re-married, or want to keep the right to do so, even though doing so is plainly prohibited by Christianity.
Is it really a mystery why Rick Perry proudly opposes same-sex marriages on the ground that he is a Christian, but says absolutely nothing about the profoundly anti-Christian divorce laws in his State? And how can Christians justify the continuation of such plainly anti-Christian divorce laws even in those states where pro-family politicians control almost every aspect of government.
Shouldn’t Texas also be voting on Tuesday for a referendum to ban divorce and re-marriage, and shouldn't Gov. Perry be supporting such a referendum on the ground that he cited for his support of the gay marriage ban: "I am a Christian and this is about values."
Yeah, well, Bob was the primary author of the Defense of Marriage Act and he is on his third wife. Rush Limbaugh is on his fourth or fifth or something. Ronald Reagan dumped his first wife to marry Nancy.
ReplyDeleteAll of these marriages are totally un-Christian and yet these people are somehow allowed to parade around as pro-family examples of virture in Christian marriages.
The seem to think that the only rule for traditional marriage is that you need a man and woman - they forget all the other rules because those are the ones they want to violate.
Great post. I wanted to know that I cited you and linked back on my blog, Pam's House Blend.
ReplyDeleteThanks for presenting such a forceful argument for civil equality.
A very well argued post which I couldn't agree with more. And I am an evangelical Christian.
ReplyDeleteThere is another parallel in society which I find just as hypocrytical amoungst my Christian brothers and sisters. That is the expressed horror by Christians about gay sexual relations (reference the TX *AGAIN* sodomy case) while they do a wink wink nudge nudge over adultery and premarital sex. I confess I am dumbfounded in each of these instances.
I personally can not come by a good legal argument against SSM. That doesn't mean that deep down I'm not elated by what the states are doing. I just can't figure out how they justify it and why their moral zeal is so, for lack of a better word, discrimanatory.
I wondered about this for a long time, and here's the explanation I came up with. It seems that for many fundamentalists, being "born again" is like a reset switch. So once you get born again, any failed marriages you've had in the past no longer count. Your current marriage is the "real" one, in the eyes of God. The problem with gays is that they just keep on being gay. Their "sins" aren't in the past. At least, that seems to be how some people view it.
ReplyDeleteAntigone-
ReplyDeleteThe only problem is, this isn't going to get Christians to accept that the government can't regulate religion...this is going to encourage them to try and ban divorce.
These are not the only words of Jesus that professed Christians overlook. For example, Matthew 5:40-42 "If a man wants to sue you for your coat, let him have it and your overcoat as well. If anybody forces you to go a mile with him, do more - go two miles with him. Give to the man who asks anything from you, and don't turn away from the man who wants to borrow."
ReplyDeleteor Matthew 6:14-15 - "For if you forgive other people their failures, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you will not forgive other people, neither will your Heavenly Father forgive you your failures." That's the deal with being a Christian. If you don't forgive -- and truly forgive in your heart, not just say you're doing so, your sins are not forgiven.
or Matthew 6:19-21 - "Don't pile up treasures on earth, where moth and rust can spoil them and thieves can break in and steal. But keep your treasure in Heaven where there is neither moth nor rust to spoil it and nobody can break in and steal. For wherever your treasure is, you may be certain that your heart will be there too!"
or "Judge not lest ye be judged"
Very few of those who profess Christianity are practicing anything that at all resembles it.
Visit the Paranoid Pessimist weblog:
http://paranoidpessimist.blogspot.com/
Shorter Glenn Greenwald: Social conservatives who bring their world view into the voting booth consider homosexuality a graver evil than divorce. How dare they!
ReplyDeleteBut, contrary to Mr. Greenwald's claim, such a stance is not hypocritical, nor necessarily even bad Christian theology. It's just a difference in priorities -- and one that likely has at least some basis in Christian moral teaching.
After all, a couple that goes through civil divorce could always get back together. Indeed if such a couple ever needed to civilly divorce for legal reasons, it could remain happily married in the Christian sense. No less a staunch theological opponent of divorce than the Roman Catholic Church teaches that that there is nothing inherently wrong with laws that accommodate civil divorce, because one party to a marriage could well possess justifiable reasons for needing the protections of the law against, say, an abusive partner (even if, in the eyes of the Church, the abusive behavior itself does nothing to obviate the sacramental marriage per se).
So, although yoy may not agree with the opposition of some social conservatives to the concept of homosexual marriage, your charge of inconsistency is off the mark.
There is another parallel in society which I find just as hypocrytical amoungst my Christian brothers and sisters. That is the expressed horror by Christians about gay sexual relations (reference the TX *AGAIN* sodomy case) while they do a wink wink nudge nudge over adultery and premarital sex.
Christians are rightly bothered more by homosexual sex than by illicit heterosexual sex because the latter can result in a God-given good, children. Indeed, some kinds of illicit heterosexual relationships (ones involving, say, pre-marital sex) can be "righted" through holy matrimony. But this is never the case with homosexual sex, because of its intrinsically evil nature. So, the Christians you describe might be a bit untidy in their moral philosophy, but their intsincts are quite correct.
Contra Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYour points on the merits of civil divorce per se are correct, but you ignore most of Glenn's arguments to get there. Note that first, Glenn objects not to the very possibility of divorce but primarily to "no-fault" divorce. In the case of adultery or abuse, fault is clearly involved. Second, your position does not justify the possibility of second marriages, as presumably one does not need to marry again in order to gain the legel protections of divorce.
I do think there's probably a more nuanced point to be made here somewhere, but I don't think you succeed at it.