I like going to weddings now. It's a party with food and music and drinks and sometimes friends you know and other times friend you know. It's especially good having a built in date, because stressing over whether or not you're serious enough to invite a girl to a wedding, especially if it's far a way, is some jive I just don't need. It just stinks when Dr. Sighted can't make it, because while you can dance to My Humps in a group, Can't Help Falling In Love doesn't really work the same way.
The reception isn't all that's nice about it, though. The weddings themselves are part of what makes them good, too. The ceremony serves as a reminder of the seriousness and sanctity of my own marriage, and how nice it is that Dr. Sighted will be Dr. Sighted forever. (Answer: pretty darn nice.)
We traveled to, of all places, North Carolina for a wedding this weekend (man and woman, of course) and with all the talk that's been going on about the amendment and the Dan Savage video flying around facebook and what not, thinking about my own marriage is not the only heady topic that came up this time.
On the drive up here, Dr. Sighted asked me, "Why do people who aren't [religious] even want to get married anyway?" Hers is a more cynical view that if you are not asking for God's blessing on a permanent union, then what difference does it make anyway, aside from tax and medical conveniences. It really amounts to, I think, that when religious people say the word "marriage" they mean something different than when the non-religious do.
I'm not sure whether marriage was first a religious or civil institution, but the modern Western conception of marriage is clearly so colored by its religious character that it's hard to say it's not a religious one now. Religious marriage is a joining of a man and woman before God that is severable only by death or, in bad cases, "sexual immorality," as per Matthew 19:1-11 (which also is a part where Jesus expounds on what marriage means). For Kim Kardashian, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, marriage means something else. And shame on us for letting people like that abuse the institution without calling them out on it.
There is, though, in addition to this religious ceremony a package of civil benefits that goes along with that because it was in the state's interest to encourage this sort of association. That package of benefits got called marriage too because most everyone who got them also did the religious thing, too, so there wasn't really any trouble. I think that we as religious people may have done a disservice to the institution of marriage by allowing the package of associational benefits to be conflated (in name, certainly) with the promise to spouse and God.
The discussion this week has been not just about preventing gay "marriage" but also the package of associational benefits as well in the state I am in right now. I don't think there is really any Biblical basis for a Christian religious marriage between two people of the same sex. I don't really see why there shouldn't be a contractual means for creating a package of benefits for, really, any pair of people for inheritance, medical and some other benefits.
The rest of it -- the dancing, the music, the drinks -- is a celebration mostly for show. Just ask Kim Kardashian. And there has been nothing stopping anybody from throwing a party for any reason they want.
3 comments:
Modern marriage is a contractual agreement between two consenting adults. At this point, any religious objection should be overridden as the word has a secular meaning tying it to benefits and rights not associated with any religion. In essence I believe we agree, but I think many people believe that "marriage" is an established portion of religion when if it were we should not have any laws pertaining to it at all. (Congress not being allowed to make laws respecting an establishment of religion and all.)
And just because they preach this at Pride on a regular basis to try and get people into the church. The argument for gay marriage as shown in the book of Matthew: http://www.marriagealliance.co.za/spirituality/would-jesus-discriminate/jesus-affirmed-a-gay-couple-matthew-85-13.html
I think a compelling argument for the disassociation of government and marriage can be made, but an encouragement of stable households is certainly in the state's interest, so I'm kind of ambivalent on the subject.
The second paragraph, however is far more interesting. I've never seen that articulated like that before. It's a beautiful passage about sincerity of faith. However, even if that analysis is true, I don't think it is necessarily an affirmation of the relationship; Christ is affirming the Centurion's faith.
If we accept His non-judgment of the couple as an endorsement of their lifestyle, then it is also an endorsement of buying the kid or the oppression of Rome or whatever other underlying (and non-central) feature you want to attach to the story.
There are a few things, though, that are important: the centurion is not excluded from Jesus's work (and salvation) nor is his good faith overshadowed by his [potential] homosexuality. (I think a similar argument can be made from John 8:1-11.) I think that's very significant, because the inclusiveness of the message is not always well publicized to gays; in fact, it often goes the other way, and that sucks.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. As you said - the lack of inclusiveness sucks...particularly when the bible is rather clear on God's inclusiveness.
Post a Comment