In November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in a divided opinion, declared that only
full marriage rights for gay couples (not just civil unions) would comply with the Massachusetts State
Constitution. The court's opinion, in part, stated: "For no rational reason the marriage laws of the
Commonwealth [of Massachusetts] discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language
will eradicate that stain, a person who enters an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is
arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions."
The Massachusetts court then ordered the state to begin performing same sex marriages by mid-May 2004.
Partly in response to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision, Ohio passed a Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA) in February 2004, which states in part: "A marriage may only be entered into by one man
and one woman." There is concern that a future court may determine Ohio's Defense of Marriage Act to be
unconstitutional. As a result, a petition drive has been launched to enshrine in the Ohio State
Constitution the current statutory definition of marriage as a union between one woman and one man. There
is likewise an effort to enshrine this definition of marriage in the Federal Constitution (although such an
effort will likely be unsuccessful).
Sincere Christians can differ regarding the best way to approach the issue of gay marriage. Some
Christians believe that moral persuasion ought to be the exclusive instrument used by Christians. Such
Christians reject the use of political power either because they believe it is unduly coercive, or because
they believe that it is ineffective.
Other Christians believe that a combination of moral persuasion and political action offers the best
response to the gay marriage issue. These Christians would argue that if "we, after all, are citizens of
our country, we have a stake in America's future-not just for us, but in love, for all of our country's
citizens. We Christians have the right to influence our democratic institutions as much as anyone else."
But even among Christians that believe in the use of political action, differences can be discovered.
Some urge the passage of constitutional amendments. Others are satisfied by legislation alone. Some want
to federalize the definition of marriage. Others believe that marriage is inherently a state issue.
Whatever political differences we Christians have concerning the best political approach to gay marriage,
I believe a strong Christian consensus can be reached concerning the moral arguments against gay marriage.
I will try to address a few of these very briefly:
What is the basis and meaning of marriage? In Genesis 2, after having created the woman out of the man,
God brought the woman to Adam (much as a bride's father today gives her away). In response to meeting the woman,
Adam spontaneously shouted: "At last (in contrast to the beasts and the birds), this is now bone of my bones and
flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman' for she was taken out of man."
The deduction that the narrator draws from the creation of woman and Adam's declaration follows in Genesis
2:24: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become
one flesh." According to theologian John Stott's wonderful commentary, Genesis 2:24 communicates to us the
constituent parts of a marriage: a) Therefore "a man" (the singular indicates that marriage is an exclusive
union between two individuals), b) "shall leave his father and mother" (a public social occasion is in view), c)
"and cleave to his wife" (marriage is a loving, cleaving commitment or covenant, which is heterosexual and
permanent), d) "and they will become one flesh" (marriage must be consummated in sexual intercourse, which is
more than a union; it is a kind of reunion between two people who were originally one, and then separated from
each other, but now in the sexual encounter of marriage come together again.)
Thus, scripture defines marriage as a God-given institution. It is not a human creation, or a gift of society
or the state, but rather is a gift of God. This God-given institution of marriage involves the union of one man
and one woman, which must be publicly acknowledged (the leaving of parents), permanently sealed (he will "cleave
to his wife"), and physically consummated by intercourse ("one flesh").
The Bible evidences other forms of marriage (in the Old Testament) such as polygamy, but it never endorses
anything other than heterosexual, monogamous marriage.
Isn't such a meaning of marriage valid just for Christians? In asserting that God created us for
heterosexual permanent unions, the Bible does not presuppose that those who embrace this must be Christian. The
institution of marriage is given to all by God including those who profess no faith in Jesus Christ. The basis
and meaning of marriage is grounded in creation, not in the redemption found in Jesus Christ. The created order
is a universal, for all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, culture or personal faith. The meaning of
marriage is built into the very structure of all human societies.
Isn't marriage just a legally recognized contract by the state? Why shouldn't the state have the right to
redefine marriage as culture changes? Some politicians and political activists make marriage sound like a really
good employee benefits plan. In other words, marriage is created by the state in order to assist spouses to make
decisions in medical emergencies, to make unlimited transfers and gifts to one another without paying taxes, to
offer automatic rights to inherit without a will, and to, for example, receive Social Security and Veteran
payments upon the death of a spouse.
But marriage is infinitely more than a really good employee benefits program. Again, marriage was not created
by the state. Marriage was created by God and is simply recognized by the state because marriage supports
important state functions such as reproducing the next generation in as healthy an environment as possible.
Why should the right to marry be denied to someone just because he or she may be gay? No one is denied
the right to marry based upon sexual orientation. Rather, the state (and the scriptures) defines which partner a
person may legitimately marry. Both the state and the scriptures prohibit incestuous marriages (such as the
marriage between brothers and sisters, or children and parents). Likewise, the state has historically restricted
marriage based upon such criteria as age and sanity. In short, no one has a "unfettered right to marry." The
issue has always been, which marriages ought to be recognized by society?
Christian people are sympathetic to gays who want the permanence, acceptance, stability, and constraints on
promiscuity, which marriage provides. We all have a human need for companionship. "It is not good for a man to
be alone." This assertion was qualified when the apostle Paul (echoing Genesis) wrote: "It is good for a man not
to marry" (1 Cor. 7:1). In other words, the apostle Paul stated that while marriage may be the good institution
of God, the call to singleness might also be the good gift of God for some. But as a general rule, people need
and desire the companionship of other people.
Genesis 2 reveals God's provision to meet this human need. God's provision is a person who can be the
complement, the counterpart to one's self, namely a marriage partner in a heterosexual union. What we see in gay
marriage is a genuine human longing being lived out in a distorted way.
A Christian conclusion would be to not endorse a distorted version of marriage, but rather to offer to gays,
as well as broken heterosexual persons, the healing of their longing for marriage through God's power and grace.
And for those who do not find companionship in a heterosexual union, God provides the church of Jesus Christ to
be our family.
How does a gay couple getting married undermine heterosexual marriage? Gay marriage is not a
sideline issue, but rather strikes at the heart of the meaning of marriage. Is marriage something given to us by
God that we receive or is marriage, rather, a cultural creation that certain human communities decided to
recognize because it met certain needs at a particular time of history? If it is the latter, then as social
conditions change, societies have a right to reconfigure marriage so as to change its very definition. Thus, the
clash is between two very different worldviews: A worldview that recognizes certain things such as marriage and
life itself as gifts of God, and a worldview that sees such things as merely cultural constructions.
Another way to understand the significance of this debate is to see it as a clash between the rights of
unfettered individualism versus the responsibilities we have to live as a community. Stanley Fish, the Dean of
the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said, "There is an abiding
struggle…between those who embrace the libertarian ethic of complete freedom, pursuing whatever happiness you
want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, and others who say what is required is a society that rewards
virtue, and that actively discourages unhealthy activity, in order to allow the most happiness for the most
people." Christians would add to this that doing the will of God not only promotes the majority's happiness, but
promotes the happiness of the person who does God's will. In other words, refusing to sanction immoral behavior
is not only good for the culture; it is good for an individual who stops behaving immorally.
But can't gay marriages be loving? A Christian must ask how does one define love? Jesus said, "If you
love me, you will keep my commandments." And the apostle Paul wrote, "Love is the fulfilling [not the violation]
of the law." True love, therefore, must be consistent with God's commandments. Love is concerned with the
highest welfare of the beloved. And the highest human welfare is found in obedience to God's law and purpose,
not in rebellion against God's law.
On a number of occasions, I've had married people tell me that they had fallen in love with someone who is not
their spouse. They say: "I know I have a wife and family, but I've never felt the way I do concerning this
other person. We were made for each other. Our love has a quality and a depth that I've never known before.
Because I love this person, our relationship must be right." But their relationship is not right! A person is
not justified in breaking their marriage covenant based upon "love." Love must be defined by a standard. The
standard is obedience to the commands of God.
As a moral matter, I believe that Christians must conclude that gay marriage is opposed to God's design for
marriage. Further, I believe that Christians ought to oppose any attempt to enshrine a redefinition of marriage
into state law. Such attempts, however well-intentioned, attack the very structure of our God-given humanity and
the foundations of our society.
