In Defense of True Marriage

Gordon L. Shull

First published in The (Wooster) Daily Record.  Posted here with the gracious permission of the author.   [12-20-03]

Sooner or later it was bound to happen - a court decision in Massachusetts defending the right of a gay or lesbian couple to get married. A storm of controversy over this issue is just as inevitable. The air crackles with talk about "Defense of Marriage" laws or even constitutional amendments. How shall we think about people who find themselves physically attracted to people of the same gender, then fall in love and ask us to honor their lifetime commitment?

First (as they say) a moment of self-disclosure. I am straight - but not by choice. I cannot name the day or the hour when I decided to be attracted to people of the opposite sex. Can you?

I have two sons who are straight - but not by choice. They never thought the matter over carefully - as when choosing a college or a car - and concluded that, all things considered, it would be better to fall in love with a woman than a man. Did you?

I have a third son who is gay - but not by choice. When he looks back at his own growth as a human being, he realizes that - early on - he was attracted to men. While his buddies admired the pretty girls on TV, he was admiring the handsome guys.. When he dated wonderful young women, and dated them again, there just were no sparks. He hoped it was a passing phase, but it was not. And so - when he met a young man in seminary and the sparks flew - he accepted himself as nature had made him (as it makes some five percent of the animal kingdom, humans included.) Gay.

Dave and his partner, Peter, have been together now for seventeen years. We four parents stood beside them in front of the sanctuary to celebrate their solemn vows. We visit them every year, worshipping in the church they serve as co-pastors in a four-pastor church. No question but that they have found the right vocation. They are strong preachers, wise counsellors. They are a blessing to their church and to each other - and to all who know them.

The words "marriage" and "wedding" were not used in the service for Dave and Peter. I think I was a bit relieved about that. But in my honest moments I wonder why. For Dave and Peter the vows, the commitment, the love were just as real as it was and is for their parents. No matter what we call it, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. So why not call it a rose?

Be that as it may, I am more sure of two things. The first is that Dave and Peter deserve the same rights that Betty and I enjoy. The right to visit one another in the hospital, no questions asked; to receive the same employee and insurance benefits, the same benefits before and after death, the same everything. I personally care much more about these rights than about a particular word - but I suspect that preoccupation with the word masks prejudice against the relationship. And heaven knows, gay couples long for a society that fully acknowledges their full devotion.

I am also sure that Dave and Peter are no threat to the institution of marriage. They joyfully celebrate heterosexual weddings. The youth appreciate their effective leadership, without regard to sexual orientation. What young and old alike see in their pastors is a committed, faithful, healthy relationship. Isn't that what marriage is all about?

What defends marriage? Not a label, but attitudes and deeds that sustain the relationship. Love. Faithfulness. Respect. Thoughtfulness. Wherever we find these in a couple, we find marriage defended - no matter the gender, and no matter what we call it.

And what threatens marriage? Again, not labels but attitudes and deeds. Disrespect. Insensitivity. Adultery. Cruelty. Neglect. Long live our defense of marriage against enemies such as these!

We have come slowly as human beings to our understanding of homosexuality. The writers of the compilation called Leviticus condemned it out of hand (even as they ordered their people not to wear clothing made from two kinds of fabric, nor to eat a whole long list of animals - and to put adulterers to death.) Condemnation is voiced in three of Paul's letters (Romans, Corinthians, Timothy), but the Greek words used there refer to temple prostitution and the abuse of boys. Paul did not deal with sexual orientation, or with lifelong commitment. Had he ever met the likes of Peter and David? We do not know.

Jesus is not on record on this subject. But when asked what is required of us, he answered: love God with both heart and mind, and your neighbor as yourself. On these, he said, hang all the law and the prophets. So our job as children of the Judeo-Christian tradition is to act with goodwill toward all human beings, fully respecting what we learn from science and experience. This combination of love, science and experience must inform or even trump everything else.

James Russell Lowell had it right. "New occasions teach new duties; time makes ancient good uncouth. We must upward still, and onward, who would keep abreast of truth." Is this a bit scary? Not if we hang on to the basic anchor: love of the One who gave us minds as well as hearts, love of neighbors as ourselves, and respect for the gifts of wisdom that science and experience bring. With this as the starting as well as the ending point for our thinking about marriage, we cannot go far wrong.