Since my visit to witness the activity surrounding Proposition 8 and DOMA at the Supreme Court last week, I've been reflecting on one of the refrains voiced by supporters of keeping marriage between one man and one woman. This argument builds on both natural law arguments and portions of the Bible to posit that since gay couples cannot conceive children on their own due to biological restrictions, their unions cannot properly be called “marriage,” since one of the prerequisites for marriage is the ability to conceive children or, in other words, to experience fruitfulness.
While there might be other compelling arguments for while marriage should be between one man and one woman, I find the aforementioned reasoning problematical. Here’s why:
1. The argument places a premium on naturally conceived children in a way that undercuts the narrative of Gentiles’ adoption by God- It’s no secret that we Gentiles came late to the “God game.” Jesus reminds the Woman at the Well in John 4:22 that “Salvation is from the Jews,” a theme picked up by the Apostle Paul in Romans 11:17 when he writes that, “But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, (Gentiles), a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the rich root of the olive tree, do not boast over the branches.” Paul goes onto write in verse 24 of that same chapter, “For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree?” Paul’s purpose in this passage is to ward off any haughtiness in the Gentile Christians’ hearts and remind them that they were grafted (contrary to nature, no less!) into the family of God. Paul will later use the language of adoption in Ephesians 1:5 to echo this theme. Paul’s position points to a family of God constituted by children “naturally conceived” (via Abraham) and those adopted (Gentiles). I would argue that the Christianunderstanding of marriage is about holiness before it is about conceiving children. Marriages are, in a way, micro intentional communities by which we are challenged to become more like Jesus. When married couples have children, their intentional community expands to include these new members. Thus, for these communities, whether they are populated by new members entrusted to us by blood or by baptism is perhaps inconsequential it in light of the type of family construction God presents to us in Scripture.
2. The argument diminishes children brought into our marriages and families through other means- Preachers like to quote the book of Esther when it comes time to raise money for a new church roof or to replace the sanctuary carpet. After all, what better way to get people to open their wallets than by prodding them with the notion that God has blessed them with a hefty bank account balance “for such a time as this.” (Esther 4:14)? Nevertheless, the book of Esther presents us with another important lesson on the construction of family. Keep in mind that there is no Hebrew word for “adoption” and the concept of adoption is found nowhere else in the Old Testament. However, for some reason, perhaps a situation born out of the Jews’ exile, Mordecai takes his cousin Esther into his family. The two make an odd family at that. Mordecai does not appear to be married and no information is given regarding the disappearance of Esther’s father or mother. However, this rather strange family ultimately saves the Jewish people throughout the kingdom of Persia. While this narrative certainly has no direct parallel to the sanctioning of same-sex unions, it does ask us to reconsider our notion of family and children, even when it flies in the face of our tightly held traditions and social constructs.
3. The argument potentially transforms the act of conceiving children into a self-serving rather than a self-giving act- I know more than a few married couples who were not able to conceive children through natural means. Some turned to adoption, some redirected their energies and time towards deeper service to God, and others spent anywhere from ten to fifteen thousand dollars on an in vitro fertilization procedure. I do not want to make a value judgment on individuals who choose to spend thousands of dollars to conceive a child, but I do wonder if individuals sometimes make these choices because we in the church have developed false constructs of what marriage is for and what marriage should look like. Namely, when we make the ability (or possibility) to conceive children the litmus test of what may or may not be called marriage, are we not indirectly (at the very least) inculcating into couples a proclivity towards pursuing expensive treatments to bring a child into the world over the consideration of the countless children who will spend the rest of their lives being ping ponged throughout a troubled foster care system?
This is the dilemma of discipleship undercutting the entire argument. If the purpose of married couples conceiving children naturally is to populate the earth (this doesn't seem to be as much of a problem as it was in the Old Testament- I’m just saying), carry on our personal legacy, or give validity to our marriages, then the act of conception risks being birthed in a seed of self-service. In other words, we need this child to give our marriage meaning. However, if the arrival of children into a marriage is an act of giving- I am giving this life a chance, I am creating the possibility for making the world a better place through this life, our marriage has created a loving space for this life- then the introduction of children into our marriages becomes something completely different- it becomes almost sacramental and therefore dependent on God’s actions and not ours.
I don’t deny that opponents of same sex marriage might have other arguments for their cause. However, I also believe that any argument against same-sex marriage predicated on the possibility of conceiving children is a faulty one in light of God’s story told through Scripture. The story of God continues to confound us, surprise us, and challenge our conception of existence. Things unclean become clean. The unnatural becomes the status quo. The tick tock of death hanging over our heads becomes muffled by the roar of a stone rolled away on Easter morning. And maybe, just maybe, our marriages move us closer to the vision of God’s good future where our children begin to look less like they were the products of our own striving for self-validation, and more the abundance of God’s grace in our lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment