Mark Gali, writing for Christianity Today, explores how an individualistic worldview compromises the Christian witness on the issue of heterosexual marriage. He makes many of the points that I’ve raised here (see my posts citing Maggie Gallagher) and in With One Voice, citing folks like David Blankenhorn (particularly on the societal implications of marriage). The article is also a good, brief overview of the history of the legal battles in the USA on this matter.
Excerpts of Gali’s article:
“While stopping short of abortion, we have not given much thought to our easy acceptance of artificial contraception. I’m not arguing for or against contraception here, only pointing to the reality that contraception has separated sex from procreation. That, in turn, has prompted most couples, evangelicals included, to think that sex is first and foremost a fulfilling psychological and physical experience, that a couple has a right to enjoy themselves for a few years before they settle down to family life.”
“In essence, we have already redefined marriage as an institution designed for personal happiness. . .
We cannot very well argue for the sanctity of marriage as a crucial social institution while we blithely go about divorcing and approving of remarriage at a rate that destabilizes marriage. We cannot say that an institution, like the state, has a perfect right to insist on certain values and behavior from its citizens while we refuse to submit to denominational or local church authority. We cannot tell gay couples that marriage is about something much larger than self-fulfillment when we, like the rest of heterosexual culture, delay marriage until we can experience life, and delay having children until we can enjoy each other for a few years….
In short, we have been perfect hypocrites on this issue.”
HT: Denny Burk
Price will come to about $8.75/copy (including shipping). Please allow 7-10 days for delivery. (Sales tax has been added for CA purchases, per CA law.)
I’d say it’s over if this is the best gay marriage opponents can do.
After describing marriage as being fundamentally a license to have children – I *think* the implication is that it shouldn’t be granted to homosexuals because they can’t have children even though they can adopt? (Let’s be more careful about marginalizing adoption! Please!) – the author says “The argument is nuanced, and goes on to take into account heterosexual couples who will not or cannot have children.” Oops, blew his entire argument out of the water. Did he forget to edit out this line to at least pretend to expound a coherent argument? I don’t know.
“In short, we have been perfect hypocrites on this issue.” I get how someone who has a divorce and argues against gay marriage is a hypocrite. But how are the rest hypocrites? Someone who uses birth control in order to postpone having children? Is gay marriage wrong for the same reasons that is wrong? I suppose I can fully support overturning prop 8, then, because this is *inane*. Leaving a church for doctrinal issues? What is he babbling about? Am I a hypocrite for leaving a church because I find out it supports gay marriage? Hmm? Gotcha there, didn’t I, Mark Galli?!
I love this line about birth control: “That, in turn, has prompted most couples, evangelicals included, to think that sex is first and foremost a fulfilling psychological and physical experience, that a couple has a right to enjoy themselves for a few years before they settle down to family life.” I don’t even know where to start. Does enjoyment stop once you have children?