Warning: this post contains graphic and disturbing content. It could be disturbing to minors, victims of abuse, and conservatives.
As the cultural war wages on in our midst, I have recently begun thinking about the sides of the "marriage debate." You know, that push in our country to legally recognize a life-long partnership between 2 people of the same gender. Each side has its own buzz words and catch phrases aimed at mobilizing a nation of outraged citizens to go vote for the correct side. On one side you have people likening themselves to the civil rights movement of the mid 20th century in which Americans of African descent gained equal rights, even if equal status has lagged by decades and isn't even fully enjoyed now that the African-American domestic servants in the White House serve an African-American family in residence. On the other side, you have the champions of "traditional marriage" holding up their Bibles and praying that God will end his wrath and ravage against our country for this sin of immorality that now plagues us. And the more I began to think about it, the more this phrase "traditional marriage" began to bother me. For some strange reason, it does not invoke the warm-fuzzy comfort of happy familial stability I think its users intend. In fact, as the mother of 2 beautiful girls it concerns and frightens me more than anything. And so, as when anything bothers me, I began to think and dig a little into why "traditional marriage" sparked such a response from me.
First of all, as many of you already know that I am a radical left-wing voter, likely communist and all, I have some confessions to make. 1) I am, and have been my whole life, an openly heterosexual female. I am sorry to shock you like this, but I cannot help it. This is the way God made me. I have been happily married for over 6 years now. I wish I could say it causes me pain to admit this, but the truth is, this is who I have always been, this is who I will always be and I see my orientation as a gift from a loving God who has also given me a wonderful life-partner with whom I share my innermost self. I can no more help my orientation than I can help my short stature, which you might now judge to be the wrath of God upon me for my deviant nature. 2) My marriage is actually recognized as legal and valid by state, federal and church authorities, having been sworn in the presence of about 75 witnesses including at least 2 priests and a bishop (who shall remain nameless lest his moral character be called into question by those who oppose such actions). 3) I am a fundamentalist Christian. That's right, you're looking for a biblical literalist? Well here I am. Go ahead, throw the book at me, I'll throw it right back. Was the earth created in 7 days? Yes! If you're going to believe in an all powerful God, why limit his creative powers to the span of millennia? Was the world destroyed by flood saving only the Arc's inhabitants? You betcha, would you like me to show you where Genesis says so? And Jesus, was he everything you've heard: son of God, God incarnate, endowed with healing powers, Messiah and all? Undoubtedly. He moved over the waters of creation and came to live among us as promised by prophecy, dying a savior and reigning in heaven as king. And get this, I know all of this because the living savior has a personal relationship with me - I know, I am now certifiable. Read on, it gets better. 4) I am a "values voter". That's right, now that I have confessed the truth about my faith and identity, I will admit that I have tampered in the legal structure of this country by voting my religion. I know the separation of church and state is dictated in the constitution, but I cannot help it. Jesus said to heal the sick, so I support universal health care including Medicare and Medicaid. Jesus said "if you love me, feed my sheep", so I support social welfare programs including (but not limited to) food stamps, public housing, unemployment benefits and social security. I could go on, but it only gets worse from here. In fact, I may be the most conflicted voter you know, which is why I stick with the words of Jesus almost entirely when making my values voting decisions. I rarely seek the council of wise, seminary-educated men who are most qualified to study the whole of scripture and Christian cultural traditions to draw out the biblical interpretations that should guide me in my application of my values at the polls. To understand that better, see point 3 where I acknowledge my biblical literalism, thereby rejecting interpretation of the Bible.
So now that you know the truth of my fanatical and deviant nature, let's get back to this issue of "traditional marriage" and why it bothers me so much. I have, after all, just confessed to taking part in what would likely be labeled such a marriage by its advocates. But here's the thing: I'm not so sure I accept the picture of marriage being put forth as tradition, and I'm certain I don't want to find myself in a marriage that is truly traditional.
What is "traditional marriage"? How far back do we go to find that definition? Should we start at the Bible? Okay, we'll start there. Lets just look for a moment at Adam and Eve. Were they married? Um, I guess so, she's called his "wife", right? But when? How? Oh, wait, they slept together, so they were married. Wow, poor Eve, she was denied the white dress, the veil and all the lovely bridesmaids. All she got was the wedding night, hope that didn't hurt love, first time and all, because that was your wedding. In fact, it wasn't until 1545 or something that marriage in the Roman Catholic countries was much more than an agreement between 2 people that they were married and the consummation of that agreement - yup, sex; you may know this as common law. Oh, and Paul affirms this sex = marriage standard in 1 Corinthians 6:16. Whoa, bad news for my generation! Most of us are a bunch of polygamists and adulterers because all you have to do to be married by the biblical standard is to have sex. And you thought that one night stand in college had no lasting implications: sorry dude, that is your wife! There's some more great stuff in the Bible too on the subject of marriage. Take King David, for instance: hero, writer of Psalms, king of Israel, father of Solomon, beloved by God, the father of the line that will give birth to the savior. He had 8 wives and he had concubines too. Oh, wait, and his last wife, the mother of Solomon, yeah, she was married to this guy Uriah when she slept with David and got pregnant. No worries, though David had Uriah killed, married his wife, all was good and legitimate, and hey, it would be swell to be a 8th wife, wouldn't it? Uriah had it good, no? No, don't like that? Well, Solomon, revered as the quintessential wise ruler had 700 wives and 300 concubines. How does that fit your traditional tastes? In fact, plural marriage is found throughout the Bible, even Israel himself (you know, father of God's chosen people) had 2 wives, though in his defense, he was tricked into marrying Leah (poor girl), but that clearly wasn't grounds for annulment back then, which would maybe make us take pity on him being forced into multiple marriages, if it weren't for the fact that he slept with his wives' maid servants too. You think your family spends too much on tampons, imagine what these poor guys paid every month! And women had no right to divorce. Solomon's first wife watched him take 699 more, and surely concubines count as infidelity, in any case, she had no right legally to divorce him. So what is so wonderful about this kind of traditional marriage?
Maybe the advocates of "traditional marriage" are taking a purely American view of marriage. So maybe we should look beyond their invocation of biblical authority to the laws of our fine land. Well, for one thing, common law marriage still stands in 9 states and the District of Columbia. But did you know that plural marriage wasn't a federal felony in the United States until 1862? Married women didn't gain the right to own property in their own name in all US states until 1900. Hey, that's great. Imagine you die and to support your wife and kids, you leave them your property like any decent guy would do. Now, your wife gets remarried, as could reasonably be expected, only the new husband turns out to be a looser, sleeps around, hits the kids, so she goes to kick him out. Only she can't. Why? because your wife has no legal claim to that house you built her. Why didn't women rise up in indignation and force change through the polls and proper representation in the government?! Oh, yeah, forgot - they weren't allowed to vote until 1920! And then there are the anti-miscegenation laws Don't know what those are? Think interracial marriage. That was some really archaic stuff, right? Nope, most of these laws only go back to the 17th century, and they still existed in 16 states when the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional in 1967 in the Loving V. Virginia case. But believe it or not, South Carolina and Alabama maintained these prohibitions (though legally unenforceable ) in their state constitutions until 1998 and 2000 respectively. And lest you think interracial marriage was an old taboo, we know it existed in Shakespeare's time from his play Othello, it existed in ancient Egypt, where people of all colors lived, Arab traders intermarried in the various cultures they visited, and it's in the Old Testament. Did you know that, with 2 exceptions: Nazi Germany and South Africa during Apartheid, no other countries had such prohibitions in the 20th century? How nontraditional of us!
There's one other legal aspect of American marriage I want to review, but this one deserves its own paragraph. Before we get to that, I want all of you men to take a moment to think about the woman you revere most in the world. Is it your sister? Your mother? Maybe it's your daughter or your wife. If you can't think of anyone in particular, think of the Blessed Virgin, most favored among women by God, the woman who birthed and reared the Savior himself. Have you thought of her yet? Take a minute if you need to. Okay, picture her in your mind. What's her name? Go ahead- say it, out loud if you don't mind. Good, now I want you to imagine her (no matter who she is) at, let's say 25. Can you see her? Let's say it's evening. Her 2 children are in bed - she's got a 3 year old and a 6 month old, sweet kids too. We find her down on the floor, the 3-year old spilled something, and she's getting around to cleaning it up. Watch her move - gosh she looks tired. Well, who wouldn't be, 2 kids to run around and clean-up after. And she's still nursing that baby, almost full time. Plus there are the diapers, the laundry, the dishes and let's not forget making meals. No surprise she looks tired, oh, and look at her tense up as she moves to the side there, her back is hurting her too. Thankfully the day is just about over and she can go to bed and rest. And here comes her husband, he was such a nice guy when they were dating. But, you know, times are hard, He's down on his luck. He lost his job, and now he's got another one, but the pay is lousy and the hours are worse, not to mention that his co-workers are a bunch of jerks. Look at his face, he's had a bad day, you can see it, maybe he had a drink or 3 after work to try to shake it off, but it's still there. But now he walks into the room where his lovely, tired wife is stooped down on the floor, her bottom sways as she cleans and, well, he is a man after all! He goes over, helps her up, gives her a kiss. Oh and another kiss. Hey, he's liking this, this is good. "Not tonight, sweetheart, my back is really hurting, and I'm so tired" she says gently. Maybe she doesn't want another baby just yet and is worried that could happen tonight. Okay, he changes tactics a little, rubs her back, leans in for some more kissing. She again declines his advances. Now his pride is hurting, he's getting mad. Remember those drinks? Irrational thinking sets in, his anger from the day returns. He tries again, this time when she brushes him off, he grabs her wrist to stop her. Look at her face, he's hurting her. Now that he's got her, he starts in again. She's begging him now to please stop. But he doesn't stop, with her wrist in his hand, he pushes her to the bedroom, onto the bed. Now he can sit on her while he undresses himself and her. She is upset, maybe frightened, maybe angry, maybe both. She is not physically ready for what he is about to do. She is not aroused. As he thrusts himself onto her, into her, it hurts. Over and over, it hurts. She's crying, he doesn't stop. Can you see her? Can you see her tears? How long will it hurt physically? A few minutes? A few days? Weeks, months, years? How long will it hurt her emotionally? Are you going to allow this to happen? Are you going to let him do that to her? Wait, you have no choice, what he's doing is legal. It wasn't until 1993 that spousal rape was recognized throughout all 50 states as a crime. And right now, only 104 of 192 UN member states have laws that provide for spousal rape prosecution, and of those 104, only 32 - less than 1/3- have laws that specifically classify spousal rape as a crime, in the rest it's an ambiguity that can be pursued under general abuse or other crimes. But look at her, she's in pain. Isn't what he's doing wrong?
What's that? Yes, you sir back there reading this, what did you say? St. Paul you say? Oh, you're asking about the submission passages in the epistles of St. Paul, well I am SO glad you brought those up. This is a very important point indeed. We do need to return to the Bible now that we've established that American marriage is anything but traditional. And those submission passages, that's what allows her husband to do this, isn't it? Okay, let's take a look at those. I believe it's 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 that is most often cited here, okay it says "3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." Okay - um, don't know if you saw this, but Paul says that the husband's body belongs to the wife too. Yes, don't deny each other, but she couldn't possibly do to him what he is right now doing to her. If he said "no", if he wasn't in the mood, she couldn't force herself upon him like this. So, what exactly is our duty to our spouse? Okay, so Colossians 3 :18 says "Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." But wait, 19 says: "Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them." - I don't know, I think he's being a little harsh, don't you?. Moving on then, The Ephesians marriage submission passage generally begins at chapter 5, verse 22, but let's just back up a little and read the verse before it because the breaking-up was done by humans, and I want full context here: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. " Did you catch that, he said "submit to one another", very interesting, but of course he doesn't single out husbands, does he? Oh wait, let's read the next part " 25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband." Did you see that? 2 verses describing how wives are to submit, and 9 explaining how husbands are to love their wives. And what model does he use? Christ to the church. Can we look at that for a moment? How did Christ love the church? Did he force himself on us? Nope, free will, remember that part - he left us free to accept or reject him. Did he make us take on his pain and he was flogged and put on the cross? No, look what Isaiah 53:5 says about his death:
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
Not only did he not pass the pain along to us, but he was doing it for us. And this is what Jesus himself said about love in John 15:13 "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." Okay, so if I get this straight, I am supposed to submit to my husband, and he is supposed to love me, and the example we have for this love is the way Jesus loved us to take on our sins, even to the point of death, so that we would not suffer. So is her husband loving her like that? Is he loving her like his own body? I don't think so! Who loves their body and willingly inflicts pain on it? We classify people like that under a variety of diagnoses and call them sick. So there you go, sir. Don't you dare throw St. Paul at me as a justification for your twisted views of marital duty! For centuries men have done so, but Paul's version of marital roles has no place for abuse and rape! Besides, we already decided that the Biblical standard of marriage flies in the face of the "one man, one woman" argument for traditional marriage with all that crazy polygamy stuff. The only people required to have one wife are bishops (or deacons if you're Catholic, but my husband assures me the word used there is actually "Episcopos", and I defer to him because he's the head of our family).
So let me return to my friends who are fighting so hard for traditional marriage. Can you please tell me what that means? What country and what period of history are you claiming? What religious background. In all cases, what we have come to consider a "normal" marriage in the US is a very modern concept. In all cases, the notion that marriage is between one man and one woman is historically untrue. There is nothing traditional about it. And as I've looked at what traditional marriages include: multiple wives, legally sanctioned rape, kidnapping, abuse, a lack of rights for women, lack of choice for men and women, but especially women; can you blame me for recoiling when I hear the words "traditional marriage?" As far as I can tell, no woman should willingly wish this upon herself or her daughters! The definition of marriage has been an ever changing thing since the beginning of recorded history, why are we now insisting on fixing it in a moment of time? With each and every progression in the western world, the institution of marriage has gotten better, become more fair, more equal. For the sake of my daughters, I will not vote for traditional marriage; it is a barbaric institution.
