by James Lynne

Created on: August 11, 2008   Last Updated: January 19, 2009

The argument that marriage should be a sacred institution between only a man and a woman, under force of US law, is ultimately doomed, not because of the biology of it or the practicality of it, or the tradition of it; rather, because of the "religion" of it. Building a successful case for gay marriage requires only that we factor out the term "sacred" from the legal definition of marriage.

It is the "application" of the word "sacred" as force of law that we must contend with, in establishing a case for gay marriage. We must examine marriage within the context of two separate jurisdictions, religious and civil. The primary goal in a democracy is to protect the rights and privileges of all citizens, not only the religious. All Americans do not have a religious leaning; however, all Americans are guaranteed civil liberty through the Constitution of the United States Government. By extension, that includes all gay Americans.

It has been humorous to me over the last several years observing defenders of "marriage as a sacred institution between one man and one woman". Unfortunately, these folk have little awareness of Biblical marriage. The Biblical concept of marriage ultimately gets around to promoting the concept of "one man - one woman" such as in the apostle Paul's admonition to deacons "to be the husband of one woman," in the New Testament. However, that arrangement is more a sidenote than it is the tradition. The preponderance of Biblical marriage reference is about "one man - many wives," and has little relationship to the modern, American concept of sacred marriage that we claim to be Biblical. The concept of "marriage being a sacred institution between one man and one woman" as Biblical is actually more urban legend than Biblical.

One aspect of Biblical marriage and modern marriage is common, though. That is the use of marriage to convey legal protection and legal rights to the parties of the marriage. In Biblical culture, both Old and New Testament, women were without legal and civil rights beyond those covered by their marriages. Marriages were actually "treaties" between families to create extended wealth, influence, and protection. Girls were "given in marriage" by their families in exchange for "dowry" and the influence of extended family in this manner. Men customarily took multiple wives to extend their wealth and their influence. Marriage in this context was not about anything sacred, and generally not even about love. It was about civil and legal

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>