Much Ado about Sappho

This Election Day, the American voter faces a broad variety of issues, not the least of which includes the choice of candidate who will sit in the Oval Office for the next four years. There are also a number of important propositions that challenge the voter’s notion of right and wrong and how those moral convictions should play out in the voting booth. One such issue is same-sex marriage. Now, the celebration of divergent sexual activity and lifestyles is not, by any means, a novel phenomenon. In Ancient Greece, one of the nine lyric poets known as Sappho produced a great deal of erotic writing in which her narrator expresses feelings of infatuation for other female characters. Sappho was born on the island of Lesbos, which is the origin of the word lesbian. Such issues are still controversial today, and unfortunately, people can be so polarized in their views that maintaining respectful disagreement while casting a conscientious vote is no easy task.

The more I deliberate the issue of same-sex marriage in my mind, the more I realize that any discussion must eventually address the
fundamental differences in worldview that govern the thinking of supporters and opponents. It is at times difficult to form an opinion that is informed, equitable, and morally right, particularly when confronted with the occasionally enormous differences in framework of thought that lead people to their moral convictions. My views certainly lean toward the conservative end of the political spectrum, but my hope is that the more liberally-minded reader will understand that what I have to say is grounded in faith, as opposed to hatred or fear, and furthermore that the more conservatively-minded will regard my views with equal understanding and not presume any unwarranted comradeship grounded in mutual disgust for homosexuals in general. I do not hate homosexuals, though it seems increasingly apparent that to hold a conservative viewpoint on the subject is recognized as a hateful act.

Before getting to the issue of worldview, I suppose it makes the most sense to start at the beginning, with the issue itself. I recently read a statement written by a friend who supports same-sex marriage that went something like this (I’m admittedly paraphrasing here but will do my best, despite my own biases, to be faithful to the true spirit of what the person wrote): I just do not believe in discriminating against someone because their beliefs, personal or religious, differ from mine. That's what is currently happening. This is not new. Interracial marriages were once viewed as an abomination as well. Divorcees who wish to remarry face similar discrimination in the Catholic Church. No one is forcing organized religion to recognize gay marriage. These are civil unions. There is no more religion involved in this case than in common law marriages. There’s a lot in that statement, of course. I’ll try to break down why I believe it to be so flawed, but let me start with my own views on the issue of same-sex marriage.

First, I should say that I do not view marriage as a right per se, though I can certainly understand the frustration of those for whom same-sex relationships pose no moral qualm whatever. I admit that if I approved of gay unions, the resistance to their receiving equitable treatment under the law would be enormously frustrating, and in truth, I think the laws governing civil unions in California and in many other states still need a great deal of work before we can boast equity for monogamous homosexual couples. To me, these couples deserve the same privileges as married couples. But I will never, ever view them as married, primarily because I believe in the sanctity of marriage as a spiritual sacrament. Now, for many, that’s just too much mixing of church and state, and I’ll address that issue as well a little later on. To me, disallowing a gay man to be with his partner in the hospital simply because they are not legally recognized as spouses is a clear example of institutional cruelty. This practice, of course, is grounded in the increasingly litigious trend in our culture that has warped the health care system and other institutions into nightmares of bureaucracy. But this is altogether a separate issue, I believe. My friend was correct in the assertion that a variety of discriminatory practices have been leveled against marriage over the ages, but I think it’s important not to mix apples and oranges. For instance, opposition to interracial marriage is really an example of racial prejudice. And the universal opposition to remarriage that characterizes the Catholic Church is really an example of poor theology grounded in papal adulation. To my way of thinking, they are separate, justifiable struggles that happen to share the same context. So what is the purpose of marriage? Its history is long, and its essential purpose, spiritual or otherwise, has certainly varied somewhat from age to age and culture to culture. But the essence has always been a union between a man and a woman. And yet, I’m not writing this to defend traditional marriage on the grounds of orthopraxy. Proponents of same-sex marriage wish to redefine marriage beyond its historical definition so that same-sex partnerships may be viewed and treated as natural and normal alongside their more traditional counterparts. As far as I can tell, the controversy surrounding this issue comes down to what marriage is understood to be in the minds of supporters and opponents. And to me, it is a spiritual institution.

The next question, of course, is why should this leave me opposed to gay marriage? What is so wrong with homosexuality to begin with? Is it unkind of a Christian such as myself not to accept the lifestyle of a homosexual couple or to wish it blessed as a holy union in marriage? No more unkind, I believe, than to disagree with someone, to hold an opinion separate from theirs. No more unkind than for someone to say to a friend, I don’t agree with what you’re doing. I’m not going to try to stop you, but nor will I support you in doing something with which I wholeheartedly disagree. But why do I disagree? Why do I view homosexuality as a moral abomination? So many Christians draw on scripture to support their disapproval. This has always seemed a bit odd to me, because homosexuality is one of the few moral issues for which I feel absolutely no need to substantiate my opinion with scripture. To me, human anatomy is speaking loud and clear. There can be no doubt in the mind of any rationally-thinking person that the penis and the vagina are biological complements, in other words, that male goes with female. I don’t need the Bible to tell me that homosexuality is unnatural any more than I need it to tell me not to spit my food out of my mouth after chewing it. Of course, it is perfectly within my right to do so, but that doesn't mean I'm entitled to have the rest of the world refer to it as eating. Now admittedly, the Bible says far less about homosexuality than it does about marriage. But the scriptures make it abundantly clear that marriage is a very special relationship between a man and a woman, grounded in sexual constancy and in love, not just romantic love, but sacrificial love. It is on the same basis that so many people of faith resist divorce on any terms except infidelity, whereas some people feel perfectly justified in seeking divorce when their expectations are no longer met or they simply don’t have the feelings they once had for their spouse. Such a love is not self-denying at all, but self-serving. Not that same-sex marriage has anything per se to do with the issue of divorce, but it does, once again, address the fundamental purpose of marriage in the Christian church, which is a self-denying enterprise by which to honor God and also (do I even need to say it?) to be fruitful in that enterprise, in other words, to procreate. I think many people of faith who believe in the scriptures will continue to reject homosexuality as sinful because, though it may seem harmless or victimless, it is an affront to God, as it so clearly rejects not only His purposes for a marriage, but also the design of His creation. A husband and wife may engage in a variety of alternative pleasures with their erogenous “parts,” but honestly, who can deny that, at its most fundamental level, our anatomical design clearly dictates the purpose of the sexes?

What is so frustrating to me is that supporters of same-sex marriage certainly understand these things, these truths about the basic nature of sexuality, but they choose to reject them, or to ignore them. They would rather agree not to care than to reject the current social climate. Indeed they seem nearly incapable of doing what C.S. Lewis described as transcending the microphone of the current age. Such effort requires a higher, non-relativistic view of truth, however unpopular. With this, I must finally turn to the issue of worldview, and how fundamental differences in belief structures invariably come to bear on this issue. The modern political climate in which we find ourselves is essentially humanistic. Some refer to it as cultural relativism. Regardless of how it is termed, it is a modern secular worldview that demands the acceptance of everything. Understand me correctly on this, not merely tolerance, but acceptance. A person to whom you have committed your friendship may do something you view as wrong. In such a case, you might tolerate their choice but at the same time admonish them by expressing your disapproval respectfully while still remaining their friend, as opposed to accepting their choice as if you approved of it completely. These are totally different attitudes, and the temperature of the times is not simply to tolerate homosexuality, but rather to offer it complete acceptance and approval. The problem for a person of faith, specifically faith in Christ and in God’s Holy Scriptures, is that unlike the rest of the world, you have committed your life to honoring a God that demands you behave morally, seeking to live according to His will, honoring Him in mind, in body, and in spirit. Now, in my experience, it is the tendency of modern liberal doctrine to view the world solely through the lens of social justice. Under this worldview, the only thing that matters, the only true tenet worth defending, is that all people should be at liberty do to exactly as they wish. This is at least partially in conflict with the Christian worldview, which puts a moral compass within the individual, so that what feels good is not always okay. It is sometimes okay, but certainly not always, because human instinct is not viewed as inherently good. On the contrary, the Christian worldview holds that all good things come from God, and that human nature is fundamentally sinful, which is precisely what demanded the need for a Christ. When Jesus said, in John 8:32, that we are set free by the truth, he referred to the fact that we are all slaves to sin, except by faith in the sacrifice he made for all humankind. Extreme devotees of liberal humanism seem to serve a different god. They seek freedom without purpose, failing to realize that freedom itself does not give meaning to life. Rather it simply establishes the opportunity to seek meaning. One may then ask, must freedom have a purpose? If you think about it, there is something wanting in the freedom to choose something but making no choice at all. This is what the secular world promotes every day. Must freedom have a purpose? I would argue that it does. But more importantly, life must have meaning. This is undeniable. People seek it every day of their lives. I would argue that in modern times, tenets such as the separation between church and state have been taken to an extreme that hasn’t necessarily left us more enlightened than previous generations. Rather the religious dogma that imprisoned us in past centuries has simply been replaced by a different, almost equally repressive social doctrine, which demands, rather enigmatically, that not only is each of us free to do as he pleases, but within that context, to express any disapproval (in other words, to hold that the individual should behave morally) is not tolerated, because under this doctrine, even to believe such a thing is seen as heinously “oppressive” to those who choose to deny any universal imperative and to live without the “burden” or “crime” of not being universally accepted. This is the new heresy, to believe that something is not okay. It is not enough to tolerate diverse or alternative lifestyles. You must accept them in order to be accepted under this social and political “regime.” Cultural relativism teaches that what is true and right for one person is not necessarily true and right for another. Fair enough. However, the extreme to which this idea is now applied confuses belief with truth. In fact, the term “universal truth” is essentially redundant; truth, by definition, is universal. We may believe differently, but my belief in God and the unbelief of another person have no impact on whether or not God actually exists. In other words (and there’s just no getting around this), some beliefs are wrong, or incongruous to the truth, and some are right, securely aligned with it. The moral imperative of cultural relativism, however, is the unilateral acceptance of all belief systems. I would argue that this is not even possible, not for anyone. In the comment I mentioned earlier, my friend professed a resistance to imposing one’s views, personal or religious, on another. But my friend’s view, on same-sex marriage specifically, is not different from those of homosexuals who wish their unions to be recognized as marriage. Rather their views are perfectly aligned, because my friend finds nothing at all wrong with same-sex marriage. In other words, it does not go against any part of the moral code to which my friend subscribes. My friend may have a different preference and lifestyle, but not a different view. I do not then see my friend as necessarily being more tolerant of the beliefs of others, but rather following a moral code with a broader range of acceptable behaviors.

One could argue, then, that it is culturally expedient to ignore the notion of truth altogether. I think this more dangerous than some people realize. A Christian has the same freedom as a non-Christian, but such a person has chosen to give the use of his life back over to God and to submit to His will, believing that this supplication is the only act that can possibly give meaning to life and to secure salvation in eternity. These are spiritual matters, of course. I would make the claim that proponents of same-sex marriage are not defending it on any spiritual basis, but rather on the basis of liberal humanistic doctrine, which, as previously stated, regards the unilateral acceptance of all lifestyles as the only tolerable view. Now, so that I don’t do too much mixing of apples and oranges, in light of the fact that the First Amendment does, to some extent, embrace the notion of maintaining the separation of church and state, what is so wrong with same-sex marriages recognized by the State of California and not necessarily blessed in churches? Nothing, I suppose, though admittedly it further widens the gap between the civil code upheld by government and the personal moral code followed by the individual. There are those who feel that this gap is natural and justified, though I propose that without the conscience and moral impulses of the individual, the institutional morality of government becomes like a ship without a pilot. And we may one day find ourselves wondering whatever caused us to ever believe in the importance of things such as decency, humility, kindness, purity, or hope. From where should my sense of right and wrong originate than from my moral and religious convictions?

It is also my feeling that if we decide to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, then we must be ready for other, more alternative definitions as well. How about polygamists who want to marry multiple partners? That may sound like a fear tactic, but I certainly don’t mean it that way. I mean it, rather, from the standpoint of common sense. Because I view marriage as a sacred institution, I would rather grant civil unions the same privileges as common law marriages than to recognize such unions as marriage. The scenario in which a homosexual is not allowed to see his partner in the hospital or to make health care decisions for a partner who is incapacitated is particularly disturbing because the laws governing civil unions are rather complicated, vary significantly from state to state, and generally require a higher degree of “red-tape” than the laws that govern marriage. The problem, then, is not whether the person at your bedside is legally termed your "spouse," but rather the fact that the laws governing health care have strayed so far from their intended purpose as to deny these partners access to one another. Such laws and policies thwart a compassionate response and should not be tolerated, in my view. But again, that's a different problem, and it certainly is not rectified, as far as I’m concerned, by applying the term marriage to a gay union. Am I simply arguing semantics, then? Not at all. As I said, a gay couple will never, in my estimation, be married, because, again, my definition of marriage is grounded in faith. It was created by a God who demands to be honored not only in mind and spirit, but also in body. If this is an equal rights issue, where do those rights come from? It seems to me, they must come from somewhere. Even in those oft-quoted founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, you'll notice it states that the rights of human beings are "endowed by their Creator." I see an increasing effort to "sanitize" social and judicial circles of any influence of religious thought or doctrine, when the portion of the First Amendment that guards the separation of church and state was meant to prevent an established religion that would govern law-making in this country, which is totally different from saying that the two spheres of thought should never, ever overlap. Cultural relativists would perhaps argue that they have many of the same religious convictions as I do, but that they seek not to force those views on other people by allowing them to influence their political views. My response to such an argument is that, while such a person may have religious convictions, those convictions are not nearly as strong as their conviction to deny a universal truth and to recognize all traditions as equally valid. So, who is this person’s god, God himself, or the cause of social justice, which is simply a means to pursue meaning? I honestly don't believe that human rights are the result of happenstance any more than the Earth itself is the result of such. We can try all we want to “cleanse” the public and judicial sectors of all religious influence, but I think what we’re left with then is a world in which our moral imperatives are derived from the law itself as opposed to the truth. Civil unions and marriages aside, the clear opposition to truth sought by this growing liberal and humanistic doctrine is disturbing at best. At worst, well… Let’s just say, if God exists, regardless of the specific moral imperatives He demands of us, I don’t think He takes kindly to being treated as a relativistic myth, particularly by those who claim to believe personally, but wish for the civil and judicial arenas that govern society to operate as if a perfectly decent society could be obtained by some mindless doctrine of freedom that ignores His influence altogether. Should we follow a civil code or a moral code? Or rather, to what extent should one affect or inform the other? Some people, myself included, believe that the civil code may, at best, reflect the moral code (or compass) that belongs in every heart. That doesn’t mean I believe it should be against the law to commit any immoral act or that the church and the state should be directly aligned in all cases. There is a careful balance to be struck in following the First Amendment. I admit with great satisfaction that I choose not put my faith in the civil code to dictate my sense of right and wrong. By such a standard, I could commit a variety of immoral acts, and if they were to remain undiscovered, I am not punishable. It is only an internal code, or conscience, that demands a reckoning, so that I am aware of having done wrong regardless of whether I am held accountable in a civil context.

So where does this leave us with the issue of marriage? I’m not a person who considers it reasonable to sit back and criticize our political system without offering anything in the way of a solution. Perhaps the answer is for the state to recognize all monogamous couples as civil unions with a uniform set of privileges and rights. That could then become the broader umbrella under which the spiritual institution of marriage (between a man and a woman) would simply be one example. It seems to me that this would clear up the majority of discrepancies between the relative advantages and disadvantages of same- and opposite-sex unions under the law. Unless, of course, supporters of same-sex unions intend to fight tooth-and-nail not only for a status equivalent to marriage, but also for the specific label of being “married.” Now that would be semantics. If gays want not just equality but semantic inclusiveness, I don’t think I can help.

My views are based on faith and moral judgment, not hatred, fear, or intolerance. Of course, I am not qualified to “judge,” as they say; I am no more perfect than any other person. But remember that an opinion, by its very nature, is a judgment about something. When Christ refers to judgment, I believe he means condemnation, which is totally different from having an opinion or an understanding about right and wrong, just as admonishing someone is not the same as oppressing them; the two paths are guided by totally different attitudes. So, if believing something is wrong, failing to accept it, expressing that view (however sensitively), and then voting according to that view are oppressive acts, then I have no solution to offer. On a rather sad note, I actually have a close friend of many years who feels so strongly about his defense of same-sex marriage that he recently intimated that if I intend to allow my political views to be impacted by my religious views even to the slightest degree, then I should not be voting. “Freedom” what?