The personal dimension of marriage

(Part two of a series. Part one is here.)

Contemporary Westerners regard marriage, first and foremost, as a personal matter. The two people must decide for themselves whether their relationship has the right stuff, such that they wish to spend the rest of their lives together.

The government, the Church, the couple’s neighbours — all of them should basically butt out of a matter that is not really their business.

The legitimacy of this emphasis on personal choice seems self-evident to us Westerners. We are aware that other cultures practice arranged marriages, but we would never submit to such an arrangement ourselves.

This is really only half of the equation. As I will soon demonstrate, there is an essential social component to the institution of marriage, even here in the West.

But even the phrase the institution of marriage is liable to grate a little. To us, marriage is not so much a social institution as it is a private agreement between two individuals.

In ancient Israel, the scales tilted in the other direction. Ancient Israel placed tremendous emphasis on the social dimension of marriage.

Accordingly, Israelite marriages were typically arranged by the parents of the bride and groom. The parents’ primary consideration was the social connections that would result from their child’s marriage.

Nevertheless, parental authority was not such as to leave no room for the feelings of the young couple. There were love marriages in Israel. The young man could make his preferences known (Gn 34:4; Jg 14:2), or take his own decision without consulting his parents, and even against their wishes (Gn 26:34-35). It was rarer for the girl to take the initiative, but we do read of Saul’s daughter Mikal falling in love with David (1 S 18:20).

Actually, young people had ample opportunity for falling in love, and for expressing their feelings, for they were very free. 2 M 3:19, it is true, speaks of the young girls of Jerusalem being confined to the house, but this text refers to the Greek period and to an exceptional state of affairs. The veiling of women came even later. In ancient times young girls were not secluded and went out unveiled. They looked after the sheep (Gn 29:6), drew the water (Gn 24:13; 1 S 9:11), went gleaning in the fields behind the reapers (Rt 2:2f.) and visited other people’s houses (Gn 34:1). They could talk with men without any embarrassment (Gn 24:15-21; 29:11-12; 1 S 9:11-13).

Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, p. 30.

Wherever young men and women come into contact with one another, sexual attraction is liable to follow. Parents in ancient Israel were not so hard-hearted as to completely disregard the romantic longings of their children.

Still — the social dimension weighed more heavily in ancient Israel; whereas the personal dimension weighs more heavily with us.

Conclusion:

Proponents of same sex marriage prefer to emphasize the personal dimension. Their position is, Who I marry is no one’s business but my own.

It’s a strong argument. It is consistent with our Western emphasis on individual rights and freedoms. For example, freedom of conscience suggests that individuals can decide for themselves what is right and wrong, and order their lives accordingly.

Some people deny that the prohibition against same sex marriage is discriminatory. Homosexuals are free to marry just like anyone else, they claim:  they can marry someone of the opposite sex whenever they choose to do so.

It’s a facile (even contemptuous) argument. Sexual orientation is deeply personal and evidently involuntary. (That is, homosexuals do not choose to find people of the same sex attractive, any more than heterosexuals choose to find people of the opposite sex attractive. It just is that way.)

If a woman is attracted to others of the same sex, of course that is who she would choose to marry. To deny her that option is, indeed, to discriminate against her. It is to deny her the personal choice that is open to heterosexual couples.

On the other hand — proponents of same sex marriage can’t deny that there are three other dimensions to marriage:  the social, the religious, and the statutory. Those dimensions also must be taken into account.

Marriage is not solely a personal matter, and it can’t be treated as such. That will be our focus in the next post on this topic.

The four dimensions of marriage

Marriage has four dimensions:  personal, social, religious, and statutory.

This post is a follow up to our recent discussion of same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is a contentious issue precisely because of marriage’s four dimensions:

• Personal:
  Same sex couples maintain that the decision to marry is a personal one. No one outside of the relationship should tell them whether they can or cannot marry.
   
• Social:
  Some opponents of same sex marriage assert that changing the definition of marriage affects their marriages, too. It’s a weak argument, in my view. But it is true that all citizens have a stake in the institution of marriage:  it is a fundamental building block of society.
   
• Religious:
  Traditionally, church officials are the public figures who solemnize marriages. Some churches insist that the state cannot change the definition of marriage because (in their view) the definition was established by God.
   
• Statutory:
  The state is responsible for giving legal recognition to marriages. The state is obligated to treat all citizens equally. On the other hand, there may be public policy reasons for protecting and promoting one kind of family arrangement over alternatives to it.

Each dimension can come into conflict with one or more of the other dimensions. But all of the dimensions must be preserved and respected. In other words, we can’t resolve the same sex marriage controversy by pretending that marriage is one-dimensional:  for example, by emphasizing the personal (as same sex couples tend to do) or the religious (as Christians tend to do).

I intend to explore marriage’s four dimensions in a series of posts. As part of our discussion, I will outline the available data on marriages in ancient Israel.

Too often, Christians have a vague idea that Western traditions about marriage are derived from the Bible. On the contrary:  each culture has a distinctive “take” on marriage. We shouldn’t expect to find a close correspondence between the traditions of ancient Israel and the traditions of contemporary Western democracies.

In any event, when we consider marriage from the perspective of a different culture, that information will clarify the issues we’re debating in contemporary society. What did the four dimensions of marriage look like in ancient Israel?

My primary source for ancient Israel’s traditions will be chapter two ("Marriage") in Roland de Vaux’s book, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, 2nd ed. (translated from the French by John McHugh; published in London by Darton, Longman and Todd, 1968).

No more Mr. Nice Gay

All over the USA, people are protesting against Proposition 8, which stripped gay people of the right to marry in California. Three other states (Arkansas, Florida and Arizona) held similar referenda, with similar results.

Andrew Sullivan has dedicated his blog to that topic today, posting photos and stories submitted by his readers. It makes for an interesting read.
 
photo credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty, via Sullivan

The title of this post comes from one protester’s placard, pictured here.

Here’s one of my photos, from the 2006 gay pride parade, here in Ottawa. I’m with you in spirit, folks!

How activist courts safeguard democracy

Let me begin with a quote on same sex marriage:

For anyone to say that this is an issue for people who are gay and that this isn’t about civil rights is sadly mistaken. If you really believe in freedom and limited government, to be intellectually consistent and honest you have to oppose efforts of the majority to impose their will on people.

Ward Connerly, emphasis added; h/t Andrew Sullivan

Let me add that if you “really believe in freedom and limited government,” courts have a crucial role to play in preserving those values.

Courts are able to push back when governments overstep their limits. That’s what we mean when we speak of the “rule of law”, which is one of democracy’s fundamental principles. The rule of law means that Presidents and Prime Ministers can’t do whatever they please; they must operate within the Constitution and other legal bounds.

When politicians place a toe over the line, who enforces those limits? The courts do, if they’re functioning effectively. (Sometimes they’re asleep at the switch.)

This has important implications for how we define the word “democracy”. “Democracy” makes us think, first, of voters electing a government. And so it should. But “democracy” means more than that. It also encompasses important principles like the rule of law; and important values like freedom, including freedom from state control.

This brings me to an interesting exchange between nebcanuck and me on one of his recent posts. He commented that abortion was “legalized through a series of court processes rather than through any democratic political process.”

That accurately describes the history, both here in Canada and (earlier) in the USA. Nonetheless, I responded with the following point:

Some decisions should not be arrived at by majority vote because the majority can carelessly trample on the interests of minorities. The decision about same sex marriage is a case in point. That isn’t an issue that should be put to a vote, any more than you would tolerate a vote that would outlaw interracial marriages.

Nebcanuck replied:

When you argue that the majority would trample the rights of the minority, and thus the minority should be protected, you’re arguing against “true” or “pure” democracy.

If, by “democracy”, we mean making decisions by means of majority vote — OK, nebcanuck is right. And presumably that’s why nebcanuck qualifies his statement by referring to “true” or “pure” democracy.

But I think “democracy” means something more than that. As I said above, “democracy” also implies freedom of the individual from state control.

Abortion and same sex marriage are both problematic examples of my point. Abortion, for the obvious reason that there is another life at stake, which arguably justifies state intervention. Same sex marriage is also a problematic example, though the reasons are more complex.

For a clearer example, consider the treatment of U.S. detainees at Guantanamo Bay and similar sites. The detainee — perhaps an American citizen — is not formally charged with an offence. He is not permitted access to a lawyer or a judge. The detention is indefinite — he will be held until the state sees fit to release him, if ever. There are rumours that the detainee has been tortured, or at least subjected to harsh treatment.

Here we have an individual who has been deprived of his freedom; the state’s power over him is absolute.

The electorate has a role in safeguarding the detainee’s freedom. Voters can organize protests and seek to generate political pressure on the detainee’s behalf. If that should fail, they can vote the government out of office in the next election.

But what if the electorate shrugs and says, “Terrorists deserve to be tortured”? (Ignoring the fact that the detainee has not been convicted of anything — he is held because the state says it suspects him of something.) In such cases, it is not merely legitimate for courts to push back against the state; the courts are acting to preserve democracy when they intervene.

The Supreme Court in 2004 issued three decisions related to the detention of “enemy combatants,” including two that deal with U.S. citizens in military custody on American soil. … The decisions affirm the President’s powers to detain “enemy combatants,” including those who are U.S. citizens, as part of the necessary force authorized by Congress after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. However the Court appears to have limited the scope of individuals who may be treated as enemy combatants pursuant to that authority, and clarified that such detainees have some due process rights under the U.S. Constitution.

(pdf)

The point is this:  much-derided “activist” courts are actually an important bulwark of democracy.

Does that perspective hold true with respect to the relatively problematic examples of abortion and same sex marriage? Maybe.

The Obama two-step

Obama reaches out to evangelical voters via radio:

He has also pledged to continue, or even expand, federal funding for faith-based social programs:

Not only is Obama showing how faith would shape policy in his administration, he’s being so bold as to criticize Bush’s faith-based program for not going far enough in opening the federal social services spigot to churches and other faith-based groups. …

For Obama, who got his political start as an organizer in Chicago’s black churches, it’s difficult to argue that embracing government-sponsored faith-based initiatives is a matter of pure political convenience.

At the same time, it is well known that Obama is pro-choice on abortion. And he has been outspoken in support of equal rights for homosexuals:

As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT [Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender] community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution [i.e., to prohibit same sex marriage], and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.

… Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks.

That is an eyebrow-raising two-step. I don’t think this is cynical politicking; both halves of the two-step reflect Obama’s personal convictions.

He stops short of outright support for same sex marriage. And that may be a bit of political positioning:  Obama knows that a lot of folks can accept equal rights for homosexuals as long as government draws the line at the “M” word.

Obama is hard to categorize. He draws the boundaries in unconventional places. He doesn’t play it safe. (Well, sometimes he does — but on occasion, he goes where other politicians wouldn’t dare.)

Love him or hate him, you have to admit he’s a fascinating character.

Canadian politician marries same sex partner

The photo was taken by James Ingram of Canadian Press. Scott Brison, a Member of Parliament (MP) representing the Liberal Party of Canada, is the groom on the right. The Globe and Mail reported on Saturday:

CHEVERIE, N.S. — As a heavy rain poured down on this picturesque Nova Scotia community, Scott Brison made history Saturday by becoming the first MP to marry his same-sex partner since gay marriage was legally recognized two years ago.

The Liberal politician wed his partner Maxime St. Pierre at a small white church near Mr. Brison’s country home in Cheverie, in what guests described as joyful and emotional ceremony.

Guests included Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, former prime minister Joe Clark [a Progressive Conservative], former Liberal defence minister Bill Graham, former New Brunswick premier Frank McKenna and Liberal MP John Godfrey.

“It’s something we need to celebrate and we must be proud that Canada is showing the way,” Mr. Dion said after the wedding.

“I came first to celebrate love and happiness between two friends of mine, but if by my presence it helps a bit to reinforce a newly recognized right and to encourage other countries to do the same, I am pleased.”

Mr. McKenna said the wedding would help further legitimize same-sex marriage, and he said everyone sitting in the pews was aware of the event’s significance. …

Cheverie is a small community of about 200 in the province’s Annapolis Valley.

Residents in the area were playing down the significance of the wedding, noting that Mr. Brison has never defined his political career through his sexual orientation.

Just up a two-lane winding road from where the wedding was taking place, Pat Eldridge of nearby Canning said she is happy for Mr. Brison.

“If they’re in love and want to be together, then that’s awesome,” she said as she shopped at a yard sale. “Love is hard to find.”

Another resident who didn’t want her name used said: “To each their own. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinions and own way of life.”

Local restaurant owner Doris Hagman … who wouldn’t say if she was attending the wedding, said she wouldn’t personally call the union a marriage, but she is still happy for her friend. …

Mr. Brison publicly acknowledged he is gay in 2002 and became Canada’s first openly gay cabinet minister in 2004. But he has always closely guarded his private life, saying once that he is “not a gay politician, but a politician who happens to be gay.”

Note that several high-ranking politicians attended the wedding, without fear of political repercussions. Andrew Sullivan offered a quick summation from an American vantage point:

An MP gets married to his same-sex spouse. The political establishment shows up in force. North of the border, this is getting to be virtually normal.