18 Pentecost 06 Proper 22

One pastor found himself in a most uncomfortable position. A sailor and his girl came to him wanting badly to be married. “But I can’t,” he protested. “You have no license and all the city offices are closed. I’m sorry it’s impossible.” “But…but can’t you say a few words,” the sailor pleaded, “ to tide us over for the weekend?”

When Sam Jones was holding meetings in Dallas, on one occasion he said: “There’s no such thing as a perfect man. Anybody present who has ever known a perfect man, stand up.”

Nobody stood up.

“Those who have ever known a perfect woman, stand up.” One demure little woman stood up.

“Did you ever know an absolutely perfect woman?” asked Sam, some what amazed.

“I didn’t know her personally,” replied the little old woman, “but I have heard a great deal about her. She was my husband’s first wife.”

The institution of marriage has fallen on hard times lately. Whether it be that marriage is trivialized to the point that it is just something to tide us over for the moment, or it is so misunderstood that the institution of marriage becomes meaningless when our idealized view of our spouse or of marriage itself no longer exist.

The institution of marriage is not only being attacked from within, it is also being attacked from without. Some states have sought to completely change the definition of marriage. The traditional concept of marriage seems to be something that can be changed as easy as the legislative stroke of a pen, or the hammering of the judicial gavel. Hollywood stars quite often make a mockery of marriage by the frequency of their divorces, or their complete disdain for the idea of marriage, choosing to simply live together. Tragically so many young people take their cues from Hollywood and begin to view marriage as a ceremony followed by a few years of happiness followed by divorce.

While divorce has always been a threat to traditional concept of marriage, today we see a new battle against the concept of marriage between a man and a woman. That battle is being fought the right to have homosexual marriage legalized by the government and affirmed by the church.

Why all the fuss about gay marriage anyway? And why should it matter to you if a gay couple marries and moves into your neighborhood? Why shouldn’t our definition of family be broadened and modernized? After all, what harm could possibly be done by yielding to the demands of those who say traditional notions of family are outmoded and irrelevant?

Columnist Steve Blow, in a recent edition of The Dallas Morning News, echoed some of these questions. His op-ed piece was titled “Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me?” and was apparently written after he had read one of James Dobson’s recent newsletters on the subject. Blow wrote:

“When opponents talk about the ‘defense of marriage,’ they lose me. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family just sent out a mailer to 2.5 million homes saying: ‘The homosexual activists’ movement is poised to administer a devastating and potentially fatal blow to the traditional family.’ And I say, ‘Huh?’ How does anyone’s pledge of love and commitment turn into a fatal blow to families?”

Mr. Blow clearly believes that the only reason for not legalizing homosexual marriage is sheer bigotry. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are very compelling arguments against marriage between homosexuals that should be considered by anyone who has not yet become familiar with the issues.

We’ve already seen evidence from the Scandinavian countries that de-facto homosexual marriage destroys the real Mc Coy. These two entities cannot coexist because they represent opposite ends of the universe. A book could be written on the reasons for this collision between matter and antimatter, but I will cite three of them.

First, when the State sanctions homosexual relationships and gives them its blessing, the younger generation becomes confused about sexual identity and quickly loses its understanding of lifelong commitments, emotional bonding, sexual purity, the role of children in a family, and from a spiritual perspective, the “sanctity” of marriage. Marriage is reduced to something of a partnership that provides attractive benefits and sexual convenience, but cannot offer the intimacy described in Genesis. Cohabitation and short-term relationships are the inevitable result. Ask the Norwegians, the Swedes, and the people from the Netherlands. That is exactly what is happening there.

Second, the introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one man/one woman unions.

Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? The answer: because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a foundation of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have reached their dubious decisions, the family will consist of little more than someone’s interpretation of “rights.” Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men or three women can marry; or five men and two women; or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against Christians who espouse biblical values! Pastors are being arrested in Canada and Europe for daring to speak out against same-sex relations and unions. How long will it be before that happens here?) How about group marriage, or marriage between cousins, or marriage between daddies and little girls? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to “civil rights” will be doable.

The third reason marriage between homosexuals will destroy traditional marriage is that this is the ultimate goal of activists, and they will not stop until they achieve it. The history of the gay and lesbian movement has been that its adherents quickly move the goal line as soon as the previous one has been breached, revealing even more shocking and outrageous objectives. In the present instance, homosexual activists, heady with power and exhilaration, feel the political climate is right to tell us what they have wanted all along. This is the real deal: Most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to create an entirely different legal structure.

With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, and much more) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would “couples” be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed. If you doubt that this is the motive, read what is in the literature today. Activists have created a new word to replace the outmoded terms infidelity, adultery, cheating and promiscuity. The new concept is polyamorous. It means the same thing (literally “many loves”) but with the agreement of the primary sexual partner. Why not? He or she is probably polyamorous, too.

The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. Because homosexuals are rarely monogamous, often having as many as three hundred or more partners in a lifetime — some studies say it is typically more than one thousand — children in those polyamorous situations are caught in a perpetual coming and going. It is devastating to kids, who by their nature are enormously conservative creatures. They like things to stay just the way they are, and they hate change. Some have been known to eat the same brand of peanut butter throughout childhood.

If we need any other reasons to affirm traditional marriage we need only look at Jesus, who, in our gospel lesson today not only affirmed marriage as being between one man and one woman, but he also gave the reason why so many marriages fail. They fail because of the hardness of heart of one or both parties in a marriage. One is unwilling to change, or unwilling to work on the relationship. Relationships don’t just disintegrate overnight, they do so very gradually. The hardness of our hearts keeps us from recognizing this or wanting to stop the disintegration.

God’s design from the beginning is for men and women who want be in a committed relationship to do so in the context of marriage. This relationship is also designed to be a physical one for procreation and/or pleasure within the spiritual unity. We see that physical relations between members of the same gender go against the design of the human body. The question is this: Do, in fact, same-sex sexual relationships, even when committed, conform to God’s will for human sexual relations? To avoid this question risks distortion.

Anglicans look to scripture, tradition and reason as standards. All three testify vigorously to heterosexual relating as God’s will for human sexual wholeness.

The Bible’s rejection of same-sex genital activity is explicit. Nowhere does the Bible affirm this; wherever mentioned, it is condemned. Rather the Genesis creation stories portray God creating man and woman for each other as sexual partners, who in one-flesh union may seek the mutually supporting gifts of communion and new human life. Jesus cites these very passages in his teachings. And, consistent with this, Paul, in Romans 1, includes same-sex genital relations among the signs of a disordered creation. The Bible’s witness that God wills heterosexual relating for man and woman is clear, coherent, and consistent.

What about, you may ask, Jesus’ compassion for the outcasts? Jesus did teach and exemplify inclusive proclamation of God’s love and call to repentance and faith. Also, however, Jesus called everyone to obey God. Hence, only appealing to Jesus’ compassion overly simplifies the problem.

The God of Scripture requires that we honestly acknowledge the difficult pastoral problems facing clergy and congregations and the hurt of gay men and lesbians who seek God’s will in an often oppressing church and society. Scripture requires both a penitent advance beyond persecuting homosexuals and a creative advance beyond simply blessing same-sex unions to promote commitment. Scripture requires that we accept all into the Christian community as persons for whom Christ died and that we provide means to help people toward sexual wholeness, like that offered others who struggle toward wholeness which God, the creator, redeemer and perfector wills.

Second, Anglicans seek guidance from tradition.

No evidence exists that the church ever liturgically blessed sexually active same-sex unions to promote committed relationships. Even were such a liturgy found and survived scholarly scrutiny, its oddity would be the exception which proved the rule.

On the contrary, church tradition reserves full sexual intimacy to man and woman in a lifelong marriage covenant. This demanding morality sees marital union as a Christian vocation, equal in dignity to vocation to the single life. Both are ways Christians can integrate their full sexual powers into love for God and humankind and witness to the triune God.

Heterosexual relations more fully image the triune God of Christian teaching than do even committed homosexual unions by their complementary mirror of God’s inclusiveness, the union of radical otherness in God’s own triune life. Heterosexual unions by their potential for procreation mirror God’s creativity. Heterosexual one-flesh unions both reinforce these first two dimensions and mirror God’s covenant-making love. Honoring the triune God of Christian tradition requires not only promoting commitment but also the values of procreation and the bodily complementarities of the sexes.

Third, Anglicans also look to reason as a guide.

Reason discerns sexual relations which most promote the welfare of the whole society. Blessing same-sex unions implies they have the same social values as heterosexual marriage. But same-sex unions are closed to the social and personal good of procreation.

Reason also sees that human wholeness, unity and integrity involve a correspondence between a person’s body and his or her sexual desire. Physically, men and women are sexually matched; homosexual desire, therefore, contradicts physical sexuality. Some argue that physical sexuality is irrelevant to morality, that commitment suffices to make sexual union morally right. But reducing sexual morality to commitment disembodies sexual morality enormously, dishonoring God the creator and Christ the incarnate redeemer.

Reason also concerns the findings of science and experience. Some support for same-sex unions, believing that sexual orientation is biologically given. They hold that persons with an irreversible homosexual orientation, who are not called to celibacy, are free to be sexually active in committed relationships. But neither scripture nor tradition teach that Christians are free simply to choose the forms of their sexual discipleship.

In any case, experts, such as John Money of Johns Hopkins University, agree that sexual orientation results from both “nature” and “nurture.” And the claim of irreversibility contradicts data from psychotherapists and the claims of many, who, through Christian ministries like Regeneration, Exodus International, and Transformation ministries, have achieved partial or even complete transfer to heterosexual orientation and practice.

Reason also means taking account of medical and psychological facts. Gay genital sex often involves increased risk of transmitting venereal diseases and permanent damage to the rectum. Reason counsels against the church blessing physically injurious forms of sexual unions.

Reason also means the logic of moral reasoning. Blessing same-sex unions only because they display commitment masks a troubling logic. The implication is that the church should approve sexual union in any caring and committed relationship. Yet, friends, adult siblings, pastors and parishioners, teachers and students have caring and committed relationships; but they should not, therefore, have sexual unions. In our friendless, sex-preoccupied culture, equating “commitment” with “sexual union” wrongly burdens many important relationships.

If we need any other reasons to affirm traditional marriage we need only look at Jesus’ teachings. In our gospel lesson today not only affirmed marriage as being between one man and one woman, he continued to affirm it wherever marriage is spoken about in the gospels. Jesus also gave the reason why so many marriages fail today. They fail because of the hardness of heart of one or both parties in a marriage. One is unwilling to change, or unwilling to work on the relationship. Relationships don’t just disintegrate overnight, they do so very gradually. The hardness of our hearts keeps us from recognizing this disintegration or wanting to stop it.

The purpose of this sermon is to show God’s design for sexual relationships, not to condemn those who view themselves as gay or lesbian. It is not to condemn those who have been divorced. God is a God of second chances and new beginnings. He is a God of mercy who tells us to put our past failures and sins behind us and move on in our relationship with him. He can change our hearts and our desires. He can move us to a place of obedience of his commandments even if we may still feel like breaking his commandments.

The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage service in our Prayer Book says, “Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony. The bond and covenant of marriage was established by God in creation (an obvious reference to our Old Testament Lesson today from Genesis 2), and our Lord Jesus Christ adorned this manner of life by his presence and first miracle at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. It signifies to us the union between Christ and his Church (whenever Christ is mentioned in the New Testament, he is referred to in the masculine. Whenever the Church is referred to in any gender, it is referred to in the feminine. This is why marriage is only for a man and a woman, because it reflects this unity of Christ and his Church. Jesus is referred to in the New Testament as the ‘bridegroom’ and the Church is called ‘the bride.’), and Holy Scripture commends it to be honored among all people.”

Jesus takes the institution of marriage very seriously and calls the husband and wife in the marriage to have him as the center of their relationship. A marriage relationship will never reach its full potential unless the head of the husband and wife , Jesus Christ is the head of their marriage. Jesus also calls married couples to treat one another as he would treat them, to practice sacrificial love as was demonstrated by him when he showed his love for the world by sacrificing his life on the cross.

Finally, Jesus calls us to do all we can to nurture the life-long committed relationship God has designed for the married couple to have.

For those who are called to the single life, Jesus wants you to know that you can be equally as fulfilled as the married person. You are, in a sense, married to Christ and so your devotion is totally to him. He also calls you to support those who are seeking to live the married life.

.”But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’”

What therefore God has established and joined together, let not man put asunder, tear apart, destroy, denigrate, redefine, or trivialize.