Since the mid-seventies some of my professional duties and commitments involve working with domestic violence. I was particularly involved with the violence between couples living together. Often, if heterosexual, the couples were legally married. If not heterosexual, they of course were not, until recently, legally married. My commitment led to my working with domestic violence programs, which often provided shelters, advocates, and legal and related social services. It seemed as if legally married individuals frequently stayed in the marriage because they understood from their ministers, priests, rabbis, elders or other religious leaders that God/Allah required them to stay in the marriage and make it work. At that time, it was not unusual for a religious leader to voice the opinion (presented as a fact) that if the male was being violent with this wife it was because she was not being a good wife. It was her responsibility to stay in the marriage and make it work. I found this a very strange opinion coming, as it did, from religious leaders. They were talking as if a relationship, which included violence, was still a marriage. I understood then, and now, marriage to be a relationship of love, trust, mutual respect, and partnership. This was certainly the definition I had learned in seminary. Domestic violence – hitting, slapping, kicking, biting, punching or deliberate use of hurtful words designed to belittle or steal the self worth of the individual – made the marriage contract null and void. One could not both have a sacred union and a non-sacred union. Yet, religious leaders often insisted that the wife stay in the marriage and make it work even if she had suffered broken bones and was in danger of being killed. Nothing in my religious training or in my religious beliefs said to me that a violent relationship was a marriage in any spiritual or emotional sense. Certainly, in the legal sense, it was still a marriage. There was still communal property to be divided and often the care of children to be decided.
If the relationship was between two people of the same sex the religious leaders did not, with few exceptions, recognize it anyway. The state then did not grant any protection in terms of property or children.
Over the past few years some states in this country and a few other countries have come to recognize that marriage is indeed a sacred union between two people. Not only it is a spiritual and emotional union, but it also deserves and needs the protection of the state in terms of property, benefits and care of the children. On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court of the United Stated rendered a decision in a case challenging the right of states to limit a marriage between a male and a female. The court, in effect, made it illegal to discriminate against a couple on the basis of gender. Justice Kennedy in writing the opinion said:
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of
The petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
It is so ordered.
Lawrence v Texas 6/26/2003
Windsor v New York, 6/26/2013
Obergefell v Hodges 6/26/2015
Needless to say, as soon as the decision was announced there were many who continued to maintain, often with the claim of the authority of God/Allah that marriage can only be between one man and one woman for life. This is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church and many other religious institutions. Some churches have changed their definition of marriage to a more inclusive one.
In Louisiana, the Attorney General, James “Buddy” Caldwell condemned the ruling as “federal government intrusion into what should be a state issue.” I find it particularly interesting that he and some others would use this argument in the very same week that we have been brutally reminded that the civil war was not about states rights but about human rights.
In Florida, the state where I am now living and where the attitudes of some of our elected officials mirror those of the “Buddy” Caldwell, large gay pride events are taking place this weekend. In our nation’s capital, the White House is lit with rainbow lights to celebrate the decision of the Supreme Court.
We remain a nation divided although great strides have been made in redefining marriage since I was a young professional. It has been a long time since I have had a religious leader tell me directly that domestic violence of a male against a female is always the woman’s fault. In the church in which I was ordained and served as a teaching elder the church can consecrate same sex unions although it is still at the discretion of the teaching elder/minister.
Despite the objection of many a few years ago an openly gay Episcopal Priest was elected bishop by that church despite the dire predictions of many in that church body. In fact the priest of the mainline Episcopal Church in the city I, whom I was living, maintained that God only allowed for sex between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. Yet, this very same priest had often performed marriage ceremonies for heterosexual couples that had been living together and presumably having sex for many years. Were they really waiting to get married until they were sure the woman could be a good Christian and conceive a child?
Now, to be honest, I have often wondered about the paucity of sexual contact between those couples who believe that sex is only allowed if one if trying to duplicate the Duggar family record of 19 children and counting.
I have also often wondered about the sexual contact chart, which God must maintain to insure that, in fact, in their heart of hearts all heterosexual couples having sex are sincerely attempting to add to their family and are committed to not enjoying the contact.
Not too worry. If the sales of Viagra and other similar drugs are any indication there is scarcely a man left, at least in the United States, who is able to get and maintain an erection without assistance.
In fact, even with drug assistance how many married couples no longer have a sexual relationship at all or, of they, do it is not very frequent. If married and parents one soon finds that there is little time or privacy for any playful sex even if they are convinced that God have better things with which to be concerned.
It is noteworthy that Justice Kennedy does not, in his opinion, say thing about marriage being about sexual contact. What he says in the above quoted paragraph is the essence of his entire opinion Let’s read it again?
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of
The petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
It is so ordered.
Lawrence v Texas 6/26/2003
Windsor v New York, 6/26/2013
Obergefell v Hodges 6/26/2015
On my! Marriage is about love and love is about taking care of each other and about respecting each other. It is about fidelity, devotion, love, sacrifice and family. He says nothing about marriage being about sex although I personally hope that many couples enjoy that level of intimacy. On the other hand, am I worried about the fact that same sex couples cannot themselves conceive and bear a child although many same sex children do conceive, bear and raise a child either because of past unions, the use of a surrogate or artificial insemination?
My understanding is that the world population is continuing to grow, albeit at a slower rate than previously. On the other hand, we also know that in many parts of the world more people are living longer. Additionally it is true that more people are living in urban areas and do not need large families to work the farm, ranch or other family business.
In times past, within the context of what was then known scientifically, it was important to conceive as many children as possible. This was because:
· Many children died prior to being born or during childbirth.
· Many women died during childbirth.
· Many children did not live to be very old. We had few medical treatments available.
· The “unscientific” belief was that there were a limited number of sperm. There were no microscopes to make that count.
Given these beliefs it was very important to try to prevent the wasting of sperm by masturbation and same sex unions. The best way to try to control the very powerful sexual feelings was fear. The most effective fear seemed to be to posit the displeasure of God. I am not sure how effective the fear was although I suspect it sometimes did help reduce activity. I strongly suspect that often it resulted in a lot of guilt without much reduction of activity! (I do not feel a need for full disclosure in this instance). For some this is still the case. It not only caused guilt. In many countries and including, until recently the United States, the threat was not just eternal punishment but jail or death here on earth. In some places that is still the case.
No wonder some suggested that religion was sometimes the opium of the masses.
What Justice Kennedy and his colleagues who joined him in this majority decision are suggesting is that the focus needs to be on the support of families – all types of families. We already know that healthy families are good for individual health and the health of children. Let’s do all we can to lend support to all families. For all our concern about the gender of couples we have not created a family friendly society. We have not made child care or care of our partners easy. There are those companies, which are very family friendly – who insist that individuals do all they can to be present in taking care of children and partners. Sadly these companies are few and far between. As a country we are not in the forefront of creating and enforcing policies, which give paid maternity and paternity leave, sick leave when children are sick, provide childcare and time off when a partner is ill. Instead of worrying about antiquated rules regarding the gender of married couples let’s focus on creating a community, which is really and truly family friendly.
Footnote: It is true I have not addressed the issue of the possible transmission of sexual disease. Obviously such diseases are not gender conscious although there are sexual behavior practices which are more risky for some. All individuals need to practice safer and responsible sexual behavior.
RSS Feed