Baptist Ethics and the Marriage Amendment

Baptist Ethics and the Marriage Amendment
By Tarris D. Rosell, DMin, PhD Associate Professor of Pastoral Theology and Ethics
Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Kansas City, KS

Just across State Line Avenue here in Kansas City, on the Missouri side of a metropolitan area still divided along other historical lines, history has been made once again. Tuesday, August 2nd, was Election Day for party primaries and miscellaneous regional matters. In Missouri, this traditionally low-turnout election also included on the ballot a yes-no question regarding the state`s constitutional definition of "marriage". The nearly 71% "yes" vote will result in the constitution`s amending to define "marriage" as follows: "To be valid and recognized in this state a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman."

In Kansas, not known as a bastion of liberalism, a similar proposal failed to get on the ballot this year for lack of a two-thirds majority in the state`s legislative House. Christian conservatives vowed to make this a campaign issue and bring it back for passage next legislative session.[i]

Although Missouri was not the first state to vote for constitutional change in this regard-Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska, and Nevada voters had done so previously-its action has been hailed by marriage amendment promoters as history-making for its first occurrence following recent Massachusetts judicial decisions legalizing same-gender marriage there. In a general election season, the overwhelming majority vote in Missouri also garnered attention for another reason, both of elated conservatives and others less so. Counting down the days until November`s first Tuesday decisions, there were either hopes or fears that the "bellwether" state`s August decision would be a precursor of things to come.

I work both sides of State Line; and as an ethicist, I often find myself working both/all sides of controversial issues, looking for clear resolutions to thorny dilemmas and finding very often only more complexity and questions instead. The matter of amending "marriage" is a case in point.

From a perspective of classical Baptist ethics, I wonder if there may be something fundamentally suspect and maybe wrong-headed about any movement to define marriage via politics. As Christians residing within the free-church tradition, we Baptists adamantly defend the principle and practice of church-state separation. We are not apolitical, but are politically engaged as individual citizens with emphasis on the government`s role as protector of religious freedom and individual civil rights.

Yet Baptists seem to be flocking to polls in Missouri and elsewhere to vote for a measure that would induce government to restrict individual civil rights and to define for the church what we still call "holy matrimony."

Ironically, it took an Episcopalian and a Presbyterian to point out to me the logical and practical inconsistency of some Baptists when it comes to church marriage and our relationship with the state.

I sat next to the Episcopal brother, seventy-eight year old retired Bishop Otis Charles, at a public forum on same-gender marriage. He and his male domestic partner were in town following ecclesial censure in the wake of undesirable publicity accompanying their April 2004 wedding.[ii] In private conversation, we compared traditions regarding marriage rites. The Right Reverend Charles noted that he never claims to officiate marriage vows "by the authority vested in me by the State of" Whatever. Even within the historically state church Anglican tradition, in his ritual role the former bishop makes sure he does not cross boundaries of church and state. In contrast, this free-church tradition officiant of "holy matrimony" sheepishly acknowledged that I nearly always do.

Presbyterian layman and newspaper columnist Bill Tammeus attended that forum also. His published reflections suggested a wonderfully Baptist way of looking at marriage amendment initiatives. In sum, Tammeus argued that the state`s only interest in marriage should be to ensure its legal availability to all who are willing seriously to enter into such a commitment. The government`s role is to protect individual civil rights, inclusive of "civil marriage," or what we might just term "civil unions." The church, on the other hand, retains the freedom to define "sacred marriage" (holy matrimony) under God any way the church deems fitting, inclusive of gender specificity. Tammeus` resolution of the marriage debates would be to leave sacred marriage/matrimony to the church and civil marriage/unions to the state.[iii] Sounds baptistic, does it not?

To take this further and argue definitively against limiting civil marriage by gender, Tammeus would need to show that the state really has no interest in doing so. That might be attempted by noting the benefits-socially, emotionally, financially, educationally, spiritually-that accrue to children of parents whose union is legally sanctioned. Given that an estimated 200,000 children in the U.S. are raised in same-gender parental families, Presbyterian Tammeus` proposal might look to be not only baptistic but rather pro-family and pro-children. One could ask of pro-amendment advocates what is "pro-family" about denying those same-gender family kids the benefits that come from having two parents legally bound together rather than two who merely live together and one of whom does not have legal rights and responsibilities under the law?

It might be noted also that, gender aside, monogamy surely is a valid concern of the state. Non-monogamous serial sexual relationships arguably contribute to any number of societal ills, particularly epidemic sexually transmitted disease. To the extent that civil unions encourage monogamy it is to the good of society at large. In a free society influenced by free church principles, the church may choose to restrict holy matrimony in accordance with various biblical interpretations and along gender lines. It is hard to see how the state derives societal benefits by doing likewise via constitutional sanctions.

If it is claimed that marriage, whether "civil" or "sacred", is essentially for the purpose of procreation and the continuity of a civil society, a Tammeus approach might offer rejoinder. In fact, marriage is valued as a societal institution for other reasons every bit as important as that of procreation. The partnered years during which child-bearing is biologically feasible are few relative to the potential duration of a covenanted life-long relationship. Even the child-rearing years, for those couples who do procreate, are potentially just a fraction of the total years spent together as spouses. Clearly, the value to society of marriage exceeds that of the procreative potential.

It is also important as a societal institution for companionship and mutual caregiving. So the Preacher-poet states in Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 (NRSV), without gender specificity:

Two are better than one,
because they have a good reward for their toil.
For if they fall, one will lift up the other;
but woe to one who is alone and falls and does not have another to help.
Again, if two lie together, they keep warm;
but how can one keep warm alone?
And though one might prevail against another,
two will withstand one.

Because of these sorts of value in the relationship of two faithful partners, we utilize this scripture routinely in marriage ceremonies. Beyond sexuality and procreation, what matters in a committed relationship mostly is caring for and being there for one another–both in friendship and surely in those special friendships sanctioned societally or ecclesially as a marital union.

It is not surprising then that social-scientific studies indicate, on average, married folk live longer than single folk; and probably this is due in large measure to having a live-in, long-term caregiver. What value to society is there in denying or even discouraging such relationships on a gender basis?

Neither my Episcopalian nor Presbyterian interlocutor drew out all of these implications of a free-church approach to the marriage amendment for which Missourians recently asked. Some issues and questions are occurring to this Baptist ethicist only in retrospect. And I continue to ponder apparent inconsistencies in what we church-folk, in some states, have done.
——————————————————————————–

[i] Michael Foust, "Kan. Amendment Fails, Pro-Family Groups Plan Strategy," Baptist Press (BP)News (5 May, 2004).

[ii] Rona Marech, "The Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage: Gay Bishop Proves It`s Never Too Late to Fall in Love," San Francisco Chronicle (29 April, 2004). Rona Marech, "The Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage: S.F. Episcopal Church Cuts Off Bishop Who Wed," San Francisco Chronicle (11 May, 2004).

[iii] Bill Tammeus, "Breathe, Then Talk Same-Sex Marriage

Share on Facebook

Tweet

Follow us