Marriage, gay or otherwise, is a spiritual choice

As one of the panelists presenting the pro-gay marriage Christian perspective for IPC's breakthrough symposium, "Countering Fundamentalism: Christian Gospel as a Basis for Progressive Social Action," a few kernels of truth emerged for me as I listened to the other panelists and audience feedback.

First, it occurred to me that the biological argument (scientific evidence that homosexual orientation is a genetic predisposition and zoologist observations that homosexual behavior among species in the animal kingdom appears common and fairly "natural") is not a sound place upon which to base the moral and spiritually affirmative importance of gay marriage.

I think biological arguments ARE helpful in countering the anti-gay Christian perspective, which attempts to cast homosexuality (or at least homosexual behavior) as unnatural, deviant, sinful, or perverse. It turns out that homosexual orientation does have genetic precursors (and is therefore largely innate, i.e. a God-given attribute) and that homosexual behavior is fairly common and natural in the animal kingdom.

Homosexuality, by these observations, is no more perverse then being red-headed or being left-handed (and actually exhibiting "left-handed behavior"). These examples are instructive, because they too exist as more rarely seen attributes, and they too have been targeted historically by superstitious societies and persons fearing difference or exception. Red-headed women gained the unwarranted stigma of being tempters and ruiners of men simply because they had red hair. The Latin word for "with the left hand", is the root of the English word "sinister", meaning evil or bad. Ancient Greeks and Romans felt that the left side was responsible for the improper and perverse (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04....).

Our task as spiritually confident human beings and Christians (looking at Jesus' example) is to embrace diversity and honor so-called exceptions, whatever they may be: disabilities, unique talents and perspectives, different learning styles. Especially as people who embody difference are persecuted, we must stand by them as a testament to our faith. They provide a crucial connection into the world and into our own hearts as brothers and sisters.

This leads to the second kernel: An affirmative understanding and embrace of gay marriage is soundly based on the notion of choice. Namely, it is a spiritual and human birthright to choose marriage, to make a spiritual covenant with another human being. From a progressive Christian perspective, it is the moral and spiritual nature of that choice (and subsequent behavior) which one can debate, not whether one is allowed to choose in the first place.

Progressive Christians support the right of gay people to marry as they support the right of all people (black, white, short, tall, red-headed, blond, brunette, left-handed, disabled) to choose, with full understanding and consent, a romantic and spiritual partner. Currently that right is being subverted in American civil society (except in Massachusetts, where there are strong efforts to overturn the gay marriage law) and in churches, most of whom will not recognize gay marriage, and many of whom actively condemn it.

To show the absurd logic of this position, one other panelist, Gina Farag, pointed out that rapists, murderers, and child molesters were still granted the right to marry (as long as they are heterosexual), even though they had confirmed by their deeds that they were willing to violate in the worst ways imaginable a responsible relationship with another human being. Another panelist, Rev. Pam Werz, a lesbian minister pointed out the shared joy and "social capital" kept from gay couples who are not allowed to formally marry.

Marriage, gay or otherwise, is a spiritual choice. To prevent that choice from being recognized in the fullness of all its forms, implications, joys, and responsibilities-- legal, moral, spiritual, practical, communal-- is a great moral sin and is anti-spiritual, anti-Christian, and anti-democratic. This choice is not in any way morally contingent on biology or genetics, but rather in how that choice is made and honored.

When we start from choice, guaranteeing the right to affirmatively choose a life and soul partner, then we have the right to debate how honoring that partner might best be enacted and what one's relationship can contribute to the religious and spiritual life of others (the latter which is addressed by Otis Gaddis's keynote paper,"The Kingdom of God and the Witness of Gay Marriage, http://instituteforprogressivechristianity.org/joomla/index.php?option=c...).

I made the assertion in the symposium, deriving from my earlier blog entries (Jesus in Support of Gay Marriage?: From: http://www.crossleft.org/?q=node/1681 and http://www.crossleft.org/?q=node/1826) that it is the nature not the form of a relationship that must bear the moral test:

“You are not honoring the spirit in another, and therefore you are disrespecting God, when you are using others simply for sexual pleasure, being unfaithful, etc. but also (as Jesus said) when you have hardened your heart to your spiritual partner, as happens in many "Puritanical" relations which deny the importance of physical and emotional intimacy. Sexual activity ideally should be done with the intent of spiritual, emotional, and physical commitment in order for it not to be misconduct both for heterosexuals and homosexuals. It is the "nature" (honoring vs. abusive or "cold") and not "type" (heterosexual or homosexual) of the activity that makes it a sin or a virtue.�

My testaments are meant to evoke the moral and spiritual sanctity of relationship as the center of marriage, shifting the point of virtue away from the sexual orientation toward affirmative, faithful behavior in marriage for gay and straight couples alike: equality, commitment, non-violence, service, and loving-kindness. My convictions draw heavily from Jesus’s own teachings: "Jesus was was not asked, ‘What constitutes marriage’, in the relevant passage (often) cited [by anti-gay Christians] (Matthew 19:3-12) but rather, "If a man and woman are married, should they be allowed to divorce?" Jesus answered by evoking the sanctity of relationship, by teaching what is required for a spiritual marriage: trust, faithfulness, and a generosity of heart.

Jesus never said a word on homosexuality, but his views on marriage are quite clear. His views on loving one's neighbors and even one's enemies, leaving the anti-gay Christians with no defense for their intolerance. Loving thy gay neighbor or enemy in this context, means standing in loving and courageous presence with them. That also is a choice, and the virtuous Christian choice. It is unfortunate that anti-gay Christians, for all their "love the sinner, hate the sin rhetoric" have not found a way to open their arms and hearts to gay people and gay believers.

I say, “It is incumbent upon us as progressive Christians to love our gay brothers and sisters in their full light.�... “I am a Christian…not a Biblicist… I believe we are evoked by Jesus to challenge the old laws that have reduced compassion and openness to spiritual inspiration to mere obedience…�

So let us "choose" to see more deeply into our own hearts, to experience our faith and let it guide us, rather than using our prejudices to abuse and deny our spiritual obligations to our gay brothers and sisters. Let us choose sacred and spiritual relationship. This again demonstrates a fearful (and anti-spiritual) tendency within humans to reject diversity and, hence, to reject the creations of God.

Our task as spiritually confident human beings and Christians (looking at Jesus' example) is to embrace diversity and honor so-called exceptions, whatever they may be: disabilities, unique talents and perspectives, different learning styles. Especially insofar as they may be persecuted, we must stand by them as a testament to our faith. They provide a crucial connection into the world and into our own hearts as brothers and sisters.

This leads to the second kernel: An affirmative understanding and embrace of gay marriage is soundly based on the notion of choice. Namely, it is a spiritual and human birthright to choose marriage, to make a spiritual covenant with another human being. From a progressive Christian perspective, it is the moral and spiritual nature of that choice (and subsequent behavior) which one can debate, not whether one is allowed to choose in the first place.

Progressive Christians support the right of gay people to marry as they support the right of all people (black, white, short, tall, red-headed, blond, brunette, left-handed, disabled) to choose a romantic and spiritual partner. Currently that right is being subverted in American civil society (except in Massachusetts, where there are strong efforts to overturn the gay marriage law) and in churches, most of whom will not recognize gay marriage, and many of whom actively condemn it.

To show the absurd logic of this position, one other panelist, Gina Farag, pointed out that rapists, murderers, and child molesters were still granted the right to marry (as long as they are heterosexual), even though they had confirmed by their deeds that they were willing to violate in the worst ways imaginable a responsible relationship with another human being. Another panelist, Rev. Pam Werz, a lesbian minister pointed out the shared joy and "social capital" kept from gay couples who are not allowed to formally marry.

Marriage, gay or otherwise, is a spiritual choice. To prevent that choice from being recognized in the fullness of all its forms, implications, joys, and responsibilities-- legal, moral, spiritual, practical, communal-- is a great moral sin and is anti-spiritual, anti-Christian, and anti-democratic. This choice is not in any way morally contingent on biology or genetics, but rather in how that choice is made and honored.

When we start from choice, guaranteeing the right to affirmatively choose a life and soul partner, then we have the right to debate how honoring that partner might best be enacted and what one's relationship can contribute to the religious and spiritual life of others (the latter which is addressed by Otis Gaddis's keynote paper,"The Kingdom of God and the Witness of Gay Marriage, http://instituteforprogressivechristianity.org/joomla/index.php?option=c...).

I made the assertion in the symposium, deriving from my earlier blog entries (Jesus in Support of Gay Marriage?: From: http://www.crossleft.org/?q=node/1681 and http://www.crossleft.org/?q=node/1826) that it is the nature not the form of a relationship that must bear the moral test:

“You are not honoring the spirit in another, and therefore you are disrespecting God, when you are using others simply for sexual pleasure, being unfaithful, etc. but also (as Jesus said) when you have hardened your heart to your spiritual partner, as happens in many "Puritanical" relations which deny the importance of physical and emotional intimacy. Sexual activity ideally should be done with the intent of spiritual, emotional, and physical commitment in order for it not to be misconduct both for heterosexuals and homosexuals. It is the "nature" (honoring vs. abusive or "cold") and not "type" (heterosexual or homosexual) of the activity that makes it a sin or a virtue.�

My testaments are meant to evoke the moral and spiritual sanctity of relationship as the center of marriage, shifting the point of virtue away from the sexual orientation toward affirmative, faithful behavior in marriage for gay and straight couples alike: equality, commitment, non-violence, service, and loving-kindness. My convictions draw heavily from Jesus’s own teachings: "Jesus was was not asked, ‘What constitutes marriage’, in the relevant passage (often) cited [by anti-gay Christians] (Matthew 19:3-12) but rather, "If a man and woman are married, should they be allowed to divorce?" Jesus answered by evoking the sanctity of relationship, by teaching what is required for a spiritual marriage: trust, faithfulness, and a generosity of heart.

Jesus never said a word on homosexuality, but his views on marriage are quite clear. His views on loving one's neighbors and even one's enemies, leaving the anti-gay Christians with no defense for their intolerance. Loving thy gay neighbor or enemy in this context, means standing in loving and courageous presence with them. That also is a choice, and the virtuous Christian choice. It is unfortunate that anti-gay Christians, for all their "love the sinner, hate the sin rhetoric" have not found a way to open their arms and hearts to gay people and gay believers.

I say, “It is incumbent upon us as progressive Christians to love our gay brothers and sisters in their full light.�... “I am a Christian…not a Biblicist… I believe we are evoked by Jesus to challenge the old laws that have reduced compassion and openness to spiritual inspiration to mere obedience…�

So let us "choose" to see more deeply into our own hearts, to experience our faith and let it guide us, rather than using our prejudices to abuse and deny our spiritual obligations to our gay brothers and sisters. Let us choose sacred and spiritual relationship. This again demonstrates a fearful (and anti-spiritual) tendency within humans to reject diversity and, hence, to reject the creations of God.

Our task as spiritually confident human beings and Christians (looking at Jesus' example) is to embrace diversity and honor so-called exceptions, whatever they may be: disabilities, unique talents and perspectives, different learning styles. Especially insofar as they may be persecuted, we must stand by them as a testament to our faith. They provide a crucial connection into the world and into our own hearts as brothers and sisters.

This leads to the second kernel: An affirmative understanding and embrace of gay marriage is soundly based on the notion of choice. Namely, it is a spiritual and human birthright to choose marriage, to make a spiritual covenant with another human being. From a progressive Christian perspective, it is the moral and spiritual nature of that choice (and subsequent behavior) which one can debate, not whether one is allowed to choose in the first place.

Progressive Christians support the right of gay people to marry as they support the right of all people (black, white, short, tall, red-headed, blond, brunette, left-handed, disabled) to choose a romantic and spiritual partner. Currently that right is being subverted in American civil society (except in Massachusetts, where there are strong efforts to overturn the gay marriage law) and in churches, most of whom will not recognize gay marriage, and many of whom actively condemn it.

To show the absurd logic of this position, one other panelist, Gina Farag, pointed out that rapists, murderers, and child molesters were still granted the right to marry (as long as they are heterosexual), even though they had confirmed by their deeds that they were willing to violate in the worst ways imaginable a responsible relationship with another human being. Another panelist, Rev. Pam Werz, a lesbian minister pointed out the shared joy and "social capital" kept from gay couples who are not allowed to formally marry.

Marriage, gay or otherwise, is a spiritual choice. To prevent that choice from being recognized in the fullness of all its forms, implications, joys, and responsibilities-- legal, moral, spiritual, practical, communal-- is a great moral sin and is anti-spiritual, anti-Christian, and anti-democratic. This choice is not in any way morally contingent on biology or genetics, but rather in how that choice is made and honored.

When we start from choice, guaranteeing the right to affirmatively choose a life and soul partner, then we have the right to debate how honoring that partner might best be enacted and what one's relationship can contribute to the religious and spiritual life of others (the latter which is addressed by Otis Gaddis's keynote paper,"The Kingdom of God and the Witness of Gay Marriage, http://instituteforprogressivechristianity.org/joomla/index.php?option=c...).

I made the assertion in the symposium, deriving from my earlier blog entries (Jesus in Support of Gay Marriage?: From: http://www.crossleft.org/?q=node/1681 and http://www.crossleft.org/?q=node/1826) that it is the nature not the form of a relationship that must bear the moral test:

“You are not honoring the spirit in another, and therefore you are disrespecting God, when you are using others simply for sexual pleasure, being unfaithful, etc. but also (as Jesus said) when you have hardened your heart to your spiritual partner, as happens in many "Puritanical" relations which deny the importance of physical and emotional intimacy. Sexual activity ideally should be done with the intent of spiritual, emotional, and physical commitment in order for it not to be misconduct both for heterosexuals and homosexuals. It is the "nature" (honoring vs. abusive or "cold") and not "type" (heterosexual or homosexual) of the activity that makes it a sin or a virtue.�

My testaments are meant to evoke the moral and spiritual sanctity of relationship as the center of marriage, shifting the point of virtue away from the sexual orientation toward affirmative, faithful behavior in marriage for gay and straight couples alike: equality, commitment, non-violence, service, and loving-kindness. My convictions draw heavily from Jesus’s own teachings: "Jesus was was not asked, ‘What constitutes marriage’, in the relevant passage (often) cited [by anti-gay Christians] (Matthew 19:3-12) but rather, "If a man and woman are married, should they be allowed to divorce?" Jesus answered by evoking the sanctity of relationship, by teaching what is required for a spiritual marriage: trust, faithfulness, and a generosity of heart.

Jesus never said a word on homosexuality, but his views on marriage are quite clear. His views on loving one's neighbors, and even one's enemies, leave the anti-gay Christians with no defense for their intolerance. Loving thy gay neighbor or enemy in this context, means standing in loving and courageous presence with them. That also is a choice, and the virtuous Christian choice. It is unfortunate that anti-gay Christians, for all their "love the sinner, hate the sin rhetoric" have not found a way to open their arms and hearts to gay people and gay believers.

I say, “It is incumbent upon us as progressive Christians to love our gay brothers and sisters in their full light.�... “I am a Christian…not a Biblicist… I believe we are evoked by Jesus to challenge the old laws that have reduced compassion and openness to spiritual inspiration to mere obedience…�

So let us "choose" to see more deeply into our own hearts, to experience our faith and let it guide us, rather than using our prejudices to abuse and deny our spiritual obligations to our gay brothers and sisters. Let us choose sacred and spiritual relationship.