What Is It? Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incident thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. HJ Resolution 56, The Federal Marriage Amendment, was introduced by first-term Representative Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado.
Current Status As of February 23, 2004 it has 113 cosponsors (106 Republicans, 7 Democrats) in the House of Representatives. Senate bill SJ Resolution 26, which was similarly worded, did not receive enough support to move to a vote. President Bush announced that as a way to start the general election campaign on a fresh issue, he was endorsing the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Why Does It Matter? The crux of the issue is this: conservative Legislators do not want the Constitution of the United States guarantee of equal protection under the law to apply to GLBT people. They want to change the Constitution of the United States before we get to the Supreme Court because theyre afraid (especially after the sodomy decision) that the Supreme Court, which is bound to uphold the Constitution, might rule in our favor.
Contrary to popular opinion, America has never been majority ruled. Were ruled by a Constitution to which all laws are subject. Judges all have to swear to uphold the Constitution. Since the language of the Constitution favors our full equal rights, the race is on to change the Constitution before we get there.
That is why there is a Federal Marriage Amendment.
There are 1,049 federal laws (read the govenrment report) and hundreds of state laws which come with the civil institution of marriage in the United States. GLBT people currently lack the option to marry afforded every other American citizen. These laws translate into real economic and emotional realities.
Talking Points: Over 1,049 federal laws discriminate against GLBT people. These are but a few laws which are unavailable to same-sex couples:
- Health and retirement benefits (for partner and non- biological/adoptive children) - Medicare and Social Security - Sick or bereavement leave - Hospital visitation - Medical decision authority - Exemption on inheritance, gifts, shared health benefits - Right to sue for wrongful death of partner - Pensions, workers compensation, death and spousal benefits - Access to courts in the event of divorce - Ability to sponsor ones partner for immigration - Protection of ones home (Medicaid spend-down provision) if one partner has to go to a nursing home - Lack of second parent adoptions in most states - Right to non-biological/adoptive children in event of biologic/adoptive parents death - Right of children from our unions to have financial support and a continued relationship in the even of separation - Legitimate status of our relationships and our childrens status of being a marital child.
The Constitution of the United States is a covenant entered into between the government and the people of the United States. Throughout American history, the Constitution has only been amended to expand the rights and liberties of all Americans: to abolish slavery, give women and young people the right to vote. Its incomprehensible that this covenant should be broken to enshrine gay and lesbian people as second class citizens.
Adopting this Constitutional amendment would take away the power of the courts to protect individual rights. Currently, the Constitution promises equal protection under the law for all citizens. If this amendment goes through, equal protection under the law will not apply to gay and lesbian relationships. Who will be next? Once you open up the exception to the promise of equal protection under the law which has always protected America against leaders like Hitler or Saddam, and always protected America against excluding Jews, or Shiites, or African Americans, or women from equal protection under the law who will be next?
The amendment not only denies marriage to GLBT people, but it also specifically prohibits civil unions, domestic benefits and partnerships, or any rights associated with relationships between same-sex people, and offered to all other Americans. President Bush, on February 24th announced that he supported the FMA (Federal Marriage Amendment) but would consider Civil Unions as an option. The PRESIDENT KNOWS THAT CIVIL UNIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT. The legal incident thereof clause in the Amendment has been arduously studied by both sides of the argument and both sides agree, the FMA precludes Civil Unions. The American people are deliberately being misled. Interestingly, February 23rd the religious right group Alliance for Marriage (allianceformarriage.org) PROUDLY displayed a grid explaining how the FMA would disallow Civil Unions or any alternatives to it. February 24th, after the President spoke, that page has disappeared. What hasnt disappeared is that in the minds of the best legal minds in the U.S., the FMA eliminates the possibility of Civil Unions.
As the Massachusetts Supreme Court recently ruled, Limiting the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the basic premises of individual liberty and equality under the law protected by the Massachusetts [and United States] Constitution.
Some say marriage is a 3,000 year old tradition. Polygamy is actually much older, but even if it were true that marriage is a 3,000 year old tradition, so was slavery, the subjugation of women and banning interracial marriage just because its tradition, doesnt make it right.
Marriage is - and always has been - a wholly secular institution in America since its inception. In S.C. even Notary Publics can marry men and women. The states authorize religious organizations to perform marriage ceremonies not vice versa.
Some religions currently wont marry divorced people; some wont marry interfaith couples religions will still be able to set their own standards about whom they will and wont marry. This is a civil matter not a religious one.
Many if not most same-sex couples want to marry for the same reasons opposite sex-couples do: to have or raise children, to offer their relationships stability and commitment, for emotional closeness and intimacy, monogamy, and establishment of a framework for a long-term relationship.
Why Not Civil Unions? Civil Unions (and domestic partnerships) basically say that GLBT people are separate but equal. As African Americans found out, there is no such thing as separate but equal separate is inherently unequal, to borrow words from the Supreme Court decision of Brown v. the Board of Education.
Separate but equal didnt work for African Americans and it wont work for GLBT Americans. It doesnt work because it violates the basic premise of equality on which America is founded.
Be aware! The Federal Marriage Amendment language not only prohibits marriage but also strikes down civil unions and domestic partner registries. GLBT folks didnt push this all-or-nothing agenda (although we might have), conservatives did. Although GLBT people did not provoke this fight for our Constitutional rights, now that it has been thrust upon us, we must fight for marriage with all our might and all our money our future is riding on it. And, Americas future is riding on it. Because who and what will come next? Who next will be deemed unworthy of equal protection under the law? What other erosion of the separation of church and state might surface?
State Civil Unions are not, and would not be, recognized by the federal government if the FMA passes. Even if a change is made to allow state Civil Unions, state Civil Unions do not offer the 1,049 rights and benefits that the federal government grants to married couples. The federal government controls the laws with most social and economic clout.
The Mass. Decision says that civil unions do not carry the immediate cultural significance or touchstone as the word marriage. If you tell people you have a civil union document, they dont know exactly what this means, what it provides for. If you say, we are married everyone understands.
Legal Documents Even the few legal documents which would make a difference cost lots of money. Why should GLBT people be the only citizens who must hire lawyers to receive protections guaranteed for free to every other American?
You cannot no way, no loophole, not possible create a legal document which will pass your estate (house, money, cars, pension, social security, etc.) to an unmarried partner without being subject to estate tax up to 53%.
You also cant create any legal document (none, zero, zilch) which will allow spousal insurance, Medicare, Social Security, or any of the aforementioned rights which come only with marriage.
If, like most Americans, you die without a Will, your assets will go to your nearest biological family member(s). You have no legal relationship with your partner.
Even if you remember to write a will, its typical in same-sex relationships for the deceased members biological family to challenge property and assets left to a same-sex partner.
Finally, the asset GLBT parents fear losing most is our children. No legal document can be created which will currently protect our children against custody battles from heterosexual, biological parents. No legal document will protect our children from the economic and social consequences of our lack of legal status. And, no legal document is guaranteed to provide the non-adoptive or non-biological parent in our relationships visitation rights in the event of the dissolution of our relationships. If the Federal Marriage Amendment passes, there will only be more custody cases because we will be seen in the eyes of the law as unequal and less than under the law.
Yes-and No. Only Massachusetts allows same-sex couples to get marriedand the couple has to be resident in Massachusetts. No out-of-state couples are given licenses to marry. This is currently being challenged in Massachusetts courts. Vermont allows same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, which grant the same state benefits and responsibilities as marriage, but cannot confer the 1,049 federal benefits and responsibilities. Additionally, no other stateas of today recognizes the civil unions performed in Vermont or the marriages performed in Massachusetts, so if you move from either state, the rights given you under your civil union or marriage there are not portable to a different state.
Same-sex couples can legally marry in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada. Probably in the near future, you will be able to legally marry anywhere in Canada. However, currently your marriage will not be recognized in the U.S. There are attempts by many states (including S.C.) to write into their state constitutions that they will not honor same-sex marriages in any other countries, or any other states. This violates the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution discussed earlier.
The Netherlands and Belgium have ended marriage discrimination against same-sex couples. Taiwan is considering legalizing same-sex marriage, and Brazil allows same-sex couples to inherit each others pension and Social Security benefits. Worldwide, 14 countries, including South Africa, Israel and Britain, protect same-sex couples for the purposes of immigration.
Some Responses to Arguments Made Against Same-Sex Marriage Its About Procreation - the sterile and elderly arent prohibited from marriage. Ask John Kerry, George Washington, Bob and Liddy Dole and millions of others. - a miniscule percentage of people in the United States enjoy healthy sexual relationship solely for purposes of procreation - there have been GLBT people for all of recorded time. It would seem then, that we are a part of Gods plan. - marriage is about two people who love one another having the right to commit to one another, raise a family and have that union and family recognized as equal under the law. - there are 1-6 million children being raised by GLBT Americans. Who cares how they got here, they deserve equal rights as Americas children.
Love the Sinner but Hate the Sin - Be very suspect of anyone who says this to you. Your sexual orientation is a part of who you are and defines important things such as who you fall in love with. How can anyone say, I love you but I hate the part of you who falls in love? Doesnt make much sense. Its usually a candy-coating for self-righteous judgment and prejudice. - Many, many religious denominations and religious people dont see GLBT sexual orientation as a sin and perform same-sex unions: Reconstruction and Reform Judaism, Unitarians, and many United Church of Christ, MCC, Episcopal U.S.A. and Quaker. Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians are examining their official positions in meetings this year and there is much support for our inclusion. - There are 209 admonitions against greed in the Bible and 7 possible ones about same-sex behaviors (not about sexual orientation); when the religious right start paying 30 times more attention to greed, GLBT people may believe that biblical literalists are sincere. - When Biblical literalists, spend as much time condemning divorcees and adulterers, then maybe GLBT will take their professions of commitment to literal interpretations of faith seriously. When Biblical literalist dont eat shell fish, do support selling their daughters and owning slaves, dont touch pig skin, dont wear different fibers together, kill their children when theyre disrespectful (all biblical mandates) then, maybe, well believe they come from a purer place. - Love the Sinner but Hate the Sin? mostly an orthodox Christian comment. Better yet, skip the judgment and do what Christ instructed, Judge not lest ye be judged and Love one another very clear messages to the self-righteous.
Religion Can Transform Sexual Orientation
Every major national health organization has condemned reparative therapy including:
American Academy of Pediatrics American Federation of Teachers American Medical Association American Psychiatric Association American Psychological Association The Interfaith Alliance National Association of School Psychologists National Association of Social Workers National Association of Secondary School Principals National Education Association
- Exodus Ministries was founded by two men who were struggling with their homosexuality. They were each married with children and struggled for years against their God-given need to be in relationship with someone of their own sex. After years of tortured living, and creating much self-loathing in other same-sex people through Exodus Ministries, they claimed their right to be authentically who they were, and took responsibility for the damage they had created in their marriages, and in their work. A look at Wayne Besons book on the Ex-gay ministries is filled with this same story because, sexual orientation isnt transformable. Sexual orientation is part of creation and immutable for the vast majority of GLBT people. And, IF it were a choice, arent Americans guaranteed the right to choose under the law?
We have to talk about it because - It isnt about sex! Its about who we love and who we love is central to all lives, straight and gay. Ask straight coworkers to imagine not being able to have pictures of family on their desks. Or, challenge a heterosexually married friend NOT to by word or behavior make it known that he/she is married for a week. Improbable that they could do it, and they certainly wouldnt like it! And yet, thats what just dont talk about it means.
- Our love is not dirty, taboo or shameful. We dont want to talk about sex! We want to talk about our weekends and not change pronouns; we want to share our happiest and saddest moments. We want to be authentic.
- Currently, its easier on most straight people, if we pass as straight and just dont talk about it. Thats very similar to the way most white people felt when African Americans started speaking up about inequality. The objective isnt comfort; the objective is much deeper and more important.
- We have to get from We tolerate you to We are you. The only way to do that is through talking about it. Otherwise, the myths and stereotypes will represent our lives and we will never be seen for who we are people as dull and exquisite as straight people.
There are similarities and huge differences. The African American struggle for civil rights was accompanied by mammoth hardships with which no other contemporary struggle for equal rights should ever be compared. GLBT people would be ill-advised to represent our struggle as of the same magnitude.
Nevertheless, there are similarities between the two movements in terms of the Constitutional laws being challenged, and in terms of the nature of the opposition. When President Bush said that he didnt like what he was seeing in San Francisco with people violating the law by getting married well RIGHT! Lots of white people didnt like seeing Rosa Parks at the front of a bus, or the Greensboro Five at a lunch counter either.
"Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex," Chief Justice Marshall of the Mass. Supreme Court asserted in her majority opinion, "will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage, any more than recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of a different race devalues the marriage of a person who marries someone of her own race."
- A few of the many differences between the two movements include: the systematic enslavement of African Americans first literally, and then the economic and cultural enslavement of the Jim Crow years, up to the institutional racism and cultural travesties of today. GLBT people have never had to experience derision on such a scale. - A difference experienced by GLBT people is isolation. Very often, there is no family, school, peer or church support for GLBT people. And, GLBT parents too often deal with the possibility of losing their children in biased custody cases.
Thankfully, many respected African American leaders have had the courage to speak up on our behalf. Everyone from S.C. Representatives Gilda Cobb Hunter and David Mack to South Carolinas U.S. House Representative James Clyburn as well as the following: Coretta Scott King, Carol Moseley Braun, Al Sharpton, John Lewis, Henry Louis Gates, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Peter Gomes. Representative John Lewis said:
This discrimination is wrong. We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Ive heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred and intolerance I have known in racism and bigotry.
He also said, Some say they are uncomfortable with the thought of gays and lesbians marrying. But our rights as Americans do not depend on the approval of others. Our rights depend on us being Americans.
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
To understand what Paul is writing about we must look at the event as a whole and not isolate a mere portion of it. Each verse in this story gives us a glimpse into the situation.
Verse 24: "Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity." If we are painting a picture, it begins with the image of LUST.
Verse 25: "they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator." Now there is a LIE as well as IDOLATRY involved (i.e. worshipping something other than God).
Verse 26: "God gave them up to dishonorable passions" Now DISHONORABLE PASSIONS are presented. Looking back at this now we see this as a situation of lust, lies, idolatry, and dishonorable passions.
Verse 26 and 27 continue: "Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another"
Looking at the men first will help to clarify the passage: "The men likewise gave up natural relations with women" It is easy to overlook what this is saying because of the interpretation that has been ingrained into our minds through poor teaching, but read that carefully. They gave up natural relations with women, and then had sexual relations with on another. There is a movement from point A (having natural relations with women) to point B (giving it up, and having sexual relations with other men). The word translated as "gave up" is the Greek word aphente (áöåíôåò) meaning: to give up, leave behind, forsake, or divorce. How can you give up something you do not have? How can you divorce something you are not bound to? These men, we see, divorced themselves from their own nature, that of heterosexuality (natural relations with women), and were consumed with passion for one another. Women did likewise. As we see, Paul is talking about heterosexual individuals filled with lust and engaging in homosexual sex, which is contrary to their nature.
Why would men do that? As any biblical scholar will tell you: "Context is everything." This is a situation of lust, falsehood, idolatry, and dishonorable passions. In this account there are a number of men and a number of women. Both an accurate reading of this text, and a little historical knowledge would identify this situation as an orgy, wherein everyone is filled with lust and "dishonorable passions" having sex with whomever however. But why would Paul be talking about orgies? A little Old Testament research uncovers the pagan practice of "sacred sexual orgies." Baal was the Canaanite deity that was worshipped with sexual orgies on Mount Peor in Moab, a pagan practice with which Paul would have been familiar. With this contextual understanding let us read this story again:
"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."
Anyone who isolates verses 26 and 27 to condemn homosexual relations as unnatural is interjecting their own prejudice into these verses and reading this letter entirely outside of context. Even if we were to isolate that phrase it could only be used to condemn heterosexuals who go against their own heterosexual nature and engage in homosexual activity. As Peter J. Gomes, preacher to Harvard University, further clarifies in his book The Good Book, "It is not clear that Saint Paul distinguished, as we must, between homosexual persons and heterosexual persons who behave like homosexuals, but what is clear is that what is unnatural is the one behaving after the manner of the other" 3 (italics mine).
So far we have looked at all three of the New Testament scriptures used in reference to homosexuality as well as the Genesis narrative about Sodom. That leaves us with two other scriptures that are mentioned when this topic is brought up: The Creation Narrative (Genesis 1-2) and Leviticus 18:22 (& parallel verse 20:13).
Passage V: The Creation Narrative (Genesis 1-2)
This is a story about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!! I have heard and read that in so many different places. The fact is that it was Adam and Eve. In The Good Book, Gomes writes the following pertaining to the creation narrative:
"the authors of Genesis were intent upon answering the question Where do we come from? Then, as now, the only plausible answer is from the union of a man and a womanThe creation story in Genesis does not pretend to be a history of anthropology or of every social relationship. It does not mention friendship, for example, and yet we do not assume that friendship is condemned or abnormal. It does not mention the single state, and yet we know that singleness is not condemned, and that in certain religious circumstances it is held in very high esteem" (pages 49-50).
4
In other words, Adam and Eve is the only relationship that would make sense for this specific account. It is a story about creation, and only a procreative (i.e. hetero-sexual) relationship would be appropriate for this particular story. If someone, in spite of this, were to base his or her opinion of homosexuality on the Creation story alone, their stance would not only be out of context, but also based on a weak argument.
That leaves us with two Leviticus laws: Leviticus 18:22 & parallel verse 20:13.
Passage VI: Leviticus 18:22
Some common translations of Leviticus 18:22 include:
KJV
: "Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination."
NIV
: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Living Bible
: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin."
In any serious study of Leviticus 18:22, one must look closely at the historical context of this law. The book of Leviticus is a part of the Hebrew Law and contains everything from commandments for men not to shave the edges of their beards (Lev 19:27); orders not to have intercourse during menstruation (Lev 18:19); not to harvest different crops in the same field (Lev 19:19); as well as numerous dietary laws.
In order to understand this verse we will look first at the Hebrew Law and how it relates to Christians, an issue the early church faced when Gentiles were being converted. Second, we will look at the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus as a whole, and how this is a part of the Holiness Code. Finally, we will end this section with a careful examination of Leviticus 18:22.
THE LAW:
The early church was faced with the question of whether or not the Hebrew Law applies to Christians. Many Gentiles were being converted to Christianity, yet they were not circumcised, nor did they follow the Law that God had given to the Israelites. It was through the observation of the Law that Jews considered themselves justified before God. In reading Pauls letters to the Romans, the Galatians, the Corinthians, the Colossians, and the Hebrews we find a consistent claim that "no one is justified before God by the law" (Galatians 3:10). Paul writes the following in reference to the law:
"Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit"
(RSV Romans 7:4-6).
"Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian
[i.e. The Law]. For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith" (RSV Galatians 3:23-26).
Other New Testament Scriptures on the Law include: 2 Corinthians 3:6; Colossians 2:13-15; Hebrews 8:8-13, Romans 10:1-4. In the second chapter of his letter to the Galatians he confronts Peter who has been forcing Gentiles to follow the Jewish law (Galatians 2:14), and he goes on to boldly assert:
"We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified"
(RSV Galatians 2:15-16).
Paul was even persecuted for this deeply held conviction that as Christians, we are no longer held to the Hebrew Law, but are justified through faith in Jesus Christ.
If we are "not under the law" does that mean we can lie, cheat, steal, etc.? In Romans 6:15 Paul answers this question himself, "By no means!" Didnt Christ himself in Matthew 5:17 say that he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it? So what is the fulfillment of the law? Jesus was once asked, "Rabbi, which is the greatest commandment in the law?" Jesus replied, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:36-40). The fulfillment of the law is love. Paul would later echo this idea in Romans as he wrote:
"Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law"
(RSV Romans 13:8-10).
THE HOLINESS CODE:
There are over 600 laws in the Old Testament and the book of Leviticus contains many of such laws. The book of Leviticus is a part of what is described as the Holiness Code, which was given to protect the Israelites from idolatry and to distinguish them from pagan cultures.
Leviticus 18 begins, "And the Lord said to Moses, Say to the people of Israel, I am the Lord your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. You shall do my ordinances and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the Lord your God..." (Leviticus 18:1-4). This introduction of Leviticus 18 clearly maintains that these laws were given to distinguish them from the ways of the people in Egypt and those in Canaan.
The Old Testament, as has been mentioned, was initially a part of the Hebrew Scriptures of the Jewish people. The Septuagint was an ancient translation of the Old Testament (circa 200 B.C.) from its original Hebrew into Greek. It was the "version" of the Old Testament that the New Testament writers quoted from when they cited Old Testament scriptures. The Hebrew word in this specific law we are looking at that was translated into English as "abomination" was translated in the Septuagint into the Greek word bdelugma. A quick search through a lexicon for the word bdelugma brings up the following definition:
1. a foul thing, a detestable thing
a. of idols and things pertaining to idolatry
This also seems to point to the idea that this specific law has to do with a matter of ritual purity and with the Hebrews not being like the idolatrous Babylonians or Canaanites. It is probably referring to either the sacred orgies involved in the worship of the god Baal, or some other form of idolatry.
ABUSIVE SEXUAL ENCOUNTERS
:
KJV: "Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a women; it is an abomination."
NIV: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Translated literally from Hebrew Leviticus 18:22 reads: "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman." The only way of making sense of this is to insert something to produce a smoother, more coherent English translation. For example, one can insert "as the" or "in the" after the first lay as showed below:
"And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman."
"And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman."
Even if we accept the NIV or KJV translations, (KJV: "Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.") we still must understand the historical context of how a man laid with a women, for this is the qualifier of the phrase. Some affirm that this law is quite straightforward. Clearly from the previous sixteen verses, we know that these laws are written to men. Thus, some may say, this law forbids men to "lie with", or have sex with, other men. This interpretation is flawed as it entirely ignores the phrase "as with a woman." These four words cannot simply be understood to refer to lying sexually, since that is already indicated in the Hebrew word translated "to lie with." If the above interpretation were what the author means he could have just written, "Thou shalt not lie with a man; it is an abomination."
"As with a woman" must have been added for some reason, and we must understand the context of this law to understand it fully. The status of women in that time was much lower than that of men, and women were even considered property of the men. This belief regarding gender relations is rejected by most of the Christian church today, but in order to make sense of this specific Jewish law we must keep in mind this context in which it was written. Rabbi Arthur Waskow explains, "The whole structure of sexuality in the Torah assumes a dominant male and a subordinate female."4 In other words, women were obedient to men, and men in that time would have been dominating and controlling in sexual encounters. The woman did what the man wanted and how the man wanted it. For a man in a sexual encounter to be treated in that way, within the Jewish culture of the time, the man would have be taking a lower status, as well as being sexually dominated and controlled. To do so would have been reducing him to property and in effect defiling the image of God, which man was considered in that culture. This, however, is exactly how men would have treated the male temple prostitutesin a controlling and abusive manner, and also is how individuals would have been treated in the sacred sexual orgies with which Baal was worshiped. They would have lied with other men "as with a women."
Conclusion on Leviticus 18:22
As we see, this law isnt as simple as it appears. First of all, we know from Pauls writing that we have "died to" and are "discharged from the law" (Romans 7:4-6). We also know that "love is the fulfilling of the law" (Romans 13:10). Second, we understand that Leviticus is a part of the Holiness code, which was written to distinguish the Israelites from the Canaanites and Moabites. Lastly, we see that Leviticus 18:22 has to do with abusive cultic practices, and says nothing pertaining the issue we are faced with todaythat of loving and committed homosexual relationships.
Scripture Study Conclusion
As we see, the Bible really does not fully address the topic of homosexuality. Jesus never talked about it. The prophets never talked about it. In Sodom homosexual activity is mentioned within the context of rape (raping angels nonetheless), and in Romans 1:24-27 we find it mentioned within the context of idolatry (Baal worship) involving lust and dishonorable passions. 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 talk about homosexual activity
in the context of prostitution and possibly pederasty. Nowhere does the Bible condemn a loving and committed homosexual relationship. To use the Bible to condemn such a relationship, as we see, involves a projection of ones own bias and a stretching of the Biblical text beyond that of which the scriptures speak. Historically, however, the Bible has been taken out of context and twisted to oppress almost every minority one could imagine including women, African Americans, children, slaves, Jews, and the list goes on. Do we truly understand the greatest commandments? "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets." (RSV Mat. 22:36-40)
Church Tradition & Marriage
Tradition, however, has held that marriage is a sacrament designed for a very specific purpose. The following is taken from the article Homosexual Marriage by United Methodist clergyman Tex Sample:
"To address Christian homosexual marriage, attention must be turned to the tradition of the church, and here I am indebted to the work of Daniel M. Bell Jr. St. Augustine is the major figure in the teaching of the church on marriage. For him marriage is an office, a duty in which one serves the church and the larger society. This office serves three ends. First is the procreative end, which is understood by Augustine as raising children for the Kingdom of God. It is not primarily having children of ones own in a biological sense. The second end is the unitive end in which couples learn faithfulness to each other and to God and become thereby witnesses to an order of charity. The third is the sacramental end, which for Augustine relates more often to the indissolubility of marriage.
"These three ends are sustained in the later Middle Ages. While Augustine sees marriage as serving to restrain lust, in the later Middle Ages a more positive view develops in which marriage contributes to growth in holiness
"The point is that marriage in the Christian tradition serves a number of ends: procreation, fidelity, sacramental, mutual support and companionship, mutual society, and loving companionship. What is striking is that all of these ends can be met by homosexual marriages, even the procreative end when the procreative end is understood as raising children for the Kingdom of God and not primarily as a function of nature [a biological function]. On these grounds, it is appropriate for gay and lesbian Christians to be married in the church, and it is not in violation of Scripture or tradition.
"The objection to this argument by some Christians is to raise up Mark 10:7-8 where Jesus states that "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." The argument is then made that this is the only form scriptural marriage can take. The issue addressed in this passage, however, is divorce. Jesus is responding to a hard-hearted test of his authority. Extending his response to a blanket denial of homosexual marriage goes well beyond the text. Moreover, it is uttered by a single Christ who did indeed leave his mother and father to engage in his Incarnate mission. So long as we are dealing with a single Christ who left father and mother for a different reason, we must be open to other possible options, especially options that fulfill the ends of Christian marriage traditionally understood.
"In conclusion, biblical teaching does not address a host of same-sex practices, among them homosexual marriage. Moreover, the ends of marriage as understood in the tradition of the church are ends that homosexual marriage can fulfill. So the issue in the confirmation of a bishop in a homosexual relationship is not whether he or she is gay, not even whether he or she is a practicing homosexual. The question is: is he or she married to this partner, and if so, does this marriage meet these ends."6
The "Sacrament" of Sex
There are those who would say that this topic is really much simpler and just comes down to sex. They might ask, "Isnt the inherent function of sex procreation, an end which homosexual sex does not fulfill?" The 1958 resolution of the Ninth Lambeth Conference (the worldwide gathering of Anglican bishops), on the subject of intercourse wrote:
"Sexual intercourse is not by any means the only language of earthly love, but it is, in its full and right use, the most revealingIt is a giving and receiving in the unity of two free spirits which in itself is goodTherefore it is utterly wrong to say thatsuch intercourse ought not to be engaged in except with the willing intention of children."
4
Sex within marriage can fulfill two divine functions: the procreative and the unitive. With regards to these two divine ends of sex (i.e. the procreative and the unitive), if you cannot fulfill one, does that mean you should not do the other? It is like asking, if you are sick and cannot go to church should you not pray? If homosexual sex can fulfill one of the two divine ends of sex, is that not reason enough to bless lifelong homosexual unions/marriages? Interestingly enough, The Roman Catholic Church, as well as most other churches, permits the marriage of infertile couples, as well as the marriage of women past childbearing age, both of which close the possibility of procreation. As Boston College Professor of Theology Charles C. Hefling, Jr. summarizes this beautifully: "Sex can be productive without being reproductive."4
Conclusion
As we have seen, Scripture does not really have much to say about homosexuality. Furthermore, we have come to see that homosexual sex within a marriage can fulfill one of the divine ends of sex (i.e. the unitive), and that such a marriage also fits within the traditional Christian understanding of the sacrament of marriagean image of the fidelity and love between God and His church. I would like to leave you with a short story adapted from an oral rendition by Natalie Graber:
Once there was an old man who had to carry water up the hill from the river to his house each day. One of his water jugs, however, had a crack in it, so that, by the time he arrived at the top of the path, most of the water was lost. His neighbors laughed at him: "Why dont you buy a new water jug?" Even his wife criticized him: "Why dont you buy a new water jug?" But the man said nothing.
One day, he said to them, "Come with me," and led them, skeptical but curious, down the path that ran from his back door to the river.
"Almost every day," said the man to his wide-eyed companions, "on my way to the river, I scatter seeds. On my way home, water leaks from my precious jug to nourish them."
To their amazement, the entire left side of path was in bloom. A riot of colorflowers of every hue and tone made the path a paradise.
Is not homosexuality similar to that second jug? It may appear broken from one individuals limited and restricted perspective, but truly what appears to be "brokenness" is indeed a hidden virtue. Could one even imagine that the jug is not necessarily "broken," but rather God, out of abundance and creativity, created more than one type of jug for more than one purpose?
On another note, we accept that it is true that we are not only spiritual and mental beings, but also physical and sexual beings. Does it make sense then that a large percent of Gods children should live in denial of a fundamental part of who they are? Should this group be forced to live without the affection and intimacy that comes with committed partnership? Nonetheless, that is precisely what is happening. Homosexuals in the
church are not only among the most marginalized groups, but are often victims of violence or driven to suicide because they cannot make sense of their sexual feelings in the light of what they believe or are told their Bible says. Or because of a lack of understanding of what the Bible truly says (or doesnt say) they are, more often than not, driven to leave the church.
The Church needs to embrace and support this group of people, not despite scripture and tradition, but in light of scripture and tradition. The doors of the church need to be opened and human prejudices set aside, so that we can truly live according to the law that Christ taught us. The problem, however, is rooted in fear and lack of awareness. Gomes concludes, "The combination of ignorance and prejudice under the guise of morality makes the religious community, and its abuse of scripture in this regard, itself morally culpable."3
For homosexual and heterosexual Christians alike it is imperative to know what the Bible says about homosexuality, as both groups desire to live according to the direction of the Bible, as understood through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. With looming constitutional amendments in opposition to homosexual marriage, and division in the larger Church surrounding this issue, it is our responsibility to be as informed as possible. It is my prayer that we may set aside our fears and prejudices and open our minds and hearts to the truth which the Holy Spirit longs to make known to us all. I offer this study as one seeking that truth. May the Spirit of peace, which surpasses all understanding, guide our hearts and minds as we continue to prayerfully consider this issue.
Visit us online at
Sources Cited:
1 Silker, Jeffrey S.
How To Decide? Homosexual Christians, the Bible, and Gentile Inclusion (Theology Today, Vol 51, No. 2 - July 1994).
2 Scroggs, Robin.
The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate. (Fortress Press, 1983).
3 Blair, Dr.
Ralph. Available Online at http://www.ecinc.org/Scriptures/clbrpg.htm
4 Gomes, Peter J.
The Good Book. (William Morrow & Company, 1996).
5 Waskow, Arthur.
Homosexuality and Torah Thought.
6 Sample, Tex.
Homosexual Marriage. Available Online at http://rmnetwork.org/marriage/resources/sample.pdf
Some commonly read Bible translations include the King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), New King James (NKJ), Revised Standard Version (RSV), and New English Bible (NEB). These words were, respectively, translated in the following manner:
pornoi
arsenokoitai
andrapodistai
KJV:
whoremonger
"them that defile themselves with mankind"
men-stealers
NIV:
adulterers
perverts
slave traders
NKJ:
fornicators
sodomites
kidnappers
RSV:
immoral persons
sodomites
kidnappers
NEB:
fornicators
perverts
kidnappers
As we see there is no clear-cut agreement as to what these words mean, though the above translations agree on the general sense of such words. To determine the precise meanings, we will use a lexicon. A lexicon is a scholarly dictionary used to determine the meaning of biblical words. A search through the online Greek
lexicon available at searchgodsword.org gives the following information on the Greek term pornos, which is the stem of the word pornoi, the first of the three words:
Pornos
derives from the verb pernemi meaning "to sell" and the following three definitions are given:
1. a male who prostitutes his body to anothers lust for hire
2. a male prostitute
3. a male who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator
Andrapodistes
, the stem of the word Andrapodistai, the third word, returns the following definitions:
1. slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer
a. of one who unjustly reduces free males to slavery
b. of one who steals the slaves of others and sells them.
Arsenokoitai
, as previously indicated, is made up of the Greek words for male (arseno-) and beds (koitai). In Greek, the word koitai, literally meaning beds, is commonly used as a euphemism for one who has sex. Arseno- is an adjectival prefix, thus literally we could translate this as "a man who has sex" or "male bedder."
We have, first of all, a male prostitute, the "male-bedder" (arsenokoitai), and the slave dealer. The New American Bible offers a footnote that might shed some light on the historical context of the time:
"The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e. boys or young men who were kept for the purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the "cupbearer of the gods," whose Latin name was Catamus" (New American Bible)
It was a common practice in that men of Pauls time would have slave "pet" boys whom they sexually exploited. Dr. Ralph Blair explains, "The desired boys were prepubescent or at least without beards so that they seemed like females."3 Today, this practice is referred to as pederasty. Regardless, we know the pornos is a prostitute.
Keeping this in mind, lets look back at what we have so far: the enslaved male prostitute, the "male-bedder" (arsenokoitai), and the slave dealer. This contextual dynamic leads one to understand arsenokoitai as being the one who sleeps with the prostitutethe man who literally lies on the bed with him. It is as if Paul were saying,
"male prostitutes, males who lie [with them], and slave dealers [who procure them]."2 Not only does the syntactical and historical context point to this understanding, but also the very literal sense of the word arsenokoitai itself: male bed.
If this translation of arsenokoitai is correct, it should also make logical sense where it is also used in 1 Corinthians 6:9, either confirming or refuting this understanding of arsenokoitai.
Passage III: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God." (RSV)
The term translated "sexual perverts" above is actually two different words. The first word is malakos, which is the singular form of the word malakoi, and the second term is arsenokoitai. Some commonly read translations include
malakos
arsenokoitai
KJV:
effeminate
abusers of themselves with mankind
NIV:
male prostitutes
homosexual offenders
NKJ:
homosexuals
sodomites
RSV1952:
..
RSV1989:
male prostitutes
sodomites
Jerusalem Bible:
catamites
sodomites
The term malakoi, as an adjective, literally means "soft." In Matthew 11:8 it has been used as an adjective in reference to John the Baptists clothing. In this text, however, it is used as a noun and its meaning is debated. Does our understanding of arsenokoitai as revealed in 1 Timothy 1:10 as "men who sleep with male-prostitutes" make sense next to this word malakos which is translated by both NIV and RSV as male prostitutes? The Jerusalem Bible even translates the term malakos as catamites, those young soft prepubescent "pet" boys mentioned earlier. The syntactical and historical context of 1 Timothy 1:10 reveals the meaning of the word arsenokoitai as men who sleep with prostitutes, and the fact this also fits the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9 seems to confirm that we have found the meaning of these obscure words. It makes perfect sense that Paul would rebuke not only the prostitute, but also the "male-bedder" or the man who sleeps with that prostitute.
As we see, these two verses are about this practice of prostitution and possibly pederasty, but what about Romans 1:27. It clearly says, "and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error." Is this not clear enough? There are no obscure Greek words. How are we to understand this?
Passage IV: Romans 1:24-27
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
25
because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
26
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27
and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (RSV)
