It’s simple. But then I’m not a lawyer.

I can’t understand the difficulty of interpreting the US Constitution in light of state or federal laws regarding marriage, even if I can understand the debates within religious communities.  But I really cannot understand the difficulty of constitutional interpretation for those who claim Biblical literalism as their foundation. If the Bible is read literally, and we apply this same logic to the US Constitution, there is no wiggle room for any interpretation other than same-sex marriages must be honored by all states and the federal government.

Article 4 Section 1 is the “full faith and credit” clause which declares that each state must respect and uphold all laws of the other states. So my home state of Georgia does not respect or uphold the marriages of LGBT from other states. This is unconstitutional.

Section 2 declares that all citizens of any state are entitled to the rights of citizens in all other states.  Citizens of other states should be able to visit or move to Georgia and receive the same benefits of marriage they enjoyed in their home state. But in Georgia they are not protected regarding their job, their housing, their medical visitation, their health benefits, etc. This is unconstitutional.

The 14th Amendment declares that no state may enact laws that deprive citizens of life, liberty or property. Perhaps this one needs a little elaboration for those who have not endured the deprivations. Heterosexual marriage laws provide protections and benefits for the couple that same-sex couples are deprived of: extra taxes on insurance benefits –loss of property, lack of insurance because companies will not recognize any other relationship than a heterosexual marriage—loss of economic parity and property in receiving healthcare, lack of protections for housing and employment for LGBT people—loss of liberty and property….  These are just a few examples, in broad general categories, to demonstrate that the US and state laws literally deprive LGBT citizens of life, liberty, and property. This is unconstitutional.

It’s simple, But then, I am not a lawyer. Perhaps that is why the relatively plain language of the US Constitution seems to make perfect sense to me.

Similarly, religious freedom laws are unnecessary as the US Constitution already ensures that the governments of federal and state jurisdictions may not restrict the business of religious organizations in managing their own affairs according to their own religious doctrines and religious constitutions nor may the federal or state legislators enact laws that require an individual to profess a belief in a particular deity (or none) or to proclaim a specific doctrine.

But to claim that marriage is a God-ordained institution in which the citizens must obey a specific religious understanding is clearly in conflict with the US Constitution.

And the government does oversee commerce for the well-being of all citizens. Therefore if a business provides a product to the citizens, the government is perfectly within its rights to require the business not to discriminate in providing the product to any citizen.

My buying groceries to feed my family does not mean the manager of the grocery store is affirming or disavowing my private home life. She is making money by selling a product that I as a consumer want to purchase. It is food. And cake is cake, and a house is a house, and medical attention is medical attention and… the list goes on.

But a priest cannot be compelled to oversee the religious ceremony of two people joining in marriage, license or not. On the other hand a state employee whose job it is to oversee such an exchange of vows to seal a contract through a state license is simply affirming that the two people willingly entered into a marital contract with one another. The employee is not “performing” anything. S/he is witnessing, nothing more, nothing less.

Just as the person who witnesses the driving exam provides a license to qualified drivers but makes no social judgment as to the emotional maturity of the applicant regarding their suitability for the task.

Just as they do not make judgments about the suitability of heterosexual couples who obtain marriage licenses. The state clerks are observing and making a note that is a legal documentation of the event, with no social judgment required.

Equality. It’s simple.

But then, I’m not a lawyer.

The Changing Definition

Two days ago SCOTUS heard oral arguments regarding marriage equality. The “definition” of marriage was raised as a concern with comments about “the” definition of marriage as between a man and a woman and “the” definition as being ancient. But I find that there is not one, singular definition of marriage.

Over time the definition of marriage evolved.

Marriage has been an ancient contract, but not between a man and woman. The ancient definition of the contract was an exchange of property between two men. The definition of marriage provided for a transfer of alliances and allegiances between men. Women and the potential male heir she would birth were a commodity for sealing the deal.

One man handed over his daughter to the other but her value was so little that he also paid the bridegroom a dowry of money, property or goods. The definition of marriage from ancient times also did not restrict the man to only this one woman as a wife, nor did it restrict him from having lovers; in some societies, male lovers were preferred as superior. The marriage was utilitarian.

In addition, the historical evidence for marriage as a civil political strategy is present in the Jewish and Christian story and King Solomon is the prime example. This story highlights a form of marriage which today is completely foreign to most Americans. To have married hundreds of women and maintain a harem of hundreds of concubines is inconceivable today, demonstrating again that the definition of marriage has changed.

Within my context, many believe the Christian Scriptures repeatedly identify men and women marrying as proof the definition is only for opposite sex couples. Regarding the gender of the marital partners, descriptive passages of law or holy writings are not necessarily prescriptive. They are reports more than directives. Those that are directive are about the role of the parties in the marriage.

The male is to become the patriarch of the female’s household. The male may not divorce his wife unless she commits adultery. They are to have sexual intercourse with one another. In those days, women (as is true in some societies now among the Christian cousins, Muslims) women were not permitted to speak with any male other than her husband or young sons. Hence Jesus’ female followers were quite scandalous and the woman who he protected, guilty of adultery, was inconceivable. Jesus upended the roles of men and women. It is traditionally understood that Jesus was not married. This too was inconceivable. To choose not to marry redefined marriage.

Thus, descriptions of the marital contract in Scripture identify heterosexual marriages but rarely recognize any marriage as founded on what today is most respected—loving relationships.

The ideal of marital love is highlighted in two prominent relationships. In Scripture, David and Jonathon and Ruth and Naomi are two same sex couples who identify a covenant with one another in which mutual love is the pre-eminent concern. King David’s love for Prince Jonathon surpasses his love of women according to the Bible. The fact that we have any story of covenant between two women is amazing. Ruth is identified in Jesus’ genealogy which is astounding. For both, marriage would not have been an option as it was a civil contract among men regarding their daughters and their property as described above. Nevertheless these couples’ love for each other drew forth undying fidelity toward one another. In both cases a child was adopted and cared for by the non-biological “parent.” These two families of choice are biblical examples of the spiritual significance of covenant. More about that below.

In my tradition of Reformed Christian theology a significant shift occurred in the Reformation as the celibacy of the priesthood was debated and ultimately discarded. In his Institutes John Calvin discusses the role of civil law in relation to this issue. He believes the church has gotten inappropriately involved in marital law. Marriage is better left to the civil judiciary. Ultimately he highlights three things about just laws as he discusses marriage: the rule of love should guide our lawmaking, equity and justice are the natural basis and foundation of civil law, and an oppressive law is unjust even if it is restrictive for only a minority of the citizenry.  (These citations are from Book 4 chapters 10 and 20.)

But perhaps most importantly, Calvin is very clear in his discussion of fidelity, chastity, and celibacy that marriage is a gift to help humankind understand the covenant bond between God and Christ/Christ and the Church and states the purpose of marriage is that we are “members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones, and thus one flesh with him…And that nobody may be deceived by an ambiguity, he [Paul] explains that he is not speaking of carnal union of man and woman, but of the spiritual marriage of Christ and the church.”  (4.19.35) In other words, flesh of my flesh is not about copulation contrary to one perspective put forth by religious based anti-equality proponents.

The definition of marriage in the civil community was a property contract and in the Protestant church a spiritual sign of God’s covenant. Marriage is meant to reflect covenant love and the unity of spirit that does not (can not) be understood simply through the physical union of sexual intercourse. It is the commitment to one another that is most important.  It has always been true that the ministers/rabbis did not “marry” people. Rather, the clergy witness and announce the exchange of vows between two people.

And so finally we come to Paul’s prime statement about the mystery of union with God, in Christ, “there is no longer…male and female,” (Gal 3:28) signifying that the most fundamental division of humanity has been laid aside. Our gender is not the definitive identifier of our humanity nor our place in the realm of God’s covenant.

If we no longer define our relationships first on the basis of gender, then marriage is defined on the basis of covenantal spiritual union formed through lovingkindness. If we no longer consider marriage as an assurance of property or political advantages, then marriage is defined as a mutual and equal exchange of commitment and shared life willingly entered by the partners. If we no longer restrict marriage to lawful copulation for the purpose of reproduction and inheritance rights, then marriage is defined as a family of choice reflective of a God who elects a people for salvation and service.

In other words, the definition of marriage has been fluid throughout human history when we look at the civil laws. When examining the spiritual descriptions of marriage we see the same fluidity, but we also find a new dimension that transcends gender-based restrictions in favor of calling all people to the love of God in covenant communion.

The conclusion of a court ruling about marriage equality must be based on the equitable application of the laws of marriage for all the citizens without regard to sexual orientation or gender expression.

The Mandate and Religious Freedom

love is love

The Mandate and Religious Freedom

Unable to sleep this morning, Jesus’s words to his disciples on his last night echoed through the darkness, “Are you still sleeping when I’m about to die?” In my drowsiness I realized it was not yet the evening of the Passover meal he would celebrate; no, there were yet hours to go before he left for a nighttime stroll and a blood, sweat and tear-filled prayer time.  I tried to go back to sleep.

“Why are you sleeping? I’m being betrayed as you lie cozy in bed?”

I’ve wrestled with how I might respond to those who would say they are my brothers and yet reserve the right to refuse to serve me cake or pizza or invite us over.

“The one who has eaten with me….”

Doesn’t Jesus know how many people he has eaten a meal with? Any one of them could be a betrayer. Many of them have been spies all along. They never had plans to really hear the good news and listened only for clues by which to charge blasphemy. Surely he knew their hearts. Thousands of people have been fed by his miraculous providence. Hardly a one could claim true righteousness. And hundreds have been touched, some literally, by his hand, and healed, actually even cured, when they were cast aside by the holy people of the Temple. Yet, they still turn their backs. And I guess some of us just want to go back to sleep.

But I couldn’t. Today it makes sense, doesn’t it, that after what Jesus went through with one he ate with, that good Christians wouldn’t want to risk serving much less eating with a betrayer? Don’t they have that right not to mingle with someone who might cause them harm?

And Judas kissed him.  One of the chosen ones sold him out and pointed him out with a kiss.

No wonder good Christians are afraid of men kissing men.

“But I give you a new commandment—to love one another as I have loved you.”

Jesus seemed to be speaking to me in my morning daze. And I heard this mandate: “Love one another. Eat together, even when you know there is the danger that one at the table will turn away. Wash each other’s feet for I came to serve and not to be served. Even if the stink and dirt of the day is overwhelming, be vulnerable to one another. Order the cake even if they will say no. Come close enough to shake hands, ah, go ahead,  give each other a kiss, even if it might turn out to be the kiss of death. I always turned the other cheek. And I never said kiss my…..

Are you still sleeping? You who are being persecuted because somebody in the crowd thinks you are not worthy of a cake for your wedding?  That you shouldn’t be allowed to celebrate your love and make a covenant of marriage and contract for better or worse? Well, follow me. I’ve been through the worst. And I was there at your wedding and it was just right, even without the cake. I’m sorry they missed it.

Now here’s the invitation to the best wedding feast you’ll ever enjoy. And I have plenty of cake. But no promises—I might just invite the good brothers and the baker too. I doubt they’ll come when they find out you’ll be there. But, maybe they’ll change their mind. God knows I’ve died trying to show them how to get along. All I ever wanted was for y’all to love each other as much as I love you. Time for work, wake up, sleepy head. And give your wife my love.”

Be it resolved…

“I am not the product of my circumstances. I am the product of my decisions.”  Stephen Covey

 “Don’t try to use what you learn from Buddhism to be a Buddhist; use it to be a better whatever-you-already-are.”  His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama

 __________

And so it begins. The annual challenge to decide if I am going to make a new year resolution to be a better me. A resolution that I am not embarrassed to share when that inevitable question comes tomorrow. A resolution that will not have enough power to derail the entire day when I realize it has long since been abandoned. Strong, not trivial. Worth the energy but not impossible to achieve. Mine, not yours.

I‘ve made the most common resolutions (weight and exercise) in the past. My health has certainly become more significantly important to me since the car crash this fall. Yet, this kind of resolution is not a goal that gives my life purpose or meaning.  Perhaps it is the mid-life crisis moment that makes me more pensive this year. I wandered into dictionary.com out of my love of words.

I had no idea there were so many ways to understand this simple word, “resolution.” It can mean simply, “decision.” As in Stephen Covey’s idea that we all have free will through which to determine our being.  It has meanings in chemistry, computing, medicine and even music:

            “the process in harmony whereby a dissonant note or chord is followed by a consonant one.”

 Dissonance is considered active and forward moving. “An unstable tone combination is a dissonance; its tension demands an onward motion to a stable chord. Thus dissonant chords are ‘active’; traditionally they have been considered harsh and have expressed pain, grief, and conflict.” —Roger Kamien (2008), p.41[here]

In other words it seeks resolution.

Music that lasts through the generations seems to have been discovered more than invented. As if Bach or Elvis or Michael Jackson embody that which is beyond time and space. It is as if the best musicians did not write or perform music to be better musicians but to be themselves.

I, too, can my make own music, discover my own song and embody the ever-moving harmony between moments of dissonance and consonance in my life. Or sit in the corner and listen to life go by.

I think I’ll sing in 2014, and maybe even dance.

I choose to seek resolution.

I decide to be myself.

Be it resolved.

“Love isn’t a s…

“Love isn’t a state of perfect caring. It is an active noun like struggle. To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.”
― Fred Rogers, The World According to Mister Rogers: Important Things to Remember

And so I shall strive to love. In this blog, I hope to do more than opine, opinionate, or any other variation of spouting off. I hope to be inspired and inspirational. Thus, my writings will range from quick thoughts for feedback to prayerfully considered ponderings, to venting. All with the hope that I am proclaiming the word–Love; teaching sound doctrine–Love; doing the work of an evangelist for Love. For I believe God is love and the greatest thing I can do is to love God, my neighbor (friend or foe) and myself. Perhaps by writing, I shall continue to be transformed by the renewing of my mind.  Peace to you.