New name for new status of same-gender unions

Jean P. Purcell
Commentary
Religion, History > Marriage

Marriage is to be held in honor  - Hebrews 13:4


Marriage is a unique term for a unique life union--male and female. In Genesis, the first book of the Tanakh, God revealed a plan to be realized through His creation. It would come through two, the first male and female. They were to become "one flesh" in a true "fit," an intimate biological and social relationship designed and equipped for procreation. This word of God established marriage, original human and biological complementarity, two genders obviously and functionally different.

In the book of Hebrews, thought to have been written about 70 AD, the Greek word pronounced gamos, and equivalent to English word marriage, was used, among earliest references to marriage. Over time, civilizations developed. As tribes and nations (States) formed in the West, there were religious leaders who abused power, affecting multitudes. The "separation of church and state" became a goal so that the Church could not dictate to a nation how or where or if to worship God; and the State could not dictate to the Church about its freedom of religion.

International laws later borrowed from ancient biblical records regarding marriage. However, in time secular States, and their courts, decided to mess with that. Although the word marriage in English was used as early as the 13th century to define the sacred covenant union, wedding, within the Church, the State saw benefits in taking authority over weddings and marriage, and it eventually had to be State-approved or registered. The Church (representing religion) would be required to participate under the State's laws affecting religion. 

The tables were turning.

In 1653, under Oliver Cromwell's leadership (Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, 1654-1658), the State did a remarkable thing: "During the Nominated Assembly or ‘Barebones Parliament’ of 1653, ...the conducting of marriages was taken away from the clergy altogether ..." (History of Parliament - emphasis added).

Marriage union contracts had to be authorized through justices of the peace.

Jump forward 300-plus years to the U.S. in the summer of 2015, where four of the seven justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) erased marriage as it was created to be. They ruled to change its foundational identity.

It seemed that four Supreme Court justices thumbed their noses, figuratively speaking, at  sacred texts, covenants, records, history, and tradition. SCOTUS ruled a restructuring and a redefinition of marriage. To many inside and outside the Church, this seemed no less odd than redefining the heart to include the spine, ignoring science; because to include same-gender unions as marriage is to ignore biology.

This monumental event, this claim to remake what marriage is by passing a law, this delusion that what marriage is and how it works on basic levels can be changed...the ruling ignores the obvious: marriage always assumes the physical/biological ability to procreate, due to the obvious male-female physical differences; that always is the case, barring medical problems. (Hence, fierce contraception debates.) To include under marriage those legal unions that, by type, are incapable of procreation within the union is to go outside the meaning and function of marriage.

So here is what should happen now, given that marriage is between male and female:

A new term should be created for now-legal same-gender unions.    


The precedent arose on the summer evening, 2015, of the Supreme Court ruling. In LaFayette Park, across from the White House, same-gender and transgender people celebrated in front of a White House display of full rainbow lighting across the White House facade.

The LBGT community symbol is the rainbow. With the rainbow union victory by four on the Supreme Court, rainbow union gained a legal standing. That standing was what same-gender union proponents and supporters celebrated in front of the rainbow-lit White House the evening of the SCOTUS ruling.  

Marriage is a specifically and distinctly man-woman union. It is not rainbow-identified or -symbolized. Marriage does not disparage singleness; it does not judge the divorced; it does not judge anyone. Marriage is the term theologically and historically for the male-female life covenant.            

Rainbow unions need their own name that distinguishes them from man-woman unions, marriage.  

From Genesis 1: 27, 28: 
   So God created man in his own image...; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it....

Related: Changes in Marriage Law, 19th Century

Comments invited.

CHURCH-STATE MATTERS AFFECT 2012 U.S. ELECTION

Executive Office of the President Seal (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (from the First Amendment to The Constitution of the United States). The popularity of "separation of church and state" does not rule out different interpretations of what this part of the amendment intended, when written.
     What's the problem? We know the framers of The U.S. Constitution fled powerful royal, political, and legal ties between governments or rulers (the State) and Religion. The new political landscape of the new republic must, the framers saw, maintain clear distance between the State and religion. One should not be allowed to co-opt the other. Any alliance or assimilation efforts would receive fast and furious push-back. 
     That's my take on it. 
      Voter instincts are on high alert now because it's a federal election year. We pay close attention to candidates' records and words. We want to know about candidates' vision of the country and government... and their words. How have they done in the past? What are specifics about how they intend to make things better nationally?
     U.S. voters heat up at signs we might slide, as a nation, in the wrong direction on the constitutional "separation of church and state" guarantees. I know, I know..."separation of church and state" is not a constitutional phrase. I get it. But we use shorthand all the time to name complicated affirmations. "Church and state" is our way of speaking about specific guarantees of freedoms that are in the First Amendment of the Constitution. 

Let's look at three seemingly small actions in February 2012 that deserve magnification: 

• A presidential mandate co-opted religious institutions to ensure contraception access to employees or persons in care, 

• A potential party nominee's beliefs about contraception clouded the mandate issue, 

• The incumbent president quoted words of Jesus as authority for controversial tax policies.        

     These matters seriously affect separation of religion and government, "church and state," "the sacred and the secular"--whatever terms we use. Trying to mix the two closely, intimately, makes voters think of the proverbial oil mixed with water, water with oil.    
     First, an executive office mandate to co-opt religion deals with providing contraceptives, regardless of moral and religious beliefs. President Obama issued the mandate, ordering religious institutions' hospitals and outreach programs to provide contraception access regardless of their religious beliefs. If carried out, this would affect Catholic and Jewish institutions, and others. The government mandate on religious institutions could face high court review. 
     Second,a potential Republican nominee's beliefs about contraception raise concern about how he might view the religion and the state separation clause of The Constitution of the United States. He could have handled the matter successfully without seeming to "preach beliefs" to voters. 
     Instead, Senator Santorum talked as much about the religious basis for his beliefs about contraception during interviews about the contraception-provision mandate. He thereby opened a door for voters to question if he might push his views using personal religious beliefs as his authority, when much more would be required of any president.  
     So I can't figure why the senator chose to speak as much or more about the matter of contraception than the matter of a mandate coercing religious institutions to make them available. He lost a terrific chance to elaborate on religion-state issues of the contraception mandate to religious institutions; he could have done that with strong legal arguments and conviction.   

     Finally, early in February at the National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama said, paraphrasing Jesus' words*: "...'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required’" to give highest authority to his controversial plans for higher tax rates to "the wealthy" or "the rich" than to others. 
     But, the way the President used the scripture has interpretation and context problems: the biblical parable speaks of things given for a time (gospel of Luke 12: 40-48 has the details), while taxes deal with things earned, income worked for; Jesus' parable describes a relation between master and servant, the President's relation to citizens is public servant and the people, another big difference. 
     What is critically important about this is that Jesus was not even talking about taxes in Jesus' words the President quoted. Jesus was answering a question about the kingdom of heaven and the Lord’s return.

      We're human and we interpret religion-state and state-religion issues in the "separation clauses" differently, and many people disagree about the meaning. This mighty document, The Constitution of the United States, ensures there shall not be any church-state union; that, however, does not prevent efforts to get around the guarantee. 
     The framers of The Constitution affirmed human freedoms as God-given and sacred. We know why they drew the line at coercion of religion on government or government on religion: they had lived under government-religion alliances, and they knew of other examples too; they knew that extreme tensions, pressures, and even bloody conflicts arise over alliances or assimilation of religion and government.   
     Think about it: as fought-for democratic rights, current elections fulfill a guardian-of-freedoms tradition. Whatever American's think or believe about “how to govern," most agree that we want to have a say, as free people, in the continuing security of the freedoms and rights secured for everyone by The Constitution. Of course we want to guard God-given freedoms! It may sound corny to some, but we do put freedom and country before political parties. We are a religious nation with a national inheritance as a free people apart from government. 
     Americans used to wake up and rise up when national and individual freedoms, including religious ones, were put at risk. We see some of that spirit returning in this new century. We sense a treasured duty toward elections, candidates, and speech, plus religious and other freedoms, and politics...they're all part of "American DNA." 
  

______________________________________

*Source on context of Luke 12:48--For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more--is in verses 40-48:  

⁴⁰Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”
⁴¹ Then Peter said to Him, “Lord, do You speak this parable only to us, or to all people?”
⁴² And the Lord said, “Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his master will make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season?
⁴³ Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes.
⁴⁴ Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all that he has.
⁴⁵ But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk,
⁴⁶ the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
⁴⁷ And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

⁴⁸ But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

Context Scriptures-Source: New King James Version of the Bible published by Thomas Nelson; Biblegateway.com, Words of Jesus in a parable, the kingdom of heaven and the return of the Lord

Copyright (c)2012 Opinari Writers

Related articles to consider for yourself:

• Majority Of Americans Support Separation Of Church And State (lezgetreal.com)