On using the Bible as the basis for defintion of marriage

The Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu, has had comments printed in the press warning the British government not to legalize gay marriage:

“Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman,” says Dr Sentamu. “I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are."

First of all, marriage is not a private matter, nor is it purely a religious matter OR purely a civil matter.

Marriage is a matter of civil control as an issue of contract, as an issue of property, and as an issue of inheritance, just to name the basic universals regardless of what country in which one lives. Here in America, marriage is also vitally involved in sharing of health care benefits and power in health care directives, as well. That is why you MUST get a marriage license for a marriage to be valid, but you do NOT have to have a religious ceremony for a marriage to be valid. The religious ceremony is optional.

Now, here in America, we often blend the two facets of marriage together, which partially obscures the reality of the two separate facets of marriage. But in Europe that is not how the system works. Couples go to the City Hall and have the civil ceremony, and then have a religious ceremony if they so desire it.

There are a lot of lovely traditions associated with marriage. But most of them are not Biblically based, and thank God for that, because, particularly in the Old Testament, marriage is not an institution which I as a woman would have wanted any part of.  Examples of polygamy are rife throughout the Old Testament. Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Saul, David and Solomon all had at least two wives and Solomon and David had many more. Deuteronomy 21:15-16 reminds men that they may not cheat their first-born son of his inheritance, even if he is the son of the less-favored wife. And then there was the issue of concubines. Lot's daughters got him drunk and had sons with him "to continue the inheritance." Granted, the refusal to practice monogamy almost always caused all kinds of trouble--think of Abraham and Hagar and then Sarah, or David and Bathsheba for something truly horrible from an ethical and moral standpoint. So to appeal to the Bible as a source of tradition and authority when dealing with the definition of marriage is to me completely reckless and ill-informed.

The fact is that the definition of marriage has never been set in stone. Most of us ignore St. Paul's advice that the best way to live is as a celibate-- although, he basically says between gritted teeth, get married if you must. Nice. Although brought up by a Christian mother, St. Augustine himself had a child with a woman who was not his wife before his reconversion experience. Throughout most of human history marriages usually lasted only a few years due to low life expectancies and high maternal death rates, in particular. It's hardly the modern era that invented step-mothers, step-siblings, half-siblings and so on. Think about classic fairy tales just as a starting point and you will realize that the so-called "nuclear family" is almost coterminous with the Nuclear Age.

Getting back to the consideration of gay marriage which initiated the interview with the Archbishop of York, the fact is that the word "marriage" connotes legal rights as well as religious significance. I used to believe that giving gay people all of the legal rights of marriage was sufficient, and so "civil partnerships" would be all that were required. I used to joke that I didn't believe gay people should have the right to marry, since they have already suffered so much (not intended as a slap at my husband, by the way, just letting my inner Henny Youngman out). And certainly, I guess civil partnerships are better by far than nothing.

But there is certainly something sacred to me about the religious concept of marriage, especially as someone who has been married for 23 years during all kinds of struggles as well as blessings throughout the course of that relationship. And how can I claim that God loves us all equally if I would also argue that God would deny any such a blessing? I would like to see MORE people dedicate themselves to the real commitment that marriage should signify-- including many people who already have the right to marry and yet fail to actually understand what marriage should mean in terms of their own behavior.

Some here in the US have argued that once gay people are given the right to marry, we would have to allow pedophiles to marry children (haven't noticed too much demand for that, but...) or practitioners of bestiality to marry animals. Ignoring the hateful aspect of remarks that lump faithful gay couples with such exploitative behavior, let me also point out that in those two examples, neither children nor animals are legally able to consent to intercourse nor to form contracts just as the most obvious refutation of this line of "reasoning." 

I would also think that anyone who is willing to make a commitment that promotes honor, fidelity, stability, selflessness, and devotion should be encouraged as a counterbalance to a flawed, fragmented society that usually glaringly not just lacks but denigrates these same honorable concepts.

Even in the Bible.