home
radioClaire Mathys of the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum gives her opinion on the complexity of the debate
Gay marriage is one of the most controversial subjects on the fault line of church and politics today. As frustrating as it may be that the church seems to get most politically engaged when there are sexual ethics to be discussed - despite this being a minor issue in Christianity - it is worth unpacking some of the key issues that this debate brings to the surface.
While some Christians are only too keen to express their support or opposition to same-sex marriage, many others have said to me that they realise it is 'complex' and quite honestly, they don't actually know what to think. I'm not aiming to provide any answers here, but simply to raise some questions, which I think demonstrate why this is a difficult debate and why some MPs have had to agonise over which way to vote.
There seem to be four big questions that are lynch pins to the debate, which help us to see why there are so many different views on the subject among Christians.
The first big question is this: Is the debate about equality for gay people?
Most reasonable people think that people who are gay should be treated the same as straight people before the law and their relationships recognised as such; but here we have the first problem as gay couples already have exactly the same legal rights as straight couples through civil partnerships. They are equal in all but name. Does having different words to describe different types of relationships make them unequal?
Some would say not, that it's simply a question of linguistics and equality isn't the same as uniformity. However, if gay people feel that civil partnerships are less equal to marriage, then perhaps it really is an issue of equality. Many gay couples who have entered into civil partnerships consider themselves to be married already and are content with the status quo, but clearly not all gay people feel this, (or they would not be arguing for the legislation).
The second big question is: What is the Christian definition of marriage?
The Bible talks about a man leaving his mother and father and becoming one flesh with his wife. It's also full of marriage imagery, for example the church is described as the bride of Christ. It says some less than positive things about participating in homosexual acts and very little about homosexual relationships. There are lots of references to marriage providing the context for raising children.
But Jesus didn't condemn homosexuals, in fact he didn't mention sexuality at all, which suggests it wasn't a big issue for him. Some argue that the few references to homosexual activity in the Bible can be explained away by understanding their context. This mix of responses to the Biblical understanding of marriage naturally gives rise to a mix of opinions about how gay relationships should be recognised in society.
The third big question is: Who should define what marriage is?
Some people argue that marriage is an age-old institution and should be defined as it has been for previous generations. Others argue that its current definition should reflect the opinions of the prevailing culture. Opinion polls vary and are unreliable though so how do we know what prevailing culture thinks? Letters written to MPs are overwhelmingly against redefinition, but is that because the Christian community is well mobilised and most people in society don't really care?
The most vocal opposition to gay marriage has come from the church, (with the exception of some such as Quakers and Unitarians) and some ask, why should society listen to the church? Why should it impose its definition of marriage on others?
Two possible answers are that the church is at the centre of the institution of marriage. Many people choose to get married in church and it serves the community week in week out by hosting marriage ceremonies. Many regard it as a sacrament. Of course they will be affected by changes; even though the legislation relates to civil marriage not religious marriage, there is not a clear distinction in law, (because a religious marriage counts as a civil marriage). The second possible answer is that Biblical teaching is about what is good for humanity, or society as a whole and not just for the Christian community.
Christians have got some real thinking to do. Not everything that is unbiblical is illegal, so where should the line be?
Comment
Bookmark
Tell a friend
Print version
The simplest and best solution would be to extend the separation of church and state to the marriage question as well.
It is traditional that a wedding held in a church is a legally binding union in the eyes of the government. If we end this tradition and allow religions to form marriages in a non-legally binding way while allowing the government to form legal unions without religious consequence, then we will have solved the whole problem.
Churches may then form unions as they think moral and proper in the exercise of their religious freedoms without the government crying discrimination. The government may also then form its legal unions without inciting the ire of religions.
Any couple of course could have both a religious and a legal marriage, but they should be separate things.
As time advances there will be ever more demands to redefine legal marriage to allow even more types of "non-traditional" unions. It would be wise to separate church and state now, before the issues become more controversial.