Faith and marriage equality
I’m proud to say that the Episcopal Bishop of Newark is unequivocally in favor of marriage equality. He has some interesting things to say about “traditional marriage”:
But a closer look shows that the historical tradition of marriage is that of a contract between two men: the groom and the father of the bride. When a woman was given in marriage, she was given by her father to her husband, and in this exchange the woman surrendered her name, her rights and her property. At the end of the ceremony, the couple was pronounced to be “man and wife”, and in that pronouncement was a community announcement as to who was in charge. Only in the last thirty years or so has this inequity been scaled back so that marriage is more of a partnership than a relationship of dominance (couples are now introduced as “husband and wife”).
Of course, this historical truth doesn’t sit well with some people – like the sole commenter at the Bishop’s blog:
The following ancient witness might temper this article’s selective and highly tendentious portrayal of the history of natural marriage: Pope Nicholas I (A.D. 866): “If the consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should the union be consummated, are rendered void.” The Pope’s statement shows the importance of a couple’s consent to marriage.
Well, isn’t that special? Marriage has been entirely a matter of consent since 866. Ain’t it odd that the UK tightened restrictions on forced marriage only last year? Gee, if a mere 1200 years after the Pope decreed that consent was important, you’d think they’d have hammered things out, wouldn’t you? (Nor is the UK the only country with that problem.)
Okay, let me stop being condescending for a moment and examine the argument being made here. The Bishop is arguing that we can redefine marriage now to include same-sex couples because we have a history of redefining marriage – at one time, consent was not required as it was entirely a matter between the father of the bride and either the father of the groom or the groom, himself. This argument seeks to undermine that by claiming that, as far back as 866, the church taught that consent was the primary necessity for a marriage.
Let’s take a look, though, at what passes for consent:
1627 The consent consists in a “human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other”: “I take you to be my wife” – “I take you to be my husband.” This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two “becoming one flesh.”1628 The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear. No human power can substitute for this consent. If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid.
1629 For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed. In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged.
Simply stating, within the wedding ceremony, “I take this man to be my husband…” is a statement of will. True, the church says that it must be free of coercion – but does anyone believe that the church actually decided not to perform a marriage in an obvious case of coercion?
We find a very telling case connected with Pope Nicholas I himself. That of Judith of Flanders. Judith, when she was twelve, was given by her father to King Ethelwulf of Wessex. When he died two years later, Ethelwulf’s son, Ethelbald, married her. So we can either say that Judith, at the age of twelve, gave consent, completely free of coercion, to marry a man in his late sixties, and then two years later gave consent to marry her own stepson…or we can say that there’s a flaw in the concept of consent and the church actually enforcing that concept.
To continue the story of Judith: Her father sent her to a convent in France after her marriage with Ethelwulf was annulled. With her brother’s assistance, she escaped with Baldwin and eloped. Her father had them both excommunicated. I would submit that running away from a convent is not a crime worthy of excommunication. Rather, I’m guessing that a bit of fornication and adultery was charged. So the couple go directly to Nicholas and argue that they were secretly married.
As can be seen, Nicholas didn’t believe that ceremony made the marriage, so he gets Judith’s father to accept the marriage. The couple is then re-married when they return to France – which would be unnecessary if consent and/or will to marry were enough to make the marriage valid. In return for marrying Judith Baldwin is given more land from Judith’s father and responsibility for repelling Viking invaders.
How is this supposed to uphold the concept that the church requires consent from the bride? I’ll agree that consent should be a vital part of the commitment, but it wasn’t always. Not even after the Pope said so. History repudiates that stance so many times that it makes it a laughable argument.
Back to the commenter:
The sacrament of matrimony has, at it’s core, always been an icon of Christ (Bridegroom) and His Church (Bride). The natural family is an icon of the Trinity.
True – the sacrament of matrimony is exactly that. But legal marriage is not necessarily the same as matrimony. In fact, it was not until the Marriage Act of 1753 that pagan marriage rites were outlawed in England. Prior to that, no actual ceremony was needed at all (which is where “common law marriage” comes from). Indeed, the very observance of common law marriage invalidates the standing of Matrimony as the sole standard of marriage.
The commenter:
A failure to appreciate the distinction between equality and sameness results in a blurring of unique roles in the family and the free exercise of authority which accompanies those distinct yet necessarily equal roles.
Yes, as does a failure to make distinct the differences between marriage and matrimony.
The commenter:
What is lost, then, is an understanding of reciprocity founded on the equality of persons made in God’s image, while gender differences permit distinct and complementary functions related to the necessary care and well being of family members. Mom and dad exercise their authority within the family in equal but different selfless ways.
Okay, this is an argument for traditional gender roles in a family. It’s great, if that’s what works for a family. But my mother raised a family without my father around. In my own family, my wife is the primary breadwinner and I am the primary caregiver for our children. How does that fit into God’s plan?
Because if it fits at all, then it means women can fulfill the traditional “manly” duty of bread-winning and men can fulfill the “womanly” duty of child-rearing. And that means that both roles can be fulfilled if both parents are male, or if they are both female. So, please, make an argument that reflects the reality of the twenty-first century.
And, thank you, Bishop, for pushing our faith to continued relevance.
Sphere: Related Content
Where I Blog
NJ News
National News