Earlier this week I explained why I thought same-sex couples should be given opportunity to have the same legal rights as married couples. Peter Jensen makes the case for the uniqueness of marriage. I’m not sure what to think. Are they mutually exclusive?
-
Recent entries
-
Browse popular tags
u -
Meta
I’m just going to refer to both your posts here, cuz it’s just easier.
I disagree with you, somewhat. Marriage is a God-given institution: about more than just a man and a woman, but a symbol of the union between Christ and the Church (Eph 5:25-31). The Book of Common Prayer has a cracker understanding of it, check it out.
Forgive me the archaic language (and the somewhat amusing fact that I found this on a Jane Austen site!):
DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men’s carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained
What are those causes?
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
Two ought of those three purposes cannot be achieved in homosexual marriage. I just cannot see how God is honoured by homosexual marriage. But then, he is probably not honoured by lots of heterosexual marriages (Christian and non) that are destroyed by adultery and self-centredness and greed and lust.
Here’s my dilemma. What do we do when the State adopts the Church’s institutions? Obviously we don’t legislate against ‘sin’ (just some of it). So, a minister may refuse to marry a couple because they are not entering into the covenant in a God-honouring way (for a variety of possible reasons), but so what, as we now have civil celebrants. It’s tricky. Marriage has almost been hijacked by the State.
P.S> Let it be understood that I do NOT peruse Jane Austen sites for fun. I can’t stand her writing. I just googled “first order or marriage prayer book” and it was one of the first hits. I promise
You pick up on 2 major things I overlooked:
1. Christ and His bride – good point. Thats a strong argument for maintaining the uniqueness of marriage.
2. That it is a Christian institution. What right does the state have to steal the church’s practices, then pervert them! Imagine if Christmas was legislated to be a ‘multifaith celebration of love and goodwill’ so as to avoid discrimination. *shudders*