"Protect Marriage" -- Part 2

Robin Hood, Men in Tights is a Mel Brooks comedy. There are the typical spoofs in there, like the line where Robin Hood says, "Unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can speak with an English accent." There are some funny lines in there. Prince John is bored by the mime doing the entertaining, so the sheriff orders him put to death. Prince John stops him. "Wait! A mime is a terrible thing to waste." Funny. In one scene, Robin sings a love song to Maid Marion. When he finishes, she delivers this monologue: "Oh, my dearest, I'm ready for that kiss now. But first, I must warn you -- it could only be a kiss. For I am a virgin and could never ... go all the way. Unless, of course, I were married ... or if a man pledged his endless love to me ... or if I knew that he desperately cared for me ... or if he were really cute."

It's good for a laugh. Marion is a paragon of virtue, and this isn't ... virtuous. But the media gives us another standard of virtue. One of the "good guys" in the series Cold Case on CBS is a character by the name of Lilly Rush. She is outraged, for instance, when a male coworker has an affair with her younger sister. So this season starts out with her living with a guy. In a recent episode, the guy tells her, "I love you." Lilly is stunned. She doesn't know what to say. Love? That was never part of it. Sure, they were sharing an apartment and sharing their bodies, but ... love? You see, what was a punch line for Marion was a truth for Lilly. "If he were really cute" is all that is required.

All this to illustrate the monumental task before us. "Gay marriage" is said to be one of the key issues in the minds of conservative Christians -- you know, the "Religious Right". Yesterday I discussed the issue of Prop. 107 here in Arizona. I explained that I wasn't opposed to "gay marriage" because I thought homosexual behavior was sinful. I am opposed because of the definition of marriage. Thus, the "Protect Marriage Act" would be a good name for the proposition. There is, however, another aspect to the fight over this act, and it goes beyond homosexual marriage.

The proposition clearly prevents people of the same gender being recognized as "married", but it adds this line: "No legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage." This, obviously, has the heterosexual community up in arms. If this were to pass, it would likely eliminate "domestic partners" as a category, and government entities would not be able to extend benefits to domestic partners of government workers. (Please note: The "No on 107" crowd falsely suggests that no one will be able to extend benefits to domestic partners. This is tacitly false. Any private company can extend benefits to anyone they wish for whatever reason they wish. Thus, the proposition would affect only unmarried government employees.) In a statement from a local association of police officers, we get this: "This proposition will prohibit the City of Tempe and all other public employers statewide from offering domestic benefits to unmarried couples in committed, healthy relationships."

As I said before, I am opposed to "gay marriage" on grounds other than "sin". I am opposed on grounds of definition. On the other hand, I am in favor of this part of the proposition on moral grounds. Ironic, isn't it? The complaint is that the proposition would force one group's view of sin on everyone. My view of sin doesn't come into play until we talk about the heterosexual couples.

So here's the difficulty. Our society has gotten to the point that the Tempe Officers Association can say that there is such a thing as "unmarried couples in committed, healthy relationships" who are living together and deserve the same rights as married couples. A "committed, healthy" relationship today isn't much more than Maid Marion's punchline ... "if he's really cute." So entrenched is this view that Christians are trying it on for size ... and liking it. "Why marry? We can be in a 'committed, healthy' relationship without going through any formal marriage." There are lots of reasons offered. Older couples want to protect their pensions or Social Security. Younger couples just don't want the hassle of marriage. Maybe they come from divorced homes and don't trust marriage. Maybe they don't feel like they have enough money for a wedding or they want to be established first before actually marrying. Maybe they want to "try it out" to make sure it will work. According to the 2000 Census, there are about 118,000 domestic partner couples in Arizona, nearly 11% of all couples in the state. Around 12,000 of these are homosexual couples. So, better than 10% of all heterosexual couples in Arizona today are living together without being married. These are what would be called "committed, healthy relationships". Our difficulty: Explaining why this is not a true statement.

You see, it really is about defending marriage. An inordinate number of people in our society, including Christians, now believe that “marriage” is simply “being committed to one another”. There is nothing public, nothing “on paper”, nothing “civil” about it. It’s simply my commitment to another. Without me expending more typing on the topic, try, if you can, to counter that argument. On what basis (preferably biblical) would you argue that marriage is more than a private commitment to another, requiring some sort of public statement, even civil recognition? Try out this argument for yourself. It’s not easy. I believe it’s there, but it’s not as easy as most of us would like to think.