The headline atop today's Minneapolis newspaper--"When campaign and cross unite"--is accompanied by the kicker, "Some evangelical pastors are endorsing from the pulpit as campaign fervor grows." It makes for some discouraging reading, and put me in mind of one of the low moments in the recent vice-presidential debate--the emphatic manner in which Biden, following Palin, stated his opposition to gay marriage. Of course I understand Biden cannot come out for gay marriage without hurting the ticket. That's what's discouraging.
Opposition to gay marriage has thin Scriptural basis. Jesus does not speak to the issue of homosexuality in any of the gospel narratives. Homosexual behavior is of course condemned in the Old Testament, but, as Christian conservatives are lax in their observation of Old Testament dietary laws, and appear if anything even more casual on the question of what to do with menstruating women, their ardent opposition, on biblical grounds, to what they call "the homosexual agenda," and its centerpiece of gay marriage, is perplexing unless one is to suppose that they start by being determined to make trouble for this segment of the population and consult Scripture mainly for ammunition.
St. Paul, the New Testament's most pugnacious author, is another foe of homosexuality. Here again, though, the issue of biblical cherry-picking comes into view. For Paul is no friend of heterosexual love, marriage, and the family. He repeatedly expresses his view that it would be best if all were to emulate him, a chaste and inveterate bachelor. The opinion often appears as a kind of exasperated coda to disquisitions on sexual morality made necessary by his randy correspondents, especially those at Corinth.
So palpable is Paul's distaste for all things sexual that some readers have sought its source not in the realms of theology or ethics but, rather, in psychology. They posit a correlation between those professing the strictest code of sexual ethics and those least able to attract the sexual attention of others. We don't know what Paul looked like, but his writings convey a vivid personality, and it is not necessarily one that lots of people would find attractive at very close range.
General William "Jerry" Boykin, known to many for his insights on the interplay between religion, military science, and electoral politics, has spoken frankly about the disintegration of his marriage. Apparently his wife of 25 years told him that she didn't love him anymore, that he was a religious fanatic, and that she was leaving him. It's possible that Paul knew women like her and resented them and the things they did with the men they preferred.
Others, with more theological habits of mind, have also felt compelled to give an account of Paul's divergence from views espoused by all the evangelicals and Family Councils. The most persuasive emphasizes his evident conviction that, in the time he was living and composing his epistles, the end of the world was at hand. He was therefore inclined to regard almost everything, certainly including family feeling and filial loyalty, as distractions from the consuming religious devotion demanded by the epochal times.
It is a world view one meets up with in the gospels, too. Though truly human according to orthodox creeds, Jesus never married, and he taught that "the kingdom of God is at hand." Renunciation of family is a condition of discipleship: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." A hard saying, to be sure, though for many Republicans perhaps not so vexing as the ones concerning worldly riches.
The darling of the Christian conservatives here in Minnesota is Rep. Michele Bachmann, who now represents the northern suburbs of the Twin Cities in the Congress. Back in her days as a state legislator, she led the effort to ban gay marriage by amendment to the state's Constitution, and I remember once seeing her explain her reasoning in a television interview. Her views may be summarized as follows: homosexual marriage would be morally wrong; if it weren't wrong, we wouldn't be able to afford paying benefits for homosexual spouses anyway; and, besides, it could lead to people wanting to marry their house pets, since these too are "loving, committed relationships." The interviewer, taking her cue from Bachmann, didn't even smile.
It's good to have reasons, but one can be involuntarily betrayed by a copious supply, as in the case of the employee who phones the boss on Monday morning and reports: "I won't be in. I have the flu and my car won't start." The obvious conclusion is that the worker indeed will not be in and that the one real reason is too lame to be divulged.
Regarding gay marriage, the one real reason has to do with aversion to homosexuals. Politicians now march in gay pride parades. I hope I can live long enough to see a candidate on a national ticket come out for gay marriage--and win.
Comments