AZspot

blue bits. red rocks.

marriage

☼   ☼      ☼   ☼

If there is doubt in anyone’s mind that this war is over, they need only look at the latest poll numbers among 18-39 year olds. In that demographic, support for gay marriage is an overwhelming 72%. Anti-gay bigotry in the U.S. is, quite literally, dying. Good riddance. It’s over

☼   ☼      ☼   ☼

I’ve been married for 35 years. I’m walking here in the countryside now with my wife by my side. And at the end of the day, she is a completely different person, physically and mentally, from the person I married 35 years ago. So am I. But people normally marry, and then they want that locked in time, so they think they’re not going to change. We’re going to change. Everybody’s going to change. So accepting that changes are part of our lives makes marriage a blessing and not a curse, because love is stronger than anything else. Paulo Coelho

…maybe liberal morality is simply better adapted for creating stable two-parent families in a post-industrialized world. Maybe conservative family values are hard but brittle, like diamond, while liberal family values are strong like titanium — able to bend without breaking. Are liberals rescuing marriage?

Interestingly enough, throughout church history many of our major theologians have used the biblical vision of the world to come, not to absolutize our binary sexual identities, but to deeply relativize them. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, along with a host of other ancient Jewish and early Christian interpreters, envisioned gender distinctions falling away in the world to come where there is no marriage. That is not to say that they are necessarily right about that, but it is to say that it certainly shouldn’t be treated as obvious, as Wright seems to do, that maleness and femaleness, and especially the union of the two, are needed to glimpse the life of the world to come. The scriptural images he appeals to are powerful and compelling, but to press them into service to exclude same-sex marriage seems to be going to far. People to the right of Wright have used the same argument against egalitarian heterosexual marriage: If Christ is over the church, then if you have a marriage where the husband isn’t over the wife, then you don’t have a marriage that can mirror Christ’s relationship to the church. But most of us, Wright included, would hold that this is taking the analogy too far. It is the sacrificial and faithful love in the relationship that is most important for mirroring the relationship between Christ and the church, and it is hard to say why when we see this in a same-sex relationship we should not also be pointed towards the divine love we long for and hope to be consummated in our hearts and in the world. Why Wright is Wrong (Part 2)

…the meaning, purpose, and goals of marriage within Christian history has already changed significantly, primarily from a model centered on patriarchy, property, and procreation, to a model more centered on equal agency and mutual fulfillment. To my mind at least, same-sex marriage is not so much a radical break with our Protestant American tradition as it is a logical extension of this trajectory and shift that can be found within it. Once you dispense, as most contemporary Christian Americans have, with the two elements that have dominated traditional understandings of marriage throughout history and across the globe, namely, patriarchy (that marriage must include a man and a woman because it is of the nature of men to rule and the nature to women to be ruled), and procreationism (that marriage is essentially about making babies and raising children) then it becomes increasingly hard to exclude two people of the same sex from this institution without special pleading or duplicity. Why Wright is Wrong About Same-Sex Marriage (Part 1) (via slacktivist)

A GNT creation ©2007–2014