My wife and I watch a show on PBS called Downton Abbey. It’s a drama wherein the main characters live through a major event in history - WWI. Mary, the damsel in distress, is caught between two worlds. There is the old world - represented by her grandmother - where aristocratic women marry for heritage, power and position. Then there is the emerging world - represented by the younger sister and her undetermined relationship with the chauffeur - where social lines once dark and bold are now permeable and faded. The possibility of marrying for love regardless of social class presents itself into the old world while in the lower class marriage for duty emerges suddenly (Daisy the kitchen maid fulfilling the dying wish of William). Mary is caught in the change, trying to understand the balance between personal emotion and social responsibility in her world where everything is changing, including marriage.
Yes, the story is fictional, but it provides an entertaining example about one of the central qualities to the institution of marriage – it changes. Marriage is not a concrete form of relationship that has served only one purpose or comes in one package throughout the history of humanity. Marriage is subject to change and is moldable to have meaning and purpose for a variety of contexts. In one world people marry for power and position. In another, people marry for love. In another, people marry to have children. Thus, we should ever be mindful of the shifting plate on which marriage rests (Note: This does not scratch the surface of the diversity of marriage relationships that have existed in the world. For example, matriarchal societies. Also, the tribes of Israel emerge not from one man and one woman(Gen. 35:22-26), and polygamy in the early LDS Church).
Is there a constant? Is there a variable in marriage that is the same no matter what the context? Does this constant define the purpose of marriage?
Is Procreation the Constant?
Does the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth serve as the divine instruction to access the very ethos of marriage? Well, it is for many couples, but not all couples can procreate. I want to be sensitive to those that may have lived through this experience. I can only imagine the struggle of being denied children by uncontrollable factors. So if a couple cannot have children, does the marriage dissolve? Does the couple separate, accepting that the central tenet of marriage (procreation) is unachievable? Of course not (I hope not). The relationship is not determined by the ability to procreate. The love is based on something deeper than the ability to have children. In fact, the situation brings many couples closer. A stronger connection forms wherein love is clearly not determined by the ability to procreate. If the only reason you are with someone is because they can produce babies or because they have active sperm, that’s a pretty shallow relationship. That’s like telling your wife she’s nothing more than a baby maker, or telling your husband he’s a sperm bank. Human relationships are more personal than that. It doesn’t seem like procreation is the constant variable in marriage. If it were, then God is setting up many couples to never access it, and I don’t think God would set people up for failure (1 Nephi 3:7).
I’m not arguing that procreation is no longer important as a reason for marriage, or that God is ambivalent to this function in the marriage relationship. There is a valid expectation for a couple to have children. But I simply want to stress that procreation is not possible for all people, and thus serves as a possibility in many marriage relationships, but is not the constant. God gives marriage as something special for all of humanity, and in this special relationship there is meaning, companionship, and love. Children may or may not be part of the marriage. Either way, the marriage is to go on, uniting two people in a bond deeper than procreative ability.
What is the constant variable in marriage if it’s not procreation? What is at the core of marriage that makes it an important part of life and existence? I turn to a sampling of scriptures that I hope will be helpful in answering these questions.
Genesis 2:18-25
While it’s true that Adam chose Eve, it’s also true that Adam chose Eve, meaning that he had options. In verse 18 God declares that it’s not good for man to be alone, and therefore God makes a helper. Verse 19 begins with “So ...” demonstrating that the proceeding versus are connected with this intent of God to create a helper for Adam. So does God create Eve? Eventually. First, he makes a bunch of animals, allowing Adam to name them, look at them, even judge them as possible helpers, “but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.” (Note: ‘helper’ does not mean someone to make babies. Adam is looking for companionship. One can have companionship without making babies). At this point God pulls a rib from Adam and makes Eve. Adam chooses Eve as his helper: “This is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.” And this helps explain why men and women come together in the bonds of what we call matrimony (vss. 24-25). The point I would like to make is that Adam got to participate in this process of choosing his helper. God supplies Adam freedom to choose and options to choose from. I would like to stress also that the idea of helper does not automatically mean, ‘baby maker.’ The underlining concern is for Adam to have companionship - to not be alone in this world.
Hosea
Hosea is commanded by God to marry a prostitute (How’d you like the prophet gettin’ that revelation?). Well it functions as an analogy to describe the relationship of Israel and God. No, God’s not the prostitute. Israel has been ‘sleeping’ with idols, being unfaithful to its ‘husband’, God. But this is the part that strikes me. God remains faithful to Israel: “On that day, says the Lord, you [Israel] will call me, ‘My husband,’ and no longer will you call me, ‘My Baal’...; and I will make you lie down in safety. And I will take you for my wife forever; I will take you for my wife in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy. I will take you for my wife in faithfulness; and you shall know the Lord” (2:16-20). So in this relationship, God is not focused on Isreal’s ability to reproduce. What upsets God is Israel’s unfaithfulness. God will take the unfaithful Israel and make her his wife in righteousness, justice, steadfast love, mercy, and faithfulness (Ezekiel 16 conveys a similar message).
Hebrews 13:4-7
In this passage I find a similar theme of faithfulness in marriage and as a quality of God.
“Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, ‘Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.’ So we say with confidence, ‘The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can human beings do to me?’ Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.”
What I gather from this sampling of scriptures (not exhaustive, I know) are three things: 1) Marriage is not about choosing a sexual partner alone. It is about companionship; finding a helper in this difficult world; 2) God creates, endowing his creation with freedom to choose; 3) God is concerned with the faithfulness of his people and utilizes marriage as an appropriate metaphor to illustrate this neglected quality. God wants faithfulness both in our relationships with each other and with God.
Homosexuals and the Law of Chastity
According to the law of chastity (as I understand it), heterosexual people are not to engage in sexual activity until after marriage. Sexual activities are restricted to the monogamous relationship formed in and after the marriage ceremony. Homosexuals are held to the same standard. They too can only marry a person of the opposite sex and engage in sexual activities with that one person after the marriage ceremony. If a heterosexual or homosexual person cannot marry, they are to remain celibate for life. So if a homosexual finds the love of their life in someone of the same sex, too bad. Either remain celibate for life or marry as the heterosexual does.
Let’s reverse the roles. What if the law of chastity only allowed for sexual activity after marriage of exclusively homosexual couples? Heterosexual people are either to remain celibate or marry someone of the same gender in order to enter into a valid marriage covenant. If this scenario were true, I would break the law. I am a proud woman-lover and to deny that fact would be to deny my very biology, the very thing God made me to be. In this hypothetical I would be the one waving the rainbow flag, demanding for equality and the right to marry the woman I love. Straight pride!
When I reverse the roles and put myself in the shoes of homosexuals, I completely see the double standard that exists today: Heterosexual couples can marry for love, but homosexuals can’t. Why would God not want me, or anyone for that matter, to choose a companion in the freedom divinely bestowed on humanity since the Garden of Eden? If marriage was exclusively centered on procreation, then I could maybe see the ban placed on homosexual marriage. But then we would need to remain consistent and either not allow marriage between people that cannot procreate or dissolve the marriage when a couple discovers they cannot have children of their own. I'm not willing to do either. The love between two heterosexual people is real, even if they cannot have children. I would never destroy that. Likewise, I would never want to come between the love of two homosexual people just because they cannot have children of their own. Their love is just as real as the love I have for my wife.
Conclusion
We are living in an interesting time of change. It is much like Downton Abbey, where dark bold lines are now permeable. At one point in our culture, interracial marriage was impossible, and now, thank God, most of us can see past skin color. So what else will cross the line? It seems gender is no longer a limiting factor that restricts the formation of deep meaningful and long lasting relationships. No longer does the color of skin stop the budding of love between two people, and we now wonder if marriage is possible for homosexuals.
Marriage is a covenantal relationship between two people and God; a relationship based on love, respect, mercy, forgiveness, and faithfulness. It is a relationship where God is steadfast and faithful in binding the couple together, walking with them in their lives as partners. Each person in the marriage personifies the love and faithfulness of God as best as humanly possible in service and honor to the other. We make God’s love and faithfulness palpable. Faithfulness, the quality of marriage that many heterosexual couples struggle to uphold, is the constant of marriage. Faithfulness defines the marriage relationship. Without it, the marriage crumbles. With it, the love is made real and manifest. Marriage through the ages has changed in so many ways, but there is the constant expectation in its many forms of faithfulness.
Forgive one another.
Respect one another.
Love one another.
Grow together.
Be faithful.
Will Mary embrace her love for Matthew?
Search Ponder Pray Repeat
