[Part Three of Three]
Same Sex Marriage
Part Three
A Question of Definition
The debate on same sex marriage has focused in part on the distinction between same sex marriage and same sex unions. This distinction is dismissed by some as mere semantics but I believe it is a question of definition. Does the concept of marriage apply to members of the same gender? This is not a question of rights and freedoms but one of concept.
Proponents of the legislation will instinctively respond with a resounding yes. Opponents of the legislation will respond with an equally forceful no. The predicate of this dispute is homosexuality itself. Those who view homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle support same sex marriage. Those who don't, do not support same sex marriage.
This predication is, in my opinion, erroneous because this is not a question of homosexuality, it is a question of marriage. What is the definition of marriage?
Why do two people who love each other marry? Why not simply profess undying love and commitment and proceed to build a home and family without a marriage?
Invitation to G-d
Jewish thought views marriage as the sanctification of a relationship. In marriage we summon G-d into our relationship and ask for his blessing. Before the wedding it was a partnership of two. The marriage ceremony introduces a third partner, namely G-d.
Geometrically a three point triangle is the strongest structure. Introducing a third point that husband and wife look to in mutual devotion introduces a new measure of strength and consistency. Indeed, our sages taught that a thrice threaded rope is not easily undone.
On a deeper level, marriage binds man and woman on a dimension that is otherwise not accessible. A man and woman can pledge undying commitment to each other without marriage, they can connect intellectually and emotionally without marriage but their souls cannot connect until they invoke G-d's name and channel his blessing into their relationship.
Indeed, man and woman may even experience a spiritual connection before marriage. This is because they may be each other's soul mates but this connection cannot be consummated until the moment of marriage. Shared interest, uniform response to issues, identical personalities and easy rapport, are only external indications of spiritual connection. The inner connection is formed when the souls are bound together and that occurs only at the moment of marriage.
When G-d Declines
If marriage is an invitation to G-d to join the relationship then it is possible only under circumstances sanctioned by G-d. A member of the clergy who officiates at a wedding can at most invite G-d to join a relationship but he cannot force G-d to join.
Can a couple be declared married if we know with certainty that G-d does not sanction, and will therefore not join, the marriage? Marriage is not accomplished by the performance of the ceremony but by the presence of G-d. When G-d absents Himself the marriage is not in effect.
Furthermore, when one knows that G-d does not approve of a relationship is it not inappropriate to invite Him to join it? If you were celebrating a business merger that one member of the board protested would you send him an invitation to the party? Would you announce after the party that this board member attended and that he gave his blessing to the merger when he did not?
That is why the very phrase same sex marriage is an oxymoron. We cannot induct G-d, against his own will, into the relationship of a same sex couple. (1)
Civil Unions
The natural response to this argument is, “Rabbi, we're not talking about religious marriage. We know that religious authorities cannot sanction same sex marriage. We're only talking about civil marriage, so why the great fuss?”
If civil marriage were called legal agreements or civil unions I would have no quarrel with the legislation. (2) However, proponents of the legislation insist on calling it a marriage. A secular court cannot ordain a marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony that consummates a religious status, ordained only by G-d. The court can only confer legal status, not marital status.
When it confers legal status the court borrows use of the religious term “marriage” because the term conveniently reflects the permanent bond between husband and wife. Religious terminology in the secular judicial system is odd but I would not object to it if the courts only sanctioned unions that are not sacrilegious.
However, When courts confer marriage upon a couple that cannot be religiously married I must object to the courts' use of the religious term marriage. They may call it a civil union but not a marriage. Unions are different from marriages. A Marriage is a religious affair. A union is simply a legal agreement that confers legal benefit upon the parties involved.
Semantics
Is this a case of mere semantics? No, it is actually one of definition but, in any event, semantics are also important. Words create images that form mental pictures in the minds of orators and listeners alike. These mental images often form impressions that in turn influence popular opinion.
This is why I refuse to accept marriage terminology in same sex unions.
Footnotes
This is written with full sympathy for the freedom of individual choice. G-d did indeed give us the freedom to choose but it is a freedom to choose between predefined choices. It is not a freedom to redefine the options. Even as we empathize with individuals who are driven to homosexual activity by urges beyond their control we must remember that empathy does not justify the redrafting of G-d's law or the readjustment of his decisions. We dare not falsely claim that G-d sanctions a relationship that the Torah forbids.
I would have difficulty with the insinuation that the homosexual act is condoned but religion does not and should not influence civil law in a democracy.