.
.
.
4. Arguments that can be used in favour of opening up marriage to same-sex couples
Until a couple of decades ago, it was seen as obvious that marriage referred to a relationship between a man and a woman. However, this has come to be questioned, and ‘gender-neutral’ marriage legislation has been introduced in several countries, including the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and South Africa.
Norway introduced such legislation in 2008, and in Sweden, the Riksdag resolved on a corresponding change in the law on 1 April 2009.
As the Central Board stated in its response to the report Äktenskap för par med samma kön – Vigselfrågor (Marriage for same-sex couples – Wedding issues) (SOU 2007:17), there are different opinions within the Church of Sweden on the word ‘marriage’ also being used to describe relationships between same-sex couples. This lack of consensus is due to the fact that based on theological arguments it is possible to reason in different ways.
As has been asserted above, marriage according to Luther is something that is part of Creation. It is a ‘worldly thing’, not a sacrament. The basic perspective of an Evangelical Lutheran church is thus the Creation theology perspective. However, in the Christian church, marriage has been explained by reading passages from the Bible and interpreting these within the scope of the wedding service. This means that it also relevant to adopt the perspective of biblical theology. To this can be added further aspects, for example, a children’s perspective, when making an assessment.
Creation theology perspective
A Creation theology argument in favour of marriage only designating a relationship between a man and a woman is often based on the idea that the purpose of sexuality is to bring about new life. Through the union of a man and a woman being able to give rise to new life, people become co-creators with God.
The ability to reproduce is the key to the continued existence of humanity. Marriage is seen here as a God-given model in Creation, regardless of legislation in society. In his book Rättvisa. En lära om samhällsordningens grundlagar (Justice. Teachings on the fundamental laws of social order) (1945), the German theologian Emil Brunner expresses this as follows:
The law of marriage is not an agreement, a human convention, but rather something given to people, that they should acknowledge and implement (page 92).
Marriage is perceived as a normative arrangement in life and an expression of God’s unchanging creative will.
People have been created as men and women with the ability to ensure the survival of humanity by having children together. Men and women complement each other in this respect. Children need stable and secure care to be able to develop. There are structures in Creation that maintain life. When a child is born, it needs to be brought into a context in which it can receive love, care and security. An important function of marriage is to constitute a structure into which a couple’s children can be received and in which they can be raised. The term complementarity can among other things express the man’s and woman’s ability to bring forth and receive new life. Such complementarity is perceived as a basic intention in Creation.
The aim is to maintain life.
The theologian Ragnar Holte summarised this view of marriage in three points at the Theological Committee’s hearing Kärlek, samlevnad och äktenskap (Love, cohabitation and marriage):
(1) Marriage between a man and a woman corresponds with God’s creative purpose and is a requirement for the survival of humanity […] only in a man and a woman’s life together can children be begotten and born in a natural way, and through the parents’ love for each other and their issue, a secure home environment in which to raise children is created.
(2) Each individual human being is created in God’s image, but a man and woman united as one represent a more complete form of humanity and, in this way, are an image in a special
sense of the God of Love.
(3) Ideally, marriage is a loving relationship that lasts a lifetime and is therefore entered into with the vow of
fidelity “till death do us part” (page 166–167).
Holte was of the opinion that homosexual partner relationships cannot constitute a marriage in the Christian sense. “The whole idea of union of the two sexes in a relationship in which they jointly give rise to new life has no application.” Nor, according to Holte, can a homosexual relationship give expression to the twogendered relationship’s special function of being in God’s image. He also considers that it is unreasonable to demand lifelong vows of fidelity.
It is important to stress that this view of marriage can very well be united with a positive view of homosexual cohabitation. This is the case in Holte, for example. Homosexual orientation and homosexual cohabitation can be interpreted as a positive expression of diversity in Creation and do not need to be perceived as some kind of imperfection in the pattern of Creation. However, the view remains that a homosexual relationship is something other than marriage.
On the other hand, a Creation theology perspective can also be used to argue in favour of marriage being opened up to same-sex couples. One relates then to the dynamic theology of creation mentioned above. Marriage and sexuality have purposes in addition to bringing about new life. These include providing a framework for supporting, protecting and developing mutual love between spouses and giving them support in their life together. These purposes are also relevant to relationships between people of the same sex. As outlined above, marriage has been understood in different ways over time. Both in a theological context and in people’s general consciousness, a shift of emphasis has taken place in recent times, with love and fellowship between spouses being assigned an increasingly central role. Marriage as a fellowship between persons has also been highlighted in Catholic theology. The Catholic theologian Walter Kasper writes in his book Kärlek och trohet. Om det kristna äktenskapets teologi (Love and fidelity. On the theology of Christian marriage) (1977):
… we no longer consider procreation as the integrating factor but rather mutual love and fidelity. We must therefore try to determine the meaning of marriage and of the human person, not in terms of an abstract ‘nature’ but rather relationally (page 17).
Instead of a biologically based complementarity concept, a starting point can be complementarity anchored in the personal fellowship between spouses. Carl Reinhold Bråkenhielm, Mikael Lindfelt and Johanna Gustafsson Lundberg write in Uppdrag samliv (Mission: Life Together):
An alternative way of thinking, however, is to emphasise the fellowship between persons as the primary human relationship instead of sexual union. Love, kindness and emotional commitment do not only exist between men and women. And sexual acts can express such a loving relationship regardless of biological gender.
People are created in God’s image, created for a personal fellowship between ‘you and I’. The relationship between a man and a woman exemplifies such a fellowship, but this does not rule out that such a relationship can also exist between people of the same sex. […]
Fellowship between persons – and not sexual union – is the basic metaphor – root metaphor – for God’s love for humanity (page 19).
It can also be added that homosexual couples – even if they are unable to produce biological children together – on many occasions have joint responsibility for caring for and raising children. Through this, they participate in reproduction in the broad sense. Regarding the notion that a man and a woman together constitute a complete form of humanity, it can be stressed that according to the New Testament, Jesus lived as a single man with no children without being a less complete person than those who were married. On the contrary, he is known as the exact likeness of God’s very being (Hebrews 1:3).
Therefore, according to this way of thinking, the purpose of the arrangements of Creation, including marriage, is to serve people – they are to help us show love to our fellow human beings. God continues his Creation with people as cocreators.
As Gustaf Wingren emphasised, the structures of the Creation are flexible – and must be so in order to be an instrument of God’s actions through arrangements that focus love on the needs of our neighbour (see “Reformationen och lutherdomens ethos” (The Reformation and the ethos of Lutherdom) in Etik och kristen tro (Ethics and Christian faith) 1971, page 133–134). Does this mean, then, that we need to accept all kinds of changes in social structures and interpret them as an expression of a dynamic Creation? This is not the case at all. However, there are no simple criteria for decisions about which changes represent something good. An important touchstone according to Wingren is that an assessment must be made on the basis of care for the weak in the world (Wingren 1971, page118). Issues of limits to what is acceptable regarding changes in the concept of marriage will be discussed later on in this communication.
Biblical theology perspective
Principles of biblical interpretation
An important starting point when interpreting individual Bible passages in an Evangelical Lutheran tradition is that the interpretation must be based on the Bible’s overall message of God’s love and people’s salvation, as it is expressed in the passages that are usually seen as central for understanding Christian faith.
These key passages include John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” and Romans 4:25: “He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification”, among others. Individual passages from the Bible must be related to this interpretation of the centre of the Scripture (Mitte der Schrift). They therefore find their place in the whole in relation to this centre.
All Bible passages relevant to an issue must, however, be taken seriously, even if they do not clearly express the central message. A relative importance must then be attached to them. The central message’s clarity (claritas scripturae) elucidates the texts and gives their interpretation the necessary nuances. If an individual Bible passage does not directly convey the central message, this should not be seen as justification for sifting it out. Instead, it gives us reason to work on its significance, albeit secondary, within the overall picture.
In addition to this, all Bible texts must be interpreted with awareness of the difference between the situation in the passage and the present-day context. The central message speaks to people in all eras and environments. Other passages are to a greater extent bound to a completely different set of values than in later times. This applies, among other things, to certain statements in the Epistles on the superior status of men over women. Furthermore, it is crucial not to interpret individual Bible passages on marriage, for example, as answers to current questions that were not relevant in the original situation. Applying them to a current situation requires careful consideration and a combination of insight into the context of the original text and sensitivity to present-day issues. We will return to this matter shortly.
It is important to distinguish between law and gospel, and between what is based on a certain historical period on the one hand and the enduring message of Jesus being the liberator of humanity on the other. We need to take into consideration the fact that the authors of the Bible did not have the knowledge of homosexual cohabitation that we possess today. We can therefore have reason to take a critical approach to individual passages in the Bible on homosexuality.
These need to be related to the Bible’s overarching message, including the Great Commandment of Love, and to what the biblical authors have expressed in other contexts.
Paul writes: “… if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” (Galatians 2:21). For exactly the reason that God does not need our works for his own sake, Paul is able to write that the entire law can be summarised in a single commandment: “Love your neighbour as yourself” (Galatians 5:14). In the words of the Sermon on the Mount: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the
Prophets” (Matthew 7:12). And in those of the Gospel according to John: “A new command I give you: Love one another” (John 13:34). The old commandment is called new, as the yardstick and motivation are new: “As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” The three dominant traditions in the New Testament – Paul, the synoptic Gospels and John – are all in agreement on the commandment of love being superior to all other commandments and prohibitions.
According to the New Testament, the relevant issue where forms of human cohabitation are concerned is therefore not individual passages from the Bible but rather what is of benefit or of harm to people. For the Church, this issue is part of the current discussion: does the Church harm or benefit people by supporting and blessing faithful relationships between same-sex couples as between a man and a woman?
In addition, questions concerning the assessment of homosexual acts must be related to other sources of Christian faith and ethics. Individual statements in the Bible must always be set in relation to other Bible passages, central moral convictions and various types of knowledge. This is expounded on in the dialogue document Homosexuella i kyrkan (Homosexuals in the Church), in which the Theological Committee writes that, in this respect, we can take Paul himself as our role model:
… sometimes we should do what Paul does and not always simply repeat what he says. Working as Paul does means an openness towards being able to reach a different conclusion than Paul himself did on issues of homosexuality and the church. Correspondingly, the Bible also functions as a model for how our faith and ethics are shaped, not only for what faith and ethics contain. Just as it was for those who wrote the Bible passages, it is our task today to together determine what a life close to God and following Christ means (page
36).
Interpretation of the traditional passage on marriage in the wedding service
As has been pointed out above, marriage from an Evangelical Lutheran point of view is a civil arrangement and can be justified based on Creation. Marriage is a universal phenomenon that existed prior to the biblical revelation. This fact is also expressed in the passages in the Bible that are usually cited in reflections on
marriage in biblical theology. These passages can be interpreted such that they place marriage in a Creation theology perspective.
According to the stories of Creation in Genesis 1 and 2, people were created as man and woman and it is said that they become one. These words are subsequently confirmed by Jesus in Mark 10 (with parallels in Matthew 19). These passages have held a prominent position in the Church’s theological reflection and preaching on marriage. It can be claimed that the words of Jesus “what God has joined together” clearly refer to a man and a woman and that it cannot be applied to a homosexual couple. In Ephesians 5, a parallel is drawn between a man and a woman as one in marriage on the one hand and the relationship between Christ and the church on the other. This has also been interpreted as marriage necessarily denoting a relationship between a man and a woman.
The idea of complementarity between a man and a woman in marriage described above finds some support in passages from the Bible. These include the statement in Genesis 2 about Adam needing a helper. “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” The notion of complementarity is also expressed in Ephesians 5.
This has been the traditional manner of interpreting these passages. However, it is possible to interpret them differently. Where passages are concerned that are usually used as support for complementarity, it can be stated that the complementarity between a man and a woman that is expressed in both Genesis 1 and in Paul does not necessarily need to be gender-related. Two people of the same sex can also complement each other in a fellowship of persons. Margareta Brandby-Cöster writes in Uppdrag samliv (Mission: Life Together):
In Genesis 1 (2:18), God says: “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” The Hebrew word (kenägdo), which is translated by “who befits honom” (suits him), also means “who is his equivalent”, “who corresponds with him”. It is therefore not a question of the man having the woman as a servant or sexual partner but rather of a person – a man or a woman – not being able to live without there being someone to answer when he or she speaks.
[…] It is the relationship that means that we can talk and receive an answer, that we can share life with each other on an equal footing, and thus form a strong bond with each other. Whether this bond is formed between people of different sexes or of the same sex does not alter the strength evident in the bond, in the relationship (page 70).
Mark 10 (with parallels in Matthew 19) has been the time-honoured passage for interpreting marriage within the church. Jesus talks here about the relationship between a man and a woman. It is apparent from both the broader context of the passage and from its content that according the gospel tradition, he is perceived as expressing God’s original intention for marriage. Marriage is described as an institution for the relationship between a man and a woman with fidelity as a necessary requirement.
It would be anachronistic to interpret this as Jesus adopting a position against relationships between people of the same sex. However, it does not mean that the words of Jesus are of no relevance to the issue of same-sex marriage. We can assume that Jesus wanted to say something fundamental about the intention of marriage, even if the situation in the passage is different that our situation today, with our deliberations about the possibility of offering marriage to people of the same-sex.
That Jesus himself viewed and that the Christian interpretation of his words thus far has viewed marriage as a faithful relationship specifically between a man and a woman in accordance with God’s original intention would seem to be obvious. If the point is that fidelity has been part of the intention from the beginning, this passage can actually be made relevant to the issue of marriage between people of the same sex. In such case, that would mean that the kind of lifelong relationship that Jesus speaks of as one of the intentions of Creation could also be entered into by same-sex couples. The decisive factor in the relationship that enables such an interpretation would then be the kind of fellowship between persons described above.
In other words, the words of Jesus on marriage between a man and a woman do not need to exclude the option of faithful marital relationships between people of the same sex. Jesus’ words give us no clear definition of the meaning of marriage in relationships other than those that were relevant when he talked about marriage almost 2000 years ago.
Other relevant perspectives
There are also other aspects of relevance to adopting a position on the issue of whether marriage can also encompass same-sex couples.
The perspective of the needs of children
Children have a special position in Christian faith. It is therefore important to take the perspective of children into account when deciding on issues affecting them in various ways. Those who see marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman have often based their arguments on reproduction and support for new generations as being an important fundament for marriage. Only in the union between a man and a woman can a new human life be created in biological terms.
It has also been claimed that, for the child to feel rooted, it is an advantage for it to grow up to the greatest extent possible with its biological parents, and that the relationship between a man and a woman should therefore occupy a special position in legislation.
It can, however, also be pointed out that homosexual couples now have the right to apply to adopt children, and lesbian women can be assisted with insemination, and that there are children from previous relationships in many homosexual families. Further, one of the parties in a homosexual relationship can have children with a person of the opposite sex. This means that a significant number of children grow up in homosexual families. From a child’s perspective it can be claimed that it is important to highlight issues regarding care of the child
and not dwell solely on biological parenthood. Society has a duty to support and protect children, for example through legislation. Giving homosexual couples the opportunity to marry can constitute support for children growing up in such families. At the Theological Committee’s hearing on Kärlek, samlevnad och äktenskap (Love, cohabitation and marriage), the then ombudsman against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation (HomO), Hans Ytterberg, said:
And if it actually is the case that marriage is the ideal framework for children to grow up in, it then constitutes unacceptable discrimination of children with homosexual parents if they are denied the opportunity to grow up in a family constellation in which marriage makes up the framework (page 132).
An equity perspective
An important argument for opening up marriage to same-sex couples is that of the demand for equity. Making it possible for same-sex couples to marry would constitute support for a vulnerable group in society. It would clarify that society considers homosexual relationships fully equal to heterosexual ones.
Among homosexuals there are various views on the ways in which homosexual relationships should be dealt with legally. Like HomO, the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights (RFSL) recommends that marriage be opened up to same-sex couples. On the other hand, others are of the opinionthat as a homosexual relationship is different from a heterosexual one, different terms should be used in the legislation. Some homosexuals consider marriage an institution belonging to a patriarchal, hierarchical system, and that a relationship between people of the same sex should be free from such negative implications.
In an equity perspective, there is also a human rights dimension. In a strictly legal sense, it can be claimed that the Registered Partnership Act already corresponded with the demands made in international conventions regarding each individual’s right to marry and start a family. However, this applies to the same extent to the new legislation in which the concept of marriage has been broadened to also include same-sex couples. The special treatment that partnership has entailed has been perceived by many – heterosexuals and homosexuals alike – as discriminating, and the legal change that has now taken place marks an underlyingshift in opinion in which the equal value of homosexual individuals and couples in society has been expressly confirmed. Thus far, the legislation can been seen as bolstering human rights.
Tradition and ecumenism
As is apparent from the above, according to a long tradition within the Christian churches, marriage has been interpreted as a relationship between a man and a woman. The same perception can also be found in other world religions. Marriage as a legally regulated form of cohabitation between a man and a woman with protection of the growing family exists in most contemporary societies, regardless
of culture and religion.
Among Christian churches and denominations there is very broad acceptance of the term ‘marriage’ referring to the relationship between a man and a woman.
This applies both to the Christian Council of Sweden and internationally, e.g. within the Porvoo Communion and the Lutheran World Federation. For a long time, the Church of Sweden has at various levels taken part in exchanges of information and theological discussions on the attitudes of different churches to homosexual cohabitation, including in the above mentioned contexts. The Theological Committee has, for example, arranged a consultation for the churches in the Porvoo Communion. There are various opinions on how comprehensive such an exchange should be to be considered sufficient. There are also various opinions regarding whether a church should take the lead in a certain process, or whether action should only be taken when a consensus on controversial issues has been reached between those churches having agreements with each other.
Cooperation with other churches would be put under strain if the Church of Sweden were to accept marriage for same-sex couples. If such a decision is made, however, it is important that the ecumenical dialogue continues, despite any differences of opinion and any critical objections to the process. It is very important to promote ecumenical contacts and to work for greater fellowship between Christians. Providing support for a group that is neglected both in society and in the Church is, however, also extremely important. Continued dialogue and cooperation is crucial, both for ecumenism and for homosexual people.
____________________________________
