Civil Unions by Another Name: An Eastern Orthodox Defense of Gay Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ahimsa

Guest
A very cogent argument, I do say.
…
I mention my church because we take the idea of marital sanctity to the extreme, at least in our official theology. Marriage, for us, is not a contract or a covenant but a miracle! We have no vows in our ceremonies, only prayers, because only God can make a marriage. We allow but discourage remarriage because, as the Spirit transforms bread and wine, she has transformed the couple into one flesh. Because marriage is sacred, we must be married by a priest in a church, not by a judge in a courthouse or an Elvis impersonator somewhere on the Vegas Strip.

Strictly speaking, our theology does not recognize the legitimacy of such marriages. They are not sanctified by the Spirit in the church. On the other hand, it is not as if the average Orthodox Christian thinks people married in secular ceremonies are not “really” married. For practical purposes we tacitly recognize these civil marriages even if they don’t quite meet our theological standards.

This tacit recognition of a distinction between sacred and civil marriages is one my fellow Christians would do well to keep in mind as they consider how to proceed in their efforts to protect the sanctity of marriage. Anyone who thinks marriage is something sacred needs to recognize that from the church’s perspective all marriages granted by the state for tax and inheritance purposes are just civil unions by another name.

Christians who truly believe that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman are welcome to their belief. But Christians who demand the state take up the task of defending marital sanctity are effectively making the state their god. They seem to think that their local capitol can perform miracles when only the Holy Spirit has the power to sanctify.
…
*Disclaimer: The views expressed in this post belong solely to the author and are not representative of the Orthodox Church. *
Click to expand...
 
I have little trust for any self-proclaimed Orthodox theologian who refers to the Holy Spirit as “she”, disregarding historic precedence, *and *who’s never studied at an Orthodox Seminary.
 
Using feminine pronouns for the Holy Spirit was an ancient practice, though it died out by AD 500:
The early Syriac Fathers are the great witnesses to this
rich doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the most ancient
of the Fathers of east Syria, St. Aphrahat the Sage,
is a most eloquent theologian of the Holy Spirit. He
speaks of the Holy Spirit’s maternal role in baptism. When
preaching to a group of celibate men, he speaks of
their total commitment by saying, “As long as a man has
not taken a wife, he loves and reveres God his Father and
the Holy Spirit His mother.” We hear in a homily attributed
to St. Macarius that Adam, after his fall from grace,
“no longer saw the true Father of the heavens, nor the
benign good Mother the grace of the Spirit, nor the
agreeable, desirable Brother, the Lord.” In the Syriac rite
of prebaptismal anointing, which is still used by both the
Orthodox and Catholic churches, the Holy Spirit is even
addressed as a mother: “Come, mother of the seven
houses.”

In Syriac as in Hebrew, the word for Spirit, *ruah, *is
feminine, and so it ordinarily calls for a feminine pronoun.
St. Aphrahat and his contemporaries—as well as
later fathers, such as St. Ephrem—regularly observed this
basic rule of grammatical consistency, though the practice
dropped off after A.D. 400, probably because of doctrinal
misunderstandings or abuses.
Click to expand...
 
Get a life. Don’t even BEGIN to justify homosexual unions in the name of ORTHODOXY. People like you deserve what Jesus said,"the lowest place in HELL!!! Read it and weep,babushka Get a LIFE!👍
 
lone1 said:
Get a life. Don’t even BEGIN to justify homosexual unions in the name of ORTHODOXY. People like you deserve what Jesus said,"the lowest place in HELL!!! Read it and weep,babushka Get a LIFE!👍
Click to expand...
Catholics are supposed to pray for everyone and not judge them to such an extreme as you’ve posted!
 
Dear Ahimsa,

I would like to apologize to you for the way lone1 has treated you. You *certainly * deserved an apology for such a malicious and unprovoked attack. Since, you are not likely to get an apology from lone1, I am taking it upon myself.

Please know, that you will always have differences of opinion with other users of this forum, yet that doesn’t make your opinions any less thought-provoking or your contribution any less substantial.

Please continue to challenge all of us to think and reconsider our preconceived ideas. I have read many of your posts since I have joined this forum and have found your posts thoughtful, engaging, and refreshingly courteous. Your eagerness to embrace others’ thoughts with kindness, consideration, and humility is commendable.

I’m sure I speak for a lot of people on this forum when I write that I am deeply sorry for this attack and please continue to make your invaluable contribution.
 
Conor7 said:
Dear Ahimsa,

I would like to apologize to you for the way lone1 has treated you…
Click to expand...
Thanks, Conor. I’ve been on the forum since the early days, since 2004; lone1’s is actually one of the tamer screeds I’ve seen.🙂
 
lone1 said:
Get a life. Don’t even BEGIN to justify homosexual unions in the name of ORTHODOXY. People like you deserve what Jesus said,"the lowest place in HELL!!! Read it and weep,babushka Get a LIFE!👍
Click to expand...
Clearly you did not read the article, because the article does not defend gay marriage in any fashion; it’s basically saying that if Caesar wants to give gay marriage, then we should allow for Caesar to do so, but we should not recognize such marriages as being true marriage.
 
First of all, in a general way, let me point out to anyone who may have missed it that this article defends “gay marriage” from a purported Eastern Orthodox perspective, not Catholic. I would question whether the perspective is really even truly representative of the Eastern Orthodox. I’ve never before encountered an Orthodox referring to the Holy Spirit as “she”, for example.

On the substance of the article, I would agree to this very limited degree: we can recognize the distinction between civil validity and validity before God. It is possible for a State’s laws regarding marriage to differ from God’s laws, resulting in some marriages that are valid according to one and not valid according to another.

In certain cases, a civil judge might rightly recognize and uphold the civil validity of a homosexual marriage and the legal rights that are attached to that status even while personally recognizing that with respect to God the marriage is not actually valid (or even potentially valid; there is nothing the same-sex couple could do to make it valid).

What I would suggest though is that as a society we should seek accuracy in our definition of marriage. We should recognize what is a valid or invalid marriage in the eyes of God (that is, in objective reality) and tailor our legal definition of marriage to that objective definition of marriage.

To do otherwise is like legally defining a duck to be a public building. Sure, a judge could recognize that according to civil law this duck is a public building and the laws applying to public buildings apply to it. But that doesn’t change the absurdity of the situation. Civil law should strive to reflect the objective reality of the duck.

The same goes with marriage. Civil law should strive to call a “marriage” only that which objectively is a marriage. And we who through faith and/or reason know that people of the same sex are not objectively able to marry should support efforts to avoid erroneously labeling such “unions” marriages. Or, in states like my own in which this legal redefinition has already taken place, we should not stop pointing out that the legal definition does not match up with the objective reality and should be corrected.
 
Aelred_Minor said:
First of all, in a general way, let me point out to anyone who may have missed it that this article defends “gay marriage” from a purported Eastern Orthodox perspective, not Catholic. I would question whether the perspective is really even truly representative of the Eastern Orthodox. I’ve never before encountered an Orthodox referring to the Holy Spirit as “she”, for example.
Click to expand...
A few comments on the incidentals. The author of the essay notes that his opinion is not the official teaching of the Orthodox Church, but one opinion of a member of that Church, the implication being that his opinion is not contradictory to the Church’s teaching, even if it is not the official teaching of the Church.

Regarding describing the H.S. as “she”, that was an ancient practice among the Church Fathers in Syria, as Scott Hahn notes:
The early Syriac Fathers are the great witnesses to this
rich doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the most ancient
of the Fathers of east Syria, St. Aphrahat the Sage,
is a most eloquent theologian of the Holy Spirit. He
speaks of the Holy Spirit’s maternal role in baptism.
When preaching to a group of celibate men, he speaks of
their total commitment by saying, “As long as a man has
not taken a wife, he loves and reveres God his Father and
the Holy Spirit His mother.” We hear in a homily attributed
to St. Macarius that Adam, after his fall from grace,
“no longer saw the true Father of the heavens, nor the
benign good Mother the grace of the Spirit, nor the
agreeable, desirable Brother, the Lord.” In the Syriac rite
of prebaptismal anointing, which is still used by both the
Orthodox and Catholic churches, the Holy Spirit is even
addressed as a mother: “Come, mother of the seven houses.”
In Syriac as in Hebrew, the word for Spirit,
*ruah, *is feminine, and so it ordinarily calls for a feminine pronoun.
St. Aphrahat and his contemporaries—as well as
later fathers, such as St. Ephrem—regularly observed this
basic rule of grammatical consistency, though the practice
dropped off after A.D. 400, probably because of doctrinal
misunderstandings or abuses.
Click to expand...
 
I think he makes good arguments even though I do not agree with all his points. Yes, whatever we give the gays, its essentially the same thing no matter how we name it. Civil union, gay marriage, domestic partnership, etc. My take on it is at this point its only trivial to deny “marriage” when they technically have all the rights of a married heterosexual couple from a legal perspective.

Where the article fails is he’s only defending the sacramentality of marriage in the Church between man and woman, but not the effect of allowing gay partnerships has on our society. Sure, gays will never have a sacramentalized marriage and that will never change what marriage is to us and to God. Its like we can say all the words and prayers in front of bread and wine, if we’re not a priest and there is no Eucharist. But still, like the false Communion of many non-Catholic and non-Orthodox denominations, that bread and wine is a lie, as much as gay “marriage” is a lie. And this lie has implications, to those involved and to society in general. In the Eucharist, many now have distorted or even completely false understanding of Communion. In marriage, many do not understand what a real marriage is. And the fact that we let gays to come and live as if married has so much implication in our society. Its not something that they do and it won’t affect us. I think this author is in denial of that fact. Gay marriage is not only about the couple who’s attempting marriage, its about everyone. Because what they do affects us in so many ways.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Its like we can say all the words and prayers in front of bread and wine, if we’re not a priest and there is no Eucharist. But still, like the false Communion of many non-Catholic and non-Orthodox denominations, that bread and wine is a lie, as much as gay “marriage” is a lie. And this lie has implications, to those involved and to society in general. In the Eucharist, many now have distorted or even completely false understanding of Communion. In marriage, many do not understand what a real marriage is.
Click to expand...
Are you implying that the State has an interest in outlawing both same-sex marriage and Protestant forms of the Lord’s Supper?
 
Ron Paul asks similar questions in his latest book, though he goes further.

Why is the state even involved in marriage?
 
lone1 said:
Get a life. Don’t even BEGIN to justify homosexual unions in the name of ORTHODOXY. People like you deserve what Jesus said,"the lowest place in HELL!!! Read it and weep,babushka Get a LIFE!👍
Click to expand...
Hello Lone1,

YIKES!. :eek:

Are you sure you are a Catholic?

Only God knows who is going to heaven/hell.

Remember to always correct with love, compassion and humility.
 
Ahimsa said:
Are you implying that the State has an interest in outlawing both same-sex marriage and Protestant forms of the Lord’s Supper?
Click to expand...
No. I’m just validating the author’s point in contrast to Protestant Communion that no matter what we say or believe, because there are inherent defects to the act, there can never be a Sacrament in both cases. I am talking about Sacramentality, not legality.
 
valient_Lucy said:
Ron Paul asks similar questions in his latest book, though he goes further.

Why is the state even involved in marriage?
Click to expand...
Hhhhmmm… good question. I wonder how Rome, Greece, Mesopotamia and other pre-Jesus empires handled the union between man and woman. Do a man and woman just start living together?
 
Ahimsa said:
Because civil marriage involves legal rights and responsibilities.
Click to expand...
But this only evolved as the state adopted Christian morality and traditions. That is why our weekends are Saturday and Sunday as opposed to any other day of the week. That is why Christmas is a legal holiday as much as it is a religious holiday.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top