Amending Marriage

008

Shakespeare observed that “many a good hanging prevents a bad marriage.” Since nowadays hanging is out of favor, some people are trying to prevent what they regard as bad marriages by a constitutional amendment. The recently proposed Federal Marriage Amendment defines marriage as “the union of a man and a woman.” By this definition, gay marriage would forever be prohibited. This proposed amendment is said to appeal to traditionalist Christians, who want the institution of marriage to be Bible-based. I have no particular objection to these people’s preferences, though I agree with the majority of the Senate, which has determined that this is no business of the federal government.

But if people want marriage to be defined in a biblical way, why stop with the matter of gender? Why not make marriage fully biblical? Let’s imagine what a full-bodied biblical marriage amendment would look like.

Provision 1: Marriage is the union between a man and one or more women. Lots of biblical marriages were polygamous, although this custom may have decreased during the biblical period. One problem with polygamous marriages is that the wives are apt to quarrel, as is the case with Jacob’s wives, Rachel and Leah (Genesis 30), and Elkanah’s wives, Hannah and Peninnah (1 Samuel 1), not to mention the trouble Abraham had with Sarah and Hagar (Genesis 16 and 21). In the case of Solomon and his 700 wives (and 300 concubines!), we can only imagine the domestic discord, and the king got into trouble by heeding his many spouses (1 Kings 11). Maybe monogamy is more manageable—but then, even Adam and Eve had their troubles.

Provision 2: Adultery is punishable by death. This provision would doubtless reduce the ranks of televangelists, Hollywood stars, and the U.S. Congress. But adultery is defined differently in the Bible than we might think: It applies only to a man having sex with a woman who is married or engaged (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22–29). If a man has sex with an unmarried woman, he must marry her (see Provision 1 above). So Bill Clinton would not have to be stoned to death, but Hillary would have to put up with Monica for a long time.

Provision 3: Divorce is prohibited. Here the amendment follows Jesus’ amendment of the older law. Jesus states, “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (Mark 10:9 and parallels). In Deuteronomy 24:1, divorce is allowed for “a matter of nakedness,” which is probably a purposefully vague phrase for dishonorable behavior. But Jesus shuts the door on this exception and says that no divorce is allowed, ever.¹ I could go either way on this restriction, but perhaps the amendment should follow Jesus’ stricter construction of the law.

Provision 4: Marriage is preferable to sinning. This provision defines the value of marriage according to St. Paul’s view. One could choose other biblical passages on the value of marriage, but Paul certainly had a way with words. He says, “If you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin. Yet those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that” (1 Corinthians 7:28). This is considerate of Paul, since marriage does tend occasionally to cause distress. But certainly sinning is worse. So we should prefer marriage to sinning.

This last provision, after some reflection, now has me worried about the original intention of the marriage amendment—to prohibit gay marriage. Why should marriage be preferable to sinning for one category of sinners (heterosexual) and not for other categories of sinners (for example, homosexuals)? Shouldn’t marriage be preferable to sinning in all cases? But this thought opens a lot of complexities, and perhaps should be the subject of another amendment.

Shakespeare observed that “many a good hanging prevents a bad marriage.” Since nowadays hanging is out of favor, some people are trying to prevent what they regard as bad marriages by a constitutional amendment. The recently proposed Federal Marriage Amendment defines marriage as “the union of a man and a woman.” By this definition, gay marriage would forever be prohibited. This proposed amendment is said to appeal to traditionalist Christians, who want the institution of marriage to be Bible-based. I have no particular objection to these people’s preferences, though I agree with the majority of the Senate, which has […]