Summary
Title: What God Has Joined Together? A Christian Case for Gay Marriage
Author: David G. Myers, Letha Dawson Scanzoni
Publisher: HarperSanFrancisco
ISBN: 0060774614
Pro:
• Proabably the strongest possible Christian defense of gay marriage and rights for gays
Con:
• Authors have little understanding, or perhaps respect, for constitutional law and individual rights
• Arguments not likely to sway many who are firmly set against gay marriage
Description:
• Analysis and rebuttal to anti-gay marriage arguments from Christians
• Defends the idea of gays getting married from an evangelical Christian perspective
Book Review
Given that the debate is ultimately over a matter of law, then it makes sense that the arguments be primarily legal ones — whether any particular religion does or does not sanction the change shouldn’t matter. Unfortunately, in America, most people seem unwilling to accept political or legal changes unless they can imagine that the changes comport with their religious beliefs. Because of this, religious arguments for why gay marriage at least shouldn’t be banned, and perhaps should be embraced, can play an important role in any long-term developments.
What God Has Joined Together? A Christian Case for Gay Marriage, by David G. Myers and Letha Dawson Scanzoni, is an attempt to make a Christian argument for the validity of gay marriage. It is, obviously, written from an unabashedly Christian and religious perspective — the arguments here don’t rely upon complex constitutional precedents, but theology and scripture. It’s probably good that they didn’t try to write a book making legal arguments because, quite frankly, I don’t think that they understand constitutional law.
They argue, for example, that restrictions on activities like burning leaves embody the principle that our rights can take a back seat to social responsibility, and therefore that it’s justified to censor material in the media which communicates immoral messages about sexuality. If that doesn’t work, they also advocate holding the creators of such material civilly responsible in lawsuits. Arguments like this will endear them to the Christian Right; they also prove that the authors don’t really support constitutional rights of free expression when those rights are used in ways they don’t personally like.
So why defend the right of gays to marry? Because the authors don’t dislike gays and homosexuality — in fact, most of the book is taken up with attempts to argue that homosexuality isn’t something that should be abhorred and is, in fact, something natural. Some time spent on this makes sense, but I didn’t understand why until I realized that they proceed from the premise “what I approve of should be legal; what I disapprove of should not.” Therefore, establishing that we should approve of homosexuality has to be a major part of their work. Given the fact that opponents of gay marriage appear to share this premise, it’s possible that Myers’ and Dawson’s book will really speak to them.
On the other hand, conservative evangelical leaders have strong theological arguments against what Myers and Scanzoni have to day. It’s true that Jesus doesn’t explicitly condemn homosexuality, for example, but Jesus and Paul both only seem to conceive of marriage and sexual relationships in the context of monogamous unions between a man and a woman.
This is only to be expected, given their cultural and historical context, and shouldn’t be reason for us to also be so limited — after all, we do permit divorce for any reason and Jesus insisted that divorce either not be allowed at all or only be allowed when the wife is unfaithful (depending upon which interpretation you use).
Myers and Scanzoni don’t use this approach, however, and the argument “we shouldn’t be limited to the cultural expectations of first-century Judiasm and Christianity” is not one that will get a lot of traction among conservative evangelicals inclined to oppose legalized gay marriage. Myers and Dawson restrict themselves to scripture, and the Bible simply isn’t a very gay-friendly text — even if anti-gay Christians overstate their position somewhat. Given the fact that it supports slavery we can’t expect anything else, and these two have probably made the best case possible for gay marriage in a Christian context. The fact that it isn’t very good is telling, but perhaps some Christians will find it plausible, at least as a rationalization. Non-Christians might find some value here for framing their own arguments, too.
