The Case for Same-Sex Marriage

The Case for Same-Sex Marriage Matthew Anstey1 Introduction What precisely is the issue before us? On this we need to be clear in order to focus our deliberations on the primary issue, from which many other secondary issues—such as the question of the blessing of same-sex marriages—take their bearings. I wish to pose it as clearly as possible: does God approve, bless, and delight in samesex marriage, or does God condemn, reject, and judge it sinful? For if God judges it sinful, there is no Christian blessing nor Anglican liturgical consideration possible. But if the heart of God rejoices in same-sex marriage wholeheartedly, then blessing and liturgical recognition of such will follow as night follows day. Putting the question in such a manner reinforces why the stakes are high in this debate, for we are considering a moral-doctrinal issue which has—not to put the matter too mildly—diametrically opposed views. Hence grave implications follow for Anglican unity, missional integrity, and pastoral practice. Whether both sides can 1 The Rev’d Associate Professor Matthew Anstey is a Research Fellow of the Public and Contextual Theology Strategic Research Centre of Charles Sturt University, an Honorary Visiting Fellow at The University of Adelaide, and a priest in the Anglican Diocese of Adelaide. 2 6 7 Marriage, Same-Sex Marriage and the Anglican Church of Australia co-exist with ‘two integrities’,2 as we do for instance with women’s ordination, is uncertain. Furthermore, it is my view, influenced by many years both studying and teaching theology, that the consideration of all matters doctrinal and moral in the life of the church requires a particular disposition, a stance. To my mind, no one articulates this more evocatively than James Alison: I would like to create with you something like a space in which a heart might find permission to come close to cracking. It is a space which I am discovering to be necessary for participation in theological discourse. This close-to-cracking comes upon us at a moment when we do not know how to speak well, when we find ourselves threatened by confusion. It is where two principal temptations are either to bluster our way out of the moment, by speaking with too much security and arrogance so as to give the impression that the confusion is not mine, but belongs somewhere else. Or on the other hand to plunge into the shamed silence of one who knows himself uncovered, and for that reason, deprived of legitimate speech. This space of the heart-close-to-cracking, poorly as it seems to promise, and difficult though it be to remain in it once it is found and occupied, seems to me the most appropriate space from which to begin a sketch of ways forward towards the stutter of a theology for the third millennium.3 It is in this spirit that I invite the reader to consider my argument for the case for same-sex marriage, to which I will turn after first 2 3 Susannah Cornwall, personal communication. Susannah is a prominent UK lay Anglican theologian writing in the area of human sexuality. See futherSusannah Cornwall, Un/familiar Theology: Reconceiving Sex, Reproduction and Generativity (London: Bloomsbury, T&T Clark, 2017). James Alison, Faith Beyond Resentment: Fragments Catholic and Gay (New York: Crossroads, 2001), 27. 2 6 8 The Case for Same-Sex Marriage reflecting on some significant ways in which this particular debate takes place. On taboo and testimony Many of us who have participated in debates on this topic in church synods, social media platforms, or among friends and family, have encountered a number of recurring themes, and reflecting on these is important before moving to the main arguments for and against. 4 Three themes, which I label unnaturalness, calamity, and encounter, are in my view significant: Unnaturalness—People in the LGBT+ community (and many others) struggle with the frequent allusions in this debate to notions such as disgust, unnaturalness, contamination, and, perhaps worst of all, ‘abomination’? Any anthropologist will recognise this cluster of concepts as pertaining to taboo.5 And this explains in part why debates on this topic are often so fraught, because ‘taboo language is rooted deeply in human neural anatomy.… Taboo is identified with emotional release, aggression, lack of control, intemperance and intolerance’.6 Acknowledgment of the way highly emotive language can interfere with our emotional regulation and rational 4 5 6 The important book by Mark Vasey-Saunders, The Scandal of Evangelicals and Homosexuality: English Evangelical Texts, 1960–2010 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2015), demonstrates the significance of the the manner in which this debate is undertaken: ‘This book examines the history of evangelical responses to the issue of homosexuality, setting them in a wider historical and cultural context and drawing on the work of René Girard to argue that the issue of homosexuality has come to symbolise deeply-held convictions within evangelicalism. The conflict over the issue that is now becoming apparent within evangelicalism reveals deep divisions within the evangelical community that will have great significance for the future’ [backcover]. For our purposes, the linguistic dimensions of taboo are most prominent. See Keith Allen and Kate Burridge, Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Ibid, 249. 2 6 9 Marriage, Same-Sex Marriage and the Anglican Church of Australia thought is thus very important (and especially so for church leaders overseeing debates). Calamity—Given then the seriousness of this issue, it is not surprising that dire warnings of spiritual calamity are oftentimes proffered to those who support same-sex marriage.7 In my experience, such fears are indeed often a reality for those contemplating a change of mind on this issue. So let me speak candidly: most of my friends, and I too, nowadays support samesex marriage and previously did not. So together we have travelled the journey of the consideration of this issue over the last decades. And yes, we have considered seriously whether the affirmation of same-sex marriage entails rejection of other core Christian beliefs. In my view, it absolutely does not, and the people I know who have changed their mind on this issue continue to identify as orthodox Christians, be it evangelical, Reformed, Wesleyan, Pentecostal, Catholic, or so forth. It is vitally important to recognise this in order to mitigate such fears: the imagined calamity is a just that, imagined.8 Encounter—The third theme common in the debate on this issue is stories of encounter with gay Christians and the impact this has upon one’s thinking, especially if it is a family member.9 My wife and I were in our mid-twenties and recently married when we joined a Bible study at our local Anglican church. We met together for two to three years and the fellowship was wonderful, Spirit-filled, and centred on Christ and the Scriptures. But it was 7 8 9 Which is further evidence in fact that this is a taboo topic, because the violation of taboos in all cultures are most serious when pertaining ‘to things thought to be ominous, evil or offensive to supernatural powers,’ ibid, 237. And given this issue is so emotive and touches on taboo, in fact we should expect calamitous thinking to be present (given the processing of taboo language belongs to the limbic system). Such stories are found throughout the literature on same-sex marriage, and are heard regularly at Synods. 2 7 0 The Case for Same-Sex Marriage not until about the end of the second year that Liz and I discovered that two of the men lived together as a committed Christian gay couple. Needless to say, this surprised us greatly, as we had both grown up in churches opposed to same-sex marriage and had believed it was wrong. But we could not deny the depth and authenticity of these two brothers in Christ.10 This type of encounter and testimony is very common and I believe it must be taken into account.11 Kelly et alia demonstrate the significance of such encounters in forming beliefs: ‘our findings suggest that high levels of contact with sexual minorities have the potential to modify moral judgments about sinfulness, personal choice, and God’s design for sexuality.’12 In raising these three themes, I hope to bring to the surface some of the dynamics of the way this debate too frequently occurs in churches and elsewhere, and to suggest that attending to such is vital. I now turn to the issue at hand. Scripture and Moral Reasoning13 Imagine the Bible contained not a handful of passages about homosexuality, but rather hundreds and hundreds, and that these 10 11 12 13 The couple have given permission for me to tell this story. They were recently married and remain actively involved in the Anglican Church. Mark Achtemeier, The Bible’s Yes to Same-Sex Marriage: An Evangelical’s Change of Heart (Westminster John Knox, 2014), 2, reflects on a similar encounter: ‘[Kristi’s] testimony was disturbing because none of it matched up with the Bible’s teaching about how faith and discipleship are supposed to work.’ I recommend in this regard, Roberta S. Kreider, Together In Love: Faith Stories of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Couples (Kulpsville, PA: Strategic Press, 2002). H.L. Kelly, G. W. Sutton, L. Hicks, A. Godfrey, G. Cassidy, ‘Factors Influencing Christians’ Moral Appraisals of Nontraditional Sexuality’, Journal of Psychology and Christianity 37(2) (2018), 162–177. See also my chapter in this collection, ‘Scripture and Moral Reasoning’. 2 7 1 Marriage, Same-Sex Marriage and the Anglican Church of Australia passages were unequivocal in their condemnation of homosexual desire and practice. Would those who support homosexuality then change their mind, given that the majority of Christians would want to take Scripture seriously? Or would some perhaps hesitate, and then stay the course, because for a variety of reasons they have made a moral judgment that homosexual practice is not sinful? Imagine, then, the inverse, that the Bible contained hundreds and hundreds of passages that celebrated, promoted and delighted in homosexuality, without exception. Would those who oppose homosexuality then change their mind, given that they too want to take Scripture seriously? Or would some perhaps hesitate, and remain opposed, because they too for a variety of reasons have made a moral judgment that homosexual practice is sinful? What interests me in these two thought experiments is this hesitation, which we can reasonably imagine people to have if faced with such a situation. The hesitation occurs because two dominant factors are at play in the moral judgments we make, namely, the interpretation of Scripture and moral reasoning. Let me illustrate this with an example. 16 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 17Speak to Aaron and say: No one of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the food of his God. 18For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, one who is blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, 19or one who has a broken foot or a broken hand, 20or a hunchback, or a dwarf, or a man with a blemish in his eyes or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles. (Lev 21:16–20) The difficult theological issue here is not so much the prohibitions on cultic participation, which actually are revoked in later texts (see Isa 56:1-7; Acts 8:26-39), but that the problematic theological rationale for such prohibition is widespread in Scriptures, 2 7 2 The Case for Same-Sex Marriage namely, of ‘identifying disability with sin’ as Shane Clifton puts it.14 Clifton, himself a quadriplegic and a theologian, explores how embedded this view is in the Scriptures15 and the necessity of providing a theological critique of it (which includes conversation with those Scriptures that offer a countervailing view). So even though the Scripture here commences with, ‘The Lord spoke to Moses, saying…’, a Christological exposition of what it means to be made in the image of God, I would argue, entails the rejection of the theological rationale that identifies disability with sin. This is not a rejection of Scripture; it is quite the opposite, it is treating all of Scripture and its witness with utmost seriousness, reading the whole in conversation with tradition and experience to discern the mind of Christ. In other words, the formulation of doctrine based, so the argument goes, solely by the so-called ‘plain reading’ of Scripture never actually occurs, and claims of such are simply denying the moral logic everywhere present in one’s arguments.16 It never occurs because moral-doctrinal judgments are made through rational argument in conversation with Scripture and analytical reasoning, 14 15 16 S. Clifton, Crippled Grace: Disability, Virtue Ethics, and the Good Life (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2018), 33. See especially Shane’s personal reaction to, and theological reflection upon, this text and the biblical witness (pp. 58ff). Such as how disability is a metaphor of false idols ‘who cannot speak,… cannot feel, … cannot walk’ (Ps 115:5-7) and is associated often with vulnerability, ineffectuality, and dependence, and how healing from disability is frequently construed as a sign of God’s blessing and presence. Moreover, it fails even on completely non-controversial matters, for why is it the case that no one ever puts forth a Christian argument in favour of adultery? It cannot be because we think it’s wrong solely because ‘God says it is wrong’ in the Scriptures; rather, it is because the moral-doctrinal reasoning that undergirds this position is cogent and coheres with a fulsome Christian theology. 2 7 3 Marriage, Same-Sex Marriage and the Anglican Church of Australia scientific evidence, lived experience,17 ecclesial synods and dialogue, and so forth. Thus claims to be following ‘Scripture only’ on this or any issue are in my view untrue, eliding the interpreting community of God’s people to whom God is present by the Spirit. Throughout its history, the church has had the courage to formulate moral-doctrinal views that are at odds with, or in tension with, particular texts within Scripture, where it is judged that the theological rationale for the position is compelling (leaving aside debate on what counts as ‘compelling’). The modern church for instance has no qualms in viewing Paul’s injunction to forbid women from speaking in church (1 Cor 14:34), or to ‘greet one another with a holy kiss’ (given five times: Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:26; 1 Pet 5:14), as not applicable to us. Many other examples can be adduced. This is how the church operates—denominations through their synods and councils and forums will prepare books and reports, conduct conversations, hold vigorous debates, and then eventually (no matter how many years it sometimes takes) make a decision to change (or retain) its doctrinal position, be it on polygamy, the status and ordination of women, slavery, interracial marriage, capital punishment, contraception, divorce, or in this case, samesex marriage.18 And this is no less precisely what is happening in this debate, in the Anglican Church of Australia. Are we not all participating in the exercise in the formulation of Christian doctrine, taking into account all these perspectives? Are not all contributors to 17 18 And hence my appeal above to take seriously the stories of encounter with and testimony of gay Christians. As of June 2019, according to https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35278124 eight Anglican provinces have affirmed the same-sex marriage and/or ordination of gay clergy (Brazil, South Africa, South India, Scotland, New Zealand, ECUSA, Canada, Wales). 2 74 The Case for Same-Sex Marriage this volume for instance drawing their arguments together from a range of sources and endeavouring to articulate the strongest possible case for their view? Are we not participating in the ongoing ‘dialectic between [the Church] and scripture’?19 Towards an Argument for Same-Sex Marriage Let us take stock—I have argued that all forms of arguments about same-sex marriage involve scriptural interpretation and moral reasoning, including serious engagement with scientific evidence, human experience, church history and tradition, and so forth, and that such arguments must be credible.20 What I am not going to do now, however, is offer a detailed examination of the Scriptural materials—this is done elsewhere in this volume, and even more so in a large number of books and journal articles.21 As a biblical scholar, moreover, I am altogether 19 20 21 R. A. Greer, Anglican Approaches to Scripture: From the Reformation to the Present. (New York: Crossroad, 2006). Pailin, ibid, 234: ‘A theology must be so formulated that its statements are “credible to human existence as judged by common experience and reason”’, citing Shubert M. Ogden, The Point of Christology, (London: SCM Press, 1982), 4. For further reading, see Mark Achtemeier, The Bible’s Yes to Same-Sex Marriage: An Evangelical’s Change of Heart (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2014); Bernadette J. Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Homoeroticism (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1996); William Brownson, Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on SameSex Relationships (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 2013); Alan H. Cadwallader (ed.), Kaleidoscope of Pieces: Anglican Studies on Sexuality (Adelaide: ATF Press, 2016); Susannah Cornwall,. Un/familiar Theology: Reconceiving Sex, Reproduction and Generativity (London: Bloomsbury, T&T Clark, 2017); John Bradbury & Susannah Cornwall (eds.), Thinking Again About Marriage: Key Theological Questions (London: SCM Press, 2016); Tobias S. Haller, Reasonable and Holy: Engaging Same-Sexuality (New York: Seabury, 2009); Loader, ibid; Robert Song, Covenant and Calling: Towards a Theology of Same-Sex Relationships (London: SCM Press, 2014); Matthew Vines, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships (New York: Convergent Books, 2014); Brian Walsh, ‘Sex, Scripture and Improvisation’, In One God, One People, One Future: Essays in Honour of N. T. Wright, Edited by John Anthony Dunne & Eric Lewellen (London: SPCK, 2018), 287–315. 2 7 5 Marriage, Same-Sex Marriage and the Anglican Church of Australia reticent to articulate here what would need to be dramatically abbreviated interpretation of complex texts. What this growing body of scholarly literature demonstrates is that the interpretation of the seven texts on homosexual practice is deeply contested and requires in depth consideration of a large number of interrelated hermeneutical issues such as questions of gender, orientation, procreation, creation, nature and so forth. And so, the church is faced with a situation akin to the debates on other major moral-doctrinal matters, such as slavery. Consider for example this confident statement in favour of slavery: The Bible’s defence of slavery is very plain. St. Paul was inspired and knew the will of the Lord Jesus Christ, and was only intent on obeying it. And who are we, that in our modern wisdom presume to set aside the Word of God … and invent for ourselves a ‘higher law: than those holy Scriptures which given to us as “a light to our feet and a lamp to our paths,” in the darkness of a sinful and polluted world?’22 Thus wrote the Episcopalian Bishop of Vermont, Dr John Henry Hopkins, in 1864. Three years later he was invited to the First Lambeth Conference and preached the opening sermon, and received at the same time an honorary doctorate from the University of Oxford. That such a view was argued by an Anglican Bishop is hard for modern readers to comprehend, yet at the time his view was widely held. Thankfully, the abolitionist proponents won the 22 John Henry Hopkins, A Scriptural, Ecclesiastical and Historical View of Slavery, from the Days of the Patriarch Abraham to the Nineteenth Century: Addressed to The Rt. Rev. Alonzo Potter, D.D., Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in the Diocese of Pennsylvania (New York: W. I. Polley & Co., 1864), 16–17, cited in W. Swartley, Slavery, Sabbath, War, and Women: Case Issues in Biblical Interpretation (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 1983), 31. 2 7 6 The Case for Same-Sex Marriage day with their arguments, and in his study of how this debate transpired, Willard Swartley makes the following observation: Abolitionist writers gave priority to theological principles and basic moral imperatives, which in turn put slavery under moral judgment. The point we should learn from this is that theological principles and basic moral imperatives should be primary biblical resources for addressing social issues today. These should carry greater weight than a specific statement on a given topic even though the statements speak expressly to the topic under discussion. This is the view I take, namely, that the debate needs to centre on ‘theological principles and basic moral imperatives’ rather than individual texts.23 Now it might surprise the reader, but I believe that the seven main Scriptural texts on this matter (Genesis 9:20–27; 19:1–11, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9–10; 1 Timothy 1:10, Romans 1:26–27) are all opposed to homosexual practices. And though I also agree with the many scholars who argue that ‘what the New Testament writers have in mind when they refer to homosexual practice could not have been the loving and stable same-sex unions of the sort that exist today, of which they knew nothing’,24 let’s assume for the sake of argument that they do so apply. I would still nevertheless argue that the theological principles and moral 23 24 It is important however to note that Swartley, Homosexuality, argues that the debate on homosexuality in some respects is unlike the debates on slavery, Sabbath, war, and women, because he argues that Scripture is opposed in all cases. In my view, Swartley fails to follow his own reasoning around the formulation of doctrine to its logical conclusion, namely, that theological principles and basic moral imperatives, in their totality, must remain primary, even where Scripture is one-sided. See Bruce Hiebert, http://www. cascadiapublishinghouse.com/dsm/summer05/hiebbr.htm for a critique of Swartley (2003). Steven Chalke, A Matter of Integrity: The Church, Sexuality, Inclusion and an Open Conversation, https://www.openchurch.network/sites/default/ files/A%20MATTER%20OF%20INTEGRITY.compressed.pdf. 2 7 7 Marriage, Same-Sex Marriage and the Anglican Church of Australia logic (as argued below) still ‘carry greater weight than a specific statement on a given topic.’ In other words, I am putting forward three interrelated claims, namely that 1. the theological rationale for affirming same-sex marriage counters those texts that oppose homosexual practice; 2. appealing to a theological rationale is precisely that which the Church has in practice followed in all its deliberations of moral-doctrinal matters it has considered through the ages; and, accordingly, 3. claims that any particular moral-doctrinal argument is only following the plain teaching of Scripture are false. So, finally, let us now consider the theological principles and moral arguments regarding same-sex marriage, in three arguments: the gender complementarity argument, the ‘missing sin’ of homosexuality, and the nature of same-sex desire.25 The Gender Complementarity Argument First, I wish to counter the most common theological argument used against same-sex marriage, the gender complementarity argument.26 This relatively new argument against homosexuality is that our 25 26 It needs to be acknowledged that there are some who argue for same-sex covenantal unions as an alternative to same-sex marriage. In their view, this retains marriage as a heterosexual covenant and allows same-sex couples to have their own distinctive form of covenanted public life. See R. Song, ibid, for exposition of this approach. Though the Anglican theologian Ephraim Radner has recently made a more Catholic-like argument against same-sex marriage on the basis of the procreative imperative of human sexuality. See E. Radner, A Time to Keep: Theology, Mortality, and the Shape of a Human Life (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016) and E. Radner, http://www. anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2013/07/same-sex-marriage-is-stillwrong-and-its-getting-wronger-every-day/ for a summary article. 2 7 8 The Case for Same-Sex Marriage gender complementarity reflects the imago dei in some necessary or essential way; that is, heterosexual marriage only is justified because the relational nature of the Trinity is refracted in the complementary nature of male vis-à-vis female. This argument is supported by appeal primarily to the two creation accounts, in which humankind is made in the image of God male and female (Gen 1; Gen 2) and thus requires maleness and femaleness in order so to represent this image. Moreover, human marriage, given its procreative potential and its (for some, sacramental) symbolism of the relationship of Christ and the church, sanctions male-female relations,—and here the argument hinges— and in so doing negates the possibility of same-sex marriage. Given Jesus makes no reference to homosexuality, his citation of Genesis 2 in his discussion of divorce is interpreted as Christ’s endorsement of heterosexual marriage only (i.e. heteronormativity). If the reader is baffled by this argument, that is I suggest because the argument is indeed baffling. There are I submit theological (Christological and eschatological) problems with both its basic assertions, and the inference from these assertions to the doctrine of heteronormativity is unwarranted. Christ is the full and complete imago dei, telling the human story in the way we have all failed to tell it. Hence the imago dei is refracted in our humanness, and not in any gendered or marital form thereof. This is the Christological rebuttal in succinct form. Eschatologically, gender and marital vs single differences are irrelevant, and what’s more, this future reality is to inform our current doctrine and practice (‘in Christ there is neither male nor female’ Gal 3:28). Hence any underlying assertions of gender complementarity as representative of the imago dei are to be rejected. Moreover, even if they were to accepted, the inference 2 7 9 Marriage, Same-Sex Marriage and the Anglican Church of Australia that same-sex relationships are therefore sinful does not follow. That male-female marriage is a symbol of the Church does not rule out same-sex relationships any more than it rules out celibacy (or parent-child relations, sibling relations, etc.), nor any more than procreative heterosexual marriages rule out childless ones.27 To put it simply, the affirmation of the goodness of heterosexual marriage does not entail the wrongness of homosexual marriage.28 The ‘missing sin’ of same-sex marriage The most common statement one hears when talking with those outside the church is, ‘But I just don’t see what’s wrong with it’. I believe there is wisdom in this. I submit that the secular public, unhindered nowadays by taboo around homosexuality and so able to discuss the matter freely, and unhindered by a religious tradition that tells them homosexuality is wrong, has been able to grasp with clarity that there is no coherent moral objection to homosexuality. (And just because society works something out before the church does not mean society is wrong, as history shows us repeatedly.) So, I invite the reader: ask yourself, what specifically is wrong about homosexual marriage? We all know gay couples—what sin is committed arising from their union as gay people? When two people of the same gender give their lives to one another in covenantal fidelity and love, what sin is being enacted? What harm is being done? What evil is being propagated? Of course, I am not talking about all the regular shortcomings of human relations; that misses the point 27 28 See M. DeFranza, Sex Difference in Christian Theology: Male, Female and Intersex in the Image of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015) for excellent discussion of this issue, and A. Thatcher, Redeeming Gender (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017). See further Cornwall, 2016 ‘Faithfulness to our Sexuate Bodies: The Vocations of Generativity and Sex’ in S. Cornwall & J. Bradbury (eds), Thinking Again About Marriage: Key Theological Questions (London: SCM Press, 2016). 2 8 0 The Case for Same-Sex Marriage entirely. I am talking about the fact that there is no sin committed specifically as a result of the couples’ identical gender. And more to the point, the loving, fruitful, positive same-sex relationships of countless people is a compelling witness to its goodness. What I find most telling in this regard is the marked absence in literature opposing same-sex marriage of an articulation of the precise nature of the specific sin being committed. If we take other types of sexual practice, such as adultery, incest, paedophilia, bestiality, sexual abuse, and so forth, the articulation of the harm and wrongness of the specific sexual activity is straightforward to articulate (and the rationales for such are broadly agreed to in modern secular society), and again, more to the point, the harm and wreckage of such forms of sexual expression is self-evident. But for homosexuality, opponents typically provide no comment on this; rather, its wrongness is simply assumed. The one ‘argument’—I use the term reservedly—present in such literature is one of divine fiat—homosexuality is wrong because God (it is claimed) declares it wrong. But that is not an argument, that’s simply a brute assertion. If it is indeed wrong, there needs to be a thoughtful, compelling, coherent account for its wrongness. But I know of no such argument, neither in scholarship nor, in all seriousness, at the local pub. The heart of the matter Thoughtful conformity to Christ—not unthinking conformity to either contemporary culture or textual prohibitions—should be our unchanging reference point.29 Desires matter. So much so that Jesus, and subsequently the 29 S. Chalke, A Matter of Integrity: The Church, Sexuality, Inclusion and an Open Conversation, 2013, https://www.openchurch.network/sites/default/ files/A%20MATTER%20OF%20INTEGRITY.compressed.pdf. 2 8 1 Marriage, Same-Sex Marriage and the Anglican Church of Australia church, has taught that if one has lustful desires, one has committed the sin, even when it is not enacted (see Mat 5:28). What determines the sinfulness is the desire. One could not commit an act of lust without the lustful desire, because what makes the act lustful is the lustful intentionality contained within the lustful desire. Now let me clarify two matters. One can of course experience arousal without it leading to lust, so for the sake of argument, I am talking of lust in its negative sense throughout. Moreover, all of us experience life as a jumble of entangled good and bad desires, so again, for the sake of argument, I am considering good desires and bad desires as if disentangled. On both sides of the debate about homosexuality, there is agreement that same-sex attraction desires are not sinful. Given that all our desires and intentions and actions fall under the purview of God’s judgment, these desires therefore must be good desires. There are no neutral desires when the desire pertains to the wellbeing of another person and the body politic no less. Or, to put it positively, same-sex love is like all other good love (when it is good and not something distorted): it selflessly seeks the well-being of (agape) and union with (eros) the other, as Aquinas so argued.30 It is directed toward the other and yearns for that which is good and true and beautiful for them, and given its reciprocity, it yearns to be loved in equal measure, freely and completely, and to be united bodily with the other. Such love is Christ-like and Christ’s love for us is in fact the measure and standard of all love. Therefore, given the bond between good desire, good intention, and good action, the expression of this love must be good, Christ-like, godly. And thus there is no rationale for saying—as the case against does—that the expression of such love sexually is wrong (and fatally 30 Summa Theologiae, I–II. Q28. 2 8 2 The Case for Same-Sex Marriage so according to some), but that any non-sexual expression is fine. This is because sexual attraction and expression of love is part and parcel of what constitutes reciprocal, exclusive love (i.e., maritaltype love) between couples. More to the point, that is in fact one of its defining characteristics, because it is only within that form of relationship (marriage) that the church sanctions the expression of sexual love. The fact that some couples for various reasons do not engage in such sexual activity does not negate the argument. The case against, I submit then, actually posits a genuine absurdity, best illustrated thus: same-sex attracted couples could live together, plan their lives together, share their bank accounts, holidays, hobbies, even share the bed together—I assume even hold hands (non-sexually!)—provided there is no genital sexual activity. This is a most plausible illustration, and not a hypothetical red herring: it brings into focus the juxtaposition of faithful, reciprocal, all-encompassing love with an arbitrary prohibition on sexual activity. The unravelling of the argument against same-sex marriage I believe lies in such bifurcation of desire from enactment, and the absurdity that flows from that disjunction. In my view, it would be more tenable, then, for the case against to argue that all same-sex desire and attraction is intrinsically sinful, disordered, wrong before God, that any form whatsoever of the desire to give one’s heart and life utterly and entirely over to another person of the same gender, in lifelong, monogamous, faithful relationship, is sinful all the way down and wrong without remainder. Such an argument, in which desire and its enactment are properly tethered, would be in my view morally (and doctrinally no less) coherent, but at a terrible price—all those who experience persistent self-identifying same-sex attraction are in a permanent state of sinfulness, and not by choice (given that those opposed to same-sex marriage in this volume argue it is not a choice). Homosexuals, so 2 8 3 Marriage, Same-Sex Marriage and the Anglican Church of Australia the argument goes, unlike heterosexuals, are filled with desires that inherently and intrinsically sinful; they are not able to change and are condemned by God (in the view of some, for all eternity). That this price is too high goes without saying—our illustrative couple are doomed. So to return to the argument in favour of same-sex marriage, I put it thus: when one ponders seriously and deeply the nature of the love same-sex couples have for one another, and when one sets aside all those counter arguments which appeal to fallen human nature (given that such counter arguments count equally against heterosexual marriage), the faithful enactment of such same-sex love must necessarily be deemed to be good, wholesome, and, indeed, Christ-like. To put it simply, God revealed in Christ through the Spirit affirms same-sex marriage. 2 8 4