Timbre of a TimeFree Mind

[Toby Johnson]

The answer to the "Gay Marriage Debate" lies in traditional Roman Catholic doctrine and old-time conservative political ideology.

The Catholic Church teaches that the "ministers" or "celebrants" of the sacrament of Matrimony are the two people who are marrying one another, not the priest. The priest is present simply to witness the marriage (and because it is a legal contract to record it) and to offer the community's blessing on the new life the pair has chosen to share together.

The Church doesn't perform the sacrament: the couple does.

And the way sacraments work is that they work if the people performing them believe they work. In the condemnation of the early Church heresy of Donatism, theologians held that the moral state of the priest didn't matter (and neither does the priest's approval or opinion of the marriage). The validity of the sacrament is in the belief of the receiver. The sacrament happens ex opere operato.

Remember in catechism class the nuns taught that if somebody is dying you should baptize them (whether you have any business doing so or not) and you should hear their confession if they want to confess to you (cause in their delirium they might think you're a priest). If people believe they are receiving a valid sacrament, then they are.

Gay couples who adminster the sacrament of Matrimony to one another do--ex opere operato.

It's the state, not the sacramental system or God, that is determined by legal rules. BUT the very basis of conservative political ideology is that the state should stay out of the private lives of individuals. Things like God, religion, sacraments--and personal relationships--are none of the government's business.

And they are correct about that.

The government's role is to witness and record the contract. And that's all. Certainly not to tell individuals who they can and can't marry.

So, ironically, according to Catholic teaching and Conservative (Republican???) political theory, gay couples who want to enter into a contractual relationship and concelebrated sacramental union can and do.

And the answer to the question "what does the Bible say about homosexuality?" lies in orthodox Protestant theology.

Central to the Protestant Reformation was the idea of "private interpretation of Scripture," i.e. it wasn't the officials of the Roman Catholic Church who should declare what the Bible says, but rather the Holy Spirit working in the souls of the faithful.

So what the Bible says and means is what it says and means to me, and to you, that is, what it means to the individual reader.

Fundamentalist preachers and TV evangelists have no more authority than the R.C. Church in this regard. They have no business telling other people what the Bible says; they can only say what it says to them. The rest of us are on our own also. When we read the Bible, what we get from it is what comes forth from our interior inspiration.

What the Bible says to homosexuals is what homosexuals get from reading the Bible. We naturally see that the taboos and primitive rules and primitive interpretations of biblical times have little meaning for modern, psychologically-sophisticated, rationally-minded, 21st century high-tech culture. And so what the Bible really says about homosexuality is what we, with enlightened minds and good hearts, understand. And that ought neccessarily be gay-positive.

Besides, Jesus's advice was to abandon all those old and numerous commandments of the books of the Law. One Commandment I give you, he said, Love One Another.

Isn't that simple?

The value of the gay marriage debate is that it demonstrates to young homosexuals that true love and stable relationship awaits them, not the isolation and loneliness that popular belief used to hold out as the inevitable future for homosexuals. How wonderful for such youth struggling to understand and cope with their burgeoning sexual orientation to find role models in the lesbian and gay couples who are coming forth to proclaim their commitment to one another and petition that their de facto legal and economic issues be accommodated in the law.

And the prejudice, meanness, and narrow-mindedness of the opposition to acknowledging the reality of gay relationships demonstrates to gay people at least--and maybe also to a sizable segment of psychologically- sophisticated non-gay moderns--that so-called conservative thinking and old time religion fail to encourage loving attitudes, harmonious behavior, and spiritual enlightenment.

This should remind the gay population how important it is that they lead exemplary lives of kindness, generosity, good citizenship, and integrity. Since people whom today we'd likely call by the inexact term "gay" have throughout time been the artists, cultural leaders, and spiritual guides on the "cutting edge" of human evolution, it's a good thing for contemporary homosexuals to be impelled to demonstrate and promote compassionate attitudes toward all racial, ethnic, and cultural minorities.

The struggle for same sex marriage is not about besmirching traditional arrangements but really about creating that "kinder and gentler society" the first George Bush had supposedly called for. It's about urging the majority of Americans to be compassionate instead of prejudiced, and kind and generous instead of petty and selfish.