Download Religious Participation and the American Same-Sex

Wilm 1
Missy Wilm
15 May 2014
Religious Participation and the American Same-Sex Wedding
Introduction
Same-sex marriage in the United States is a controversial issue. From both religious and
legal standpoints, no universal rules apply. Some states legally allow same-sex marriage. Others
prohibit it. In the same way, disagreement exists within Christian, Jewish and Hindu
communities as to whether religious doctrine permits same-sex marriage. Legal and religious
debates intersect to further question same-sex marriage’s validity.
The discussion that follows examines American same-sex couples allowed to legally and
religiously marry. Both the state in which the couples inhabit and their specific religious
denomination permits same-sex marriage. More specifically, this discussion treats those couples
that wish to have their unions blessed through a faith-based wedding ceremony and not simply
recognized by law. This group compromises only a portion of same-sex couples seeking
marriage. Yet the participation of these couples in religiously founded marriage and wedding
rituals shows how many same-sex couples navigate the religious marriage theology of today.
Religion and the Same-Sex Couple
In the United States, many Christian, Jewish and Hindu same-sex couples desire religious
blessing of their marriage. Corresponding religious authorities and communities may also join
the couples’ pursuit of religious marital blessing. However, this group must fight against a
historically heterosexual theological understanding of marriage, no matter the religion.
Wilm 2
Part of the challenge begins within the wedding ceremony itself, where same-sex couples
navigate participation in traditional rituals while striving to ensure those rituals do not continue
historical heterosexism in marriage. Consequently, these marrying couples maintain particular
wedding rituals to uphold a familiar rite of marriage recognizable by their communities. At the
same time, they adapt certain readings and liturgies to demonstrate personal beliefs on marriage
and faith. Same-sex couples and their receptive communities therefore pave the way for the full
participation of same-sex couples in Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism. Ultimately, the
struggles of the same-sex couple push other Americans to question a long-standing historical
marriage theology that may no longer fit modern values.
Marriage, Religion and History
Marriage as Procreative Partnership in Historical Theology
Throughout history, Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism have debated the correct
understanding of human sexual relations. That debate continues today. Yet one point upon which
all three religions historically agreed was that sex belongs only in marriage. Sex in marriage
therefore meant procreation also belonged in marriage, and therefore procreation was the main
purpose of marriage. Each of the three religions elucidates slightly different rationales for
marriage as a foundationally procreative partnership, with each upholding a pervading
assumption of heterosexuality. As the debate of religion and sexuality continues today, modern
couples call the religious heterosexual assumption into question.
Christianity
Wilm 3
The 16th century protestant reformer Martin Luther lays out the historical Christian view
on marriage quite plainly: “[M]arriage produces off-spring, [and] that is the end and chief
purpose of marriage” (“A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage”). He explains that married couples
serve the Christian community by raising their children according to Christian doctrine. They
therefore facilitate a growing Church and may also fulfill vocational goals of marriage through
procreation (“A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage” 390).
Christian marriage was also historically viewed as a means to contain sexual lust.
According to the apostle Paul, marriage prevents sexual sin by providing permanent
monogamous union for sexual activity. However, this was a concession for Paul, and for many
other Christian theorists. Even better than marriage and its inherent sexual activity was the
celibate life. Celibacy leads to this highest spiritual life according to Paul (Buitendag 453).
Luther countered this elevation of the celibate life by insisting that marriage “is just as much a
gift of God as chastity” because of its contributions to the Christian community (Hendrix 338).
Judaism
Marriage is also an important God-given institution in the Jewish faith. So much so that
many codes of law and biblical commentary give instruction on the correct way to live in
marriage. According to one code of law called the Arha’ ah Turim (or the Tur), marriage has
three purposes: companionship, procreation and control of sex. The companionship necessary to
marriage, which the Tur places as the number one purpose, comes from the Adam and Eve
account of Genesis. God gave his first two human creations to one another as companions (Biale
63). The principal goal of this companionship, and the second purpose of marriage, is
Wilm 4
procreation. The couple must create beings in the image of God and reenact the original creation
story of Adam and Eve (Biale 63).
Lastly, marriage acts as a means to contain sinful sexual desire outside of marriage. A
single, non-married individual with sexual desire lives in sin (Biale 63). It is therefore a sin not
to marry, as sexual desire cannot be contained in any other way. In this way, marriage constitutes
a mitzvah, or religious obligation (Israel and Judaism Studies). It involves social duty and
responsibility. Even rabbis can and should marry, unlike the celibate priests of Christianity
(Israel and Judaism Studies). In fact, the glorification of celibacy does not exist within the
Jewish tradition (Benjamin).
Hinduism
Similarly, Hinduism does not promote celibacy. In fact, [r]emaining unmarried is taboo,”
unless a Hindu renounces marriage for a religious order very early in life (“Marriage: In
Religion, Law and Custom” 54). Hinduism holds marriage in such high esteem because of the
important role it plays in the lifecycles of both the couple and their families. For instance,
marriage begins the second of four life stages, called Grihastha. In Grihastha, a Hindu has
leaves his or her status as student in the Brachmacarin life stage and marries (Larson 133).
Within marriage and the stage of Grihastha, a Hindu couple is expected to procreate and
thereby repay the ancestors who gave life to the husband and wife. Repaying the ancestral debt
in this way permits deceased ancestors to enter additional cycles of reincarnation (“Pitr-Rin”). As
a result, marriage and its necessary sexuality fulfill familial obligations.
Historical Intersections of Marriage and Religion
Wilm 5
Despite the longstanding status of marriage as a religious union, marriage was not always
a religious rite of passage. In Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism, religious regulations for
marriage developed over time. This increasing regulation ultimately changed marriage from
solely an economic transaction to a religious rite and responsability as well.
Christianity
Christian marriage did not always take place under Church regulation. Based solely on
the consent of each partner, couples married outside church walls using their own traditions
(Coyle 75). Around the fourth century, the church began presiding over marital unions by
providing blessings of marriages only to the couples that desired them. The church hoped to
instill the idea of marriage “through Christ” as it blessed the unions (Coyle 84-85).
The connection of marriage and the Christian Church continued to grow, especially
throughout the 16th century. By this time, the Catholic Church had declared marriage a sacrament
(Portman 67). It now required couples to marry under the supervision of both a priest and two
witnesses. Without the presence of these figures, the Catholic Church considered a marriage
invalid (Coyle 87). At the height of marriage under Christian regulation, reformers such as
Martin Luther pushed marriage back into the civic realm. Luther declared marriage as an earthly,
and not divinely ordained, institution (Buitendag 452). However, he also required that marriage,
though not instituted by God, be lived out according to the doctrines of Christian faith.
Judaism
The oldest roots of Jewish marriage provided the foundation for Christian marriage – no
“inherently Christian marriage form” exists (Bower 43). The uniquely Jewish legal definition of
Wilm 6
marriage began in the 6th century. At this time, rabbis compiled Jewish marriage laws that
defined the legal entity of Jewish marriage and encouraged the inclusion of God in every aspect
of life – including in marriage (Satlow 69). These laws became widespread via the collected laws
in the Halakah, the oral traditions recorded in the Mishnah, and the commentaries of the Talmud
(Israel and Judaism Studies, Rich).
Hinduism
In the same way that Judaism emphasizes faith in every aspect life, including in marriage,
Hinduism practices also permeate life events. Hinduism in fact elevates marriage to sacramental
status because of its sacred importance throughout the lifetime (Rambachan Interview). Yet
marriage in Hinduism did not immediately start this way, and the laws and regulations for Hindu
marriage developed across centuries. The marriage and the wedding ceremony under the modern
Hindu definition developed during the Vedic period in India between 1700 and 800 BC (Chettri,
Subrahmanyam). The Manu Samhita written around 200 BC provides Hindu marriage laws,
some of which are still followed today (Chettri). Similar to the marriage commentaries of
Judaism, the Manu Samhita contains interpretations of scriptures and provides a supplement to
the sacred hymns and chants of the Vedas (Chettri, Larson 128).
Marriage and Religion Today for the Same-Sex Couple
Adherence to Wedding Ritual and Reinterpretation of Marriage Theology
As marriage and religion intersected throughout history, religious wedding ceremony
rituals developed. When these rituals repeated across time, many became standard practices for
the religious weddings of today.
Wilm 7
Many contemporary same-sex couples celebrate their weddings with these standardized
blessings. But historically, the standard practices of Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism assumed
a heterosexual couple by using wording and imagery based on male/female and husband/wife
dichotomies. The same-sex couple consequently rejects these exclusively heterosexual
theological tenets and rituals that remain in today’s wedding practices, while simultaneously
following many of the wedding’s symbolic characteristics. By following the standard structure of
the wedding ceremony, a couple provides a familiar context in which the religious, familial and
friend communities may witness the union and identify the couple’s married status. The samesex couple and religious authorities also adapt other theologies and rites to fit personal beliefs
specific to a non-heterosexual experience. Ultimately, how a couple ritually demonstrates
participation in the religious community, and how religious authorities uphold the couple’s
participation, depends upon the religion.
Christianity
According to Mark Jordan, a “Christian wedding is counted authentic and legitimate – a
real wedding – when it can cite appropriately a recognized tradition of previous weddings”
(Authorizing Same Sex Marriage? 102). To show entrance into marriage, a Christian same-sex
performs many of the rites characteristic of weddings of the past. They may follow the order of
events from the first walk down the aisle, to the ceremony and blessing, and the walk back up the
aisle before the reception begins. Participation in Christian ritual may also include a ring
exchange, or traditional dress (brides in white, and grooms in traditional suits or tuxedos).
These elements themselves, however, only serve to display “apparently Christian
symbolism” (Jordan Blessing Same-Sex Unions 94). The distinctly religious, Christian blessing
Wilm 8
of the marriage comes from the spoken liturgy. Here, the same-sex couple and the church
separate from standard Christian wedding ritual. For instance, the Episcopalian General
Convention in 2012 authorized the use of a new set of liturgy aimed specifically at blessing
same-sex unions. It must be noted that this Episcopal blessing is exactly that – a blessing – and
not a validation of marriage. The Episcopal Church does not yet recognize same-sex marriage
(Hefling 10). Nevertheless, the blessing liturgy follows exactly the same pattern as the Episcopal
marriage liturgy. It thereby provides an example of how same-sex couples of other Christian
denominations may alter the wording of marriage rites.
The introduction of “The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage” for a heterosexual
Episcopalian couple begins:
O Gracious and everliving God,
You have created us male and female in your image:
Look mercifully upon this man and this woman who come to you seeking your blessing
[…] (Hefling 11).
For a same-sex Episcopalian blessing, the words of “The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong
Covenant” start in a similar way to the marriage liturgy cited above:
Gracious and everliving God:
Assist by your grace N. and N.,
Whose lifelong commitment of love and fidelity we witness this day.
Grant them your blessing […] (Hefling 11).
The second passage designated for same-sex couples simply replaces the words male and female
with the names of the two partners. This change removes heterosexual wording while
maintaining the request for blessing from God. Ultimately, these two passages show how a
Wilm 9
couple can uphold Christian ties to the “traditional” marriage ceremony while simultaneously
demonstrating personal beliefs that resist heterosexual assumptions.
Judaism
Navigating heterosexual assumptions in the wedding ceremony proves a challenge for the
Jewish same-sex couple as well. Most Jewish marriage practices are founded on strict, clear-cut
gender roles that necessitate a male and a female to initiate the marriage union. To present a
common wedding procedure that maintains validity in Jewish law and fidelity to the same-sex
couples’ beliefs and experiences requires a great amount of reinterpretation on the part of the
couple and the presiding rabbi.
While members of a Christian couple may each gives a ring to the other partner, the
members of a Jewish couple cannot participate in a double ring exchange. To do so would
invalidate the marriage according to halahkic law. Under Jewish law, only the man may give a
ring to the woman. This initial bestowal of a ring validates the marriage, but the bestowal of a
second ring to the other partner negates the transaction and nullifies the marriage (Adler 191192). The giving of the ring offers an apt example of the Jewish marriage ceremony acting as a
heterosexual “acquisition,” where one partner (the husband) acquires the other (the wife) through
contract (Biale 47). The ketubah marriage contract is similar in its heterosexual assumptions and
“highly gender-role determined” provision. For example, the ketubah outlines the specific tasks
of the husband and wife, where the wife is restricted to domestic duties and the husband must
care for financial responsibilities (Jordan Authorizing Same-Sex Marriage? 91).
Nevertheless, the Jewish same-sex couple, aided by a willing rabbi, can participate in
these symbolic rituals in ways that are familiar and recognizable to the witnessing community
Wilm 10
while they also comply with Jewish law. The ring bestowal, for instance, solidifies the marriage
under Jewish law and is therefore an essential aspect of the wedding. In order to maintain both a
symbolic and legally binding union, the same-sex couple may enact a slightly different ring ritual
that upholds the necessity of the exchange of a valuable item as a way to contract a Jewish
marriage. This ancient practice involves placing important items belonging to the couple in a
bag. The couple then lifts the bag together before the wedding guests. The act symbolizes the
new unity of resources, where the two partners will now combine their possessions in marriage
(Adler 196). For ring bestowal imagery, the couple can each place a ring within the bag. The
ritual would then be familiar to the witnessing audience, who associates the ring ritual with
marriage. It also maintains an egalitarian approach to the ring exchange instead of providing an
image of heterosexual gendered dominance. Most of all, it validates the marriage under Jewish
law.
The ketubah marriage contract may also be altered in order to fit the same-sex conception
of marital obligations. The members of the couple may change the wording of the ketubah to
eliminate gender roles. They may adjust the existing obligations outlined on the traditional
contract, or they may completely eliminate some provisions and add in others. In fact, the
ketubah historically acted only as a template and could be modified to create individually
tailored contracts (Jordan Authorizing Same-Sex Marriage? 91). Steven Greenberg suggests
eliminating the ketubah all together in favor of a different contract called the shtar shutafut.
Rather than insisting on gendered obligations in marriage or marriage as an unequal acquisition,
this contract emphasizes partnership and equality in marriage (Jordan Authorizing Same-Sex
Marriage? 91).
Wilm 11
Whether by adapting the ring exchange, the ketubah marriage contract, or other liturgy,
the Jewish same-sex couple ultimately attempts to balance familiar and traditional wedding
rituals while upholding personal beliefs on equality in a non-heterosexual union. The couple
demonstrates to witnesses and guests the marriage institution being instituted under Jewish law
and tradition, while also showing a personal emphasis on an egalitarian, same-sex
companionship.
Hinduism
Just as the Jewish same-sex couples emphasize egalitarian companionship in their
weddings, Hindu same-sex couples uses companionship as a guide for adaptation of Hindu
wedding rituals. For instance, the same-sex couple may find special connection to the wedding
ritual of the Sapta-padi, or the Rite of Seven Steps, as it concludes with the request that the
couple “[t]ake this seventh step for a lifelong friendship” (“Hindu Wedding”). In fact, the Saptapadi makes up the essence of the Hindu wedding and even validates the marriage under Hindu
law (“Hindu Wedding,” Pandey 219). It is an essential ritual for any marrying couple, just as the
ring exchange is necessary for the Jewish couple. So the Hindu same-sex couple’s adherence to
Sapta-padi clearly marks the performance of a wedding to the witnessing Hindu community who
find familiarity in the ritual.
The Sapta-padi Rite of the Seven Steps involves taking seven steps around a ceremonial
fire. With each step, a prescribed phrase is recited that illuminates a purpose of Hindu marriage
or an important belief or goal of Hindu life (“Hindu Wedding”). However, the same-sex couple
does find points of disconnect within some of these recitations. For instance, the fifth citation
demands: “Take the fifth step for procreation” (“Hindu Wedding”). The entirety of the ritual
Wilm 12
itself holds elements of gender dominance and heterosexual undertones. The male groom must
be the one to lead the female bride around the fire, and only the groom may recite the seven
statements. The bride is silent. The same-sex couple may therefore decide to walk around the fire
together, without one member leading the other. The two members may also share in the verbal
recitations. The couple may even alter the seven recitations to reflect the couple’s goals for
marriage. The sixth step, in particular, that asks for procreation may instead state a goal to raise
an adopted family, or to maintain strong ties with the extended family.
Full Religious Participation Long After the Wedding
This range of wedding ritual adherence and liturgical adaptation ultimately shows the
effort of same-sex Christians, Jews and Hindus and their religious communities to find unity in
religious participation. The same-sex couple makes a conscious effort to enact a ceremony with
which the community can identify. The couple simultaneously adapts traditions as a way to resist
the assumed heterosexual union expected by their religious traditions, and to match their own
beliefs with the religious wedding rites. The couple also finds that, despite the historical
heterosexist definition of the purpose of marriage as procreation, religious marriage includes
many other purposes. A married couple takes part in these purposes following the wedding
ceremony, and ultimately find lifelong participation as a married unit in their communities of
faith as a result.
Christianity
For the Christian couple, getting married means entering into the marital union extolled
by Luther and acknowledged by Paul. Like a heterosexual couple, a same-sex couple can also
Wilm 13
find vocation in marriage. Through the very companionship of the union, or through the raising
of adopted children under Christian teachings, same-sex marriage can act as Christian vocation.
Most of all, same-sex couples can engage in the fidelity and companionship essential to
Christian marriage. Metaphors of marriage characterize Christian marriage theology, with
images of Christ as a spouse who faithfully cares for the church. Same-sex couples that marry
enter this faithful covenant of marriage praised by Christian theology.
Judaism
Similarly, Jewish marriage theology heavily emphasizes marital covenant. The Jewish
same-sex couple also enacts the faithful covenant found in biblical metaphors of marriage with
particular connection to the metaphor of God as a faithful spouse to Israel. No matter Israel’s
transgressions, God always remains faithful to the marriage relationship with Israel (Adler 161).
A monogamous union also achieves another goal in Jewish marriage, which is to prevent
sexual desire outside of marriage. In fact, Jewish commentaries explain that sexual union in
marriage is not only a means to procreation. It also fulfills a natural, God-given bodily need
(Boyarin 73). Marriage itself is God-given, and acts as a way to prevent sexual sin. In sum, a
same-sex couple ultimately fulfills the mitzvah religious obligation to marry.
Hinduism
Marriage in the Hindu faith also constitutes a communal obligation, especially to family.
Same-sex couples that marry fulfill this obligation. The marriage relieves parents of their
household duties and allows them to move on to the Vanaprastha life stage of retirement. The
Wilm 14
members of the couple themselves are able to enter the householder stage where they continue to
pursue the four goals of Hindu life.
It is in the pursuit of the four purposes of life that Hindu same-sex couples disregard the
historical necessity of procreation in marriage while still acknowledging their own sexuality.
One of the four goals of Hindu life is to find pleasure, including sexual pleasure. Same-sex
couples achieve this life goal through their marital and sexual union. In fact, sexual pleasure can
be a form of contemplating God (Rambachan “ ‘There are Many Branches’ ” 215).
In particular, marriage encourages the pursuit of the main goal of Hinduism: moksha.
Moksha is liberation from the continuing cycles of reincarnation. A Hindu achieves moksha by
fulfilling the purposes of Hindu life, like pleasure, and by reaching all four life stages, including
the householder and retirement stages (Larson 132-133).
Married life in general grants the couple expanded participation in religious observances.
For certain prayers and worship elements, only married Hindus may participate. Those who are
single or widowed may not partake in those rites. Marriage therefore allows a couple to grow
spiritually (Rambachan Interview).
A Change in Marriage Theology
Consequently, same-sex couples that seek religious sanctification of their marriages
search for expanded participation in their religious communities. Following familiar wedding
rites allows the religious community to identify couples as married and to acknowledge the
participation of those couples within the community. Adapting wedding rituals ensures that the
couples themselves feel a sense of belonging in the community – their beliefs and practices
match religious doctrine. Finally, living out the religious expectations of marriage after the
Wilm 15
wedding permits direct involvement in religious life, whether inside or outside of the church,
synagogue or temple.
Yet, the American same-sex couple’s participation in religious community results from
reexamination, reinterpretation and even recreation of many elements of historical marriage
theology. Other Americans, no matter their sexuality, should join this discourse. Like the samesex couple, they can ask: does the strict dichotomy of male and female gender roles match the
modern marriage union? Are heterosexual and homosexual unions that inherently different? Is
procreation truly the main function of marriage? By asking the same questions that same-sex
marrying couples pose, members of the broader religious community may find disconnect
between their own beliefs on marriage and historical theology. Perhaps marriage theology as a
whole needs reinterpretation for the modern American society. To open up marriage to
reinterpretation in this way offers an opportunity for enriched participation for all members of
faith, not just those of same-sex unions.
Wilm 16
Works Cited
Adler, Rachel. Engendering Judaism: An Inclusive Theology and Ethics. Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society, 1998. Print.
Benjamin, Mara. Personal interview. 8 April 2014.
Biale, Rachel. Women and Jewish Law: An Exploration of Women’s Issues in Halakhic Sources.
New York: Schocken Books, 1984. Print.
Buitendag, Johan. “Marriage in the Theology of Martin Luther – Worldly Yet Sacred: An Option
Between Secularism and Clericalism.” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 63.2 (2007): 445461. ATLA Religion Database. Web. 25 Feb. 2014.
Bower, Peter C. “Marriage in the Lord: A Brief Outline of Early Developments in the Western
Church.” Call to Worship 41.3 (2008): 42-47. Print.
Boyarin, Daniel. Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1993. Print.
Chettri, Shardha. “Arranged Marriages Originated in the Vedic Period.” About.com Hinduism.
About.com. 2014. Web. 11 May 2014.
Coyle, John Kevin. “Marriage Among Early Christians: A Consideration for the Future. Église et
Théologie no 8 (1977): 73-89. Print.
Hefling, Charles. “It Looks Like a Wedding.” Christian Century 129.18 (2012): 10-11. Web. 12
May 2014.
Hendrix, Scott. “Luther on Marriage.” Lutheran Quarterly XIV (2000): 335-350). ATLA
Religion Database. Web.
“Hindu Wedding: The Sacred Rites of Matrimony.” Hinduism Today 34.2 (April – June 2012):
37-51. ProQuest. Web. 18 April 2014.
Wilm 17
Israel and Judaism Studies. New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies, n.d. Web. 31 March
2014.
Jordan, Mark, ed. Authorizing Marriage?: Canon, Tradition and Critique in the Blessing of
Same-Sex Unions. Eds. Mark Jordan, Meghan Sweeney and David Mellot. Princetone,
N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2006. Print.
Jordan, Mark. Blessing Same-Unions: The Perils of Queer Romance and the Confusions of
Christian Marriage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. Print.
Larson, Gerald James. “Hinduism in India and America.” Ed. Jacob Neusner. World Religions in
America: An Introduction. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. Print.
Luther, Martin. “A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage (1519).” Martin Luther’s Basic
Theological Writings. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012. Print.
“Marriage: In Religion, Law and Custom.” Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism.E.d. Knut A.
Jacobson. Boston: Brill, 2011. Print.
Pandey, Raj Bali. Hindu Samskaras: Socio-Religious Study of the Hindu Sacraments. Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass, 1969. Print.
“Pitr-Rin: Repaying Ancestral Debt Precedes Finding Shiva.” The Shiva Experience. The Shiva
Experience, 2012-2013. Web. 23 April 2014.
Portman, John. Catholic Culture in the USA: In and Out of Church. New York: Continuum
International Pub., 2010.
Rambachan, Anantanand. “ ‘There Are Many Branches on the Tree of Life’: The
Irreconcilability of Hinduism and Homophobia.” Heterosexism in Contemporary World
Religion: Problem and Prospect. Marvin M. Ellison and Judith Plaskow, eds. Cleveland:
Cleveland Press, 2007. Print.
Wilm 18
Rambachan, Anatanand. Personal interview. 22 April 2014.
Rich, Tracey R. Judaism 101. Jewfaq.org. 1 August 2012. Web. 28 March 2014.
Satlow, Michael. Jewish Marriage in Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
Print.
Subrahmanyam, Sanjay. “India.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaeidia Britannica, 26
February 2014. Web. 12 May 2014.