A traditional marriage

Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, is in the news damanding that David Cameron not allow the marriage of same sex couples.

He says "marriage must remain a union between a man and a woman" and David Cameron will be "acting like a dictator if he allows homosexual couples to wed".

That is a strange thing to say - I thought dictators told you what to do, not let you do what you want.




Dr Sentamu tells ministers that they should not overrule the Bible and tradition by allowing same-sex marriage. But wait a minute - since when did marriage belong to the Christian church? People were getting married before Christ was even born. How can the Christian church claim ownership over the matrimony? How can the bible tell us how and when people can marry when most religions don't use it?

Dr Sentamu says:

I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are.

Well, Dr Sentamu is powerful - he is the second most senior cleric in the Church of England. The Church itself may be a shadow of it's former self, but it remains a powerful voice.




Lets look at the tradition and history of marriage.

- the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history

- historically a marriage is not necessarily between just two people - some societies allow one man to marry many women (polygyny), one woman to marry many men (polyandry) or even group marriages of more than one member of each sex

- some societies limit marriage based on the ages of the participants, pre-existing kinship, and membership in religious or other social groups.

- in ancient Greece marriages traditionally happened between men in their 20s and women in their teens.

- some societies limit when marriages happen (some think marriages should be during a full moon, others that marriages should happen in winter).

- some societies require women to divorce their husbands if their father dies without male heirs so that she can marry her nearest male relative.

- many societies make the wife subject to the authority of the husband - 'to honour and obey'.

- in some societies married women are restricted to bringing up children and maintaining the home.

- some societies have a minimum age for marriage, others allow arranged marriages as early as birth.

- some societies require that the wife take the husband's name

- some societies require that the husband ask the permission of the wife's family or the church

- some societies require the Church to register the marriage. Some allow the church to do so. Some make it the responsibility of the state. Some don't require the registration of marriage at all.

- some societies require the wife's family to give a doury.

- some societies require witness to the marriage, others don't.

- some societies allow divorce, others do not. The absolute right of two married partners to consent to divorce was only recognized in western nations in recent decades - ie. in America in 1989.

- some societies allowed slavery and the marriage of the slave required the permission of the owner.




So which of these traditions from history does Dr Sentamu want us to follow?

He could argue that we live in England and he represents the Church of England (even though he was born in Uganda!) so we should follow English history.

England allowed arranged marriages in the middle ages and they were even part of diplomacy - prince and princes were pledged for marriage at birth to obtain preferential treatment by our allies. Today David Cameron's government is fighting against arranged marriages in immigrant communities. Presumably the Church of England wants the woman to be the property of her father.

England required the wife to take the husbands name in the 12th Century. England required the husband to get parental consent in the 16th Century. The traditional wording assumes that the wife must 'honour and obey' the husband. Presumably the Church of England wants the wife to become the property of the husband on marriage.

English churches used to register marriages (which was not obligatory) and the state had nothing to do with them. Marriages were adjudicated in ecclesiastical courts, not by the state at all. This role was taken away from churches by the Protestant Reformation when we split from the Roman Catholic Catholic Church and the Church of England was created. Why did the Church of England ignore 'history and tradition' then when it grabbed the powers from the Catholic pope? Presumably the Church of England wants to take the whole marriage business back from the secular state.

Before Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1753 marriage did not require a ceremony. After the act it did. Wasn't this a move against 'history and tradition'? The act did not apply to Jewish or Quaker marriages. Presumably the Church of England only wants to get involved in marriage when that marriage happens at a Christian Church, so it would be happy if same sex marriages happened in other churches?

Civil marriages have been recognised since 1837 (according to the Marriage Act of 1836) - before then only church marriages were. Presumably the Church of England wants us to go back to the traditions before 1836. In fact, can it tell us exactly when in history it wants to take the traditions from?




There is actually a long history of same sex marriages around the world. It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.

In fact, from the 5th to the 14th centuries, the Roman Catholic Church conducted special ceremonies to bless same-sex unions of marriage. Does the Church of England want to go back to that historic tradition?

Well, we should probably forgive the Church of England it's confusion over marriage. It was only created so that Henry VIII could get divorced so that he could re-marry. It owes it's existance to the need to change the tradition and history of marriage in this country.




In fact, it it was not for Christian led social reforms (ie. changing traditions), Dr Sentamu would more likely be a slave than a Church of England Archbishop. He would have need the permission of his slave owner to get married at all, and that marriage would have to be with a black woman.

I believe that we should look to more recent history to guide us. Instead of listening to the founders of the Protestant Church like Marin Luther we can learn more from more recent Church leaders like Martin Luther King.

Dr King told us:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

When Dr King told us that he believed 'that all men are created equal' I don't think he meant all straight men.

When Dr King told us that we are 'free at last' shouldn't that include the freedom of men to marry men?

Can we not extend those freedoms to include the right for the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners to marry each other if they so desire?

I think that Dr Sentamu could learn a lot from Dr King.

Let freedom ring. And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring -- when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children -- black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics -- will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"