Protestors are planning a nationwide event, scheduled for Friday, at which point they're planning to show their public displays of affection at area restaurants by kissing as same-sex couples. Opponents of Cathy's stance have planned "Kiss Mor Chiks" for Friday, asking people of the same sex to show up at Chick-fil-A locations and kiss each other. Does anyone want to meet me at a Chick-fil-A for the kiss of a lifetime? Actually, I don't think that the "Kiss Mor Chiks" event is the best way to deal with the situation. A complete and total boycott of Chick-fil-A is my plan. I've always liked Chick-fil-A's food, but I will not be supporting their restaurants. There are plenty of restaurants with better chicken.
I had not planned on blogging about this, but two things changed my mind. First, I heard my sister, who does not know I am gay, say that she would go to Chick-fil-A on Wednesday to show her support. Before I could tell her that I would never go back to Chick-fil-A, she had already changed the subject, and I just let the comment slide (not something I am proud of). The second thing was the massive amount of coverage about "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" on the local news.
It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The husband and wife are in fact two men.
The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.
In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple who enjoyed a celebrated gay marriage. Their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their gay marriage.
The very idea of a Christian gay marriage seems incredible. Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell, and author of Same Sex Unions In Pre-Modern Europe, has discovered that a type of Christian gay marriage did exist as late as the 18th century.
Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century). That certainly sounds like gay marriage.
Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.
It sounds to me that the so-called "traditional" definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is not so traditional. It is based on verses in the Old Testament, which also states that King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
Wow, I did not know any of these things about the history of Christian gay marriage. It sounds like a very good argument base for future debates in our world today. I love how you always seem to find a nook that is out there, but perhaps not explored or present enough, and bring it to the blog. I am learning a lot, thank you.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century)" existed does not prove that the Churches regarded them as the same thing as the marriage of a man and a woman. Indeed, the very fact that there is a separate office or oder for two men means that it was not considered a marriage.
ReplyDeleteClearly, there was something there. If we had the text in front of us, we could get some idea of what they had in mind (although cultural differences may hinder complete comprehension.) But I don't see how what you have presented can be considered to prove that Christianity has until recently approved and blessed same-sex unions as marriages in the sense in which contemporary gay rights advocates use the term: univocally with heterosexual marriage. Nor — although this is tangential to your point in the post — does it say anything about the sexual morality which was expected of men in those unions. The blessing could have been for a committed friendship which was not expected to include sexual activity.
Chris, you're welcome and thanks for the comment.
ReplyDeleteNaturgesetz, I am not trying to state that same sex unions and heterosexual marriage were equal in the eyes of the church. However, I am saying that Christianity has not always been diametrically opposed to same sex unions. As Writer wrote on his blog today, "[The Bible] never refers to marriage as being between one man and one woman. In the Old Testament it is one man and as many women as you can afford. In the New Testament it is something you do to keep yourself from the sin of fornication, and actually Jesus preferred you to stay single." (http://quiethands.blogspot.com/2012/08/ah-sweet-naive-youth.html) And just to add one more thing, it cannot be proven that Christianity has until recently approved and blessed same-sex unions as marriages in the sense in which contemporary gay rights advocates use the term, because the contemporary understanding of homosexuality was unknown to the writers of the Bible. I understand it is a flawed argument presented above, but it was meant to get us thinking about how Christianity has dealt with same-sex couples in the past. I personally think that it has more to do with the influences of the Roman Empire which was not as open to same-sex relationships as the Greeks and other ancient cultures had been.
Totally informative, and I appreciate naturgesetz's comments, too.
ReplyDeleteThanks as always for illumination!
Peace <3
Jay
Thanks, Jay.
ReplyDeleteCoop, I actually agree with you, and I think people have made too much out of the whole thing. I also think that Cathy has the right to say what he pleases, but those same rights apply to me to voice my opinion and to not go to his restaurants.
As one additional comment, I think that all marriages should be recognized civilly if they are to get the benefits. Whether a church recognizes it or not is up to the church in question.
ReplyDeleteCoop brings up a good point. Long ago, civil authorities conscripted the word "marriage". You can't be legally married in the US without going to a civil authority and getting a marriage license. It doesn't matter if a priest, pastor, minister, witch is going to perform a ceremony to marry you. Remember, too, that a civil authority - a justice of the peace (or whatever other states call this person) can marry two people in most states - totally non-religious, but 100% bestowing the rights and privileges of "marriage" can marry you, too. If you want LEGAL recognition of your marriage, be it to a man, woman, or (gasp, according to the worst bigots) a dog(!), you have to have the license no matter what. So what the whole Christianist group is arguing does not hold water. Marriage is NOT just a Christian tradition. It is a governmental item, that takes on many more meanings when it comes to many, many items in a couple's life. Therefore, any civil law that prevents, discriminates against, or otherwise outlaws same sex marriage is unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteJay
I would just like to say that I went to eat at CFA yesterday, not because of their views, but because of the courage to share his view-right or wrong. GLAAD is practicing the very same intolerance that they accuse CFA of practicing, because they are attacking CFA just for having a different opinion. I don't understand why it has become that everyone must be politically correct or be accussed of hate. This problem doesn't solely apply to this issue either.
ReplyDelete