Today is the first day of “Freedom to Marry Week” in the USA.  Some may think that this “week” is something new in the light of the controversy surrounding same-sex marriage.  But in fact there has been a “Freedom to Marry Week” each year since 1998.

Naturally, this year does take on extra significance following the divisive legislation in a number of states – like Ohio – which now specifically ban same-sex marriage, and by implication legalises discrimination.

Last year alone, 13 states introduced constitutional bans.  More have proposals for similar legislation this year.  The result?  The United States of America is fast becoming a country where discrimination is actually written into the constitution.  And the USA is the first in line to criticise other nations that practices discrimination.

It is certainly not pleasant to say such thing.  But facts are facts.

The question has to be asked why all this is happening?  The answer, as we all know, is with the “religious right” who use Biblical references to decry homosexuality.  Often the references given are taken out of context or no allowances are made for translation difficulties from ancient languages. And often some references are taken as "gospel" while others are ignored, just to suit the development of civilisation.

The most used Biblical reference condemning "gays" is from Leviticus, the third book of the Old Testament.  “Do not lie with man as you would with woman,” it says in modern translation.  Leviticus is, a book on ancient law.  So if this much quoted reference has to be obeyed, do not the other points made in Leviticus have to be obeyed?

They should. So, the watch out for the total ban on shell fish – no more lobster, crabs, clam chowder, America.  Also clothes made up of a mixture of yarns will be outlawed.  And how about the clincher – a man will be entitled to stone to death his wife if she is unfaithful to him (as, in those days of Leviticus, a “wife” was a man’s chattel, there is no mention of the fate of a man who “played away”).  The Book of Leviticus has to be obeyed!

Obviously the world has moved on since those days many thousands of years ago.  But the “religious right” still harps on about Leviticus when it comes to homosexuality, but accepts changes on the eating shell fish or even the definition of “marriage” itself (a Pagan institution which was adopted in Europe some 1,000 years ago and is the basis for today’s marriage).

The vociferous television evangelists and others on the “religious right” will never mention the parable of Roman centurion and his sick servant in its true context.  In the original text of The Gospel of St. Luke, three crucial Greek words are used to describe the servant – pais, entimos and dulos.

Pais has three meanings: son/boy, servant/slave or a master’s male lover.  The son or boy can be ruled out by the use of the word dulos or slave.  That leaves entimos or honoured.

The Gospel of St. Matthew uses more of what the Centurion actually said to Jesus.  And the Centurion uses dulos when speaking of his other slaves, but pais when referring to his sick slave he was asking to be cured.

More than a few theologians who interpret this parable to mean that the centurion’s sick servant was his gay lover point to the fact of whether a proud Roman centurion, who was an “oppressor”, seek help from a “preacher” from the “oppressed” to cure just an ordinary servant or slave, unless the sick man was someone very special or entimos.

Now, let us consider the institution of “marriage” itself.  And the first thing to remember is that there are two forms of marriage, which in modern society are often “bundled” in one ceremony.

Civil marriage is all about a couple who wish to register a relationship in order to benefit from all the benefits that the laws of a country or state provide.

Then there is religious marriage, which bonds together, in most religions, one man and one woman in Holy Matrimony.

These two distinctions are often forgotten as today the priest/minister/pastor who conducts the religious ceremony is also licensed by the civil authorities to register the civil marriage in one ceremony.

In many ways, when churches read of “gay marriages” they shudder as they think that the civil authorities are trying to impose same-sex marriages on religion.  And there is nothing like a little controversy for the television preachers to latch onto and whip up a frenzy of objection and organised email campaigns.

Some countries, like the United Kingdom, have not used the word “marriage” in their legislation to give same-sex couples the opportunity of equality with heterosexual couples.

Here, our legislation is the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which was signed into law last November and becomes effective towards the end of this year when all the logistics are completed.

The Act applies on to same-sex couples  – the government saying that civil marriage was already available for heterosexuals.  When same-sex couples register their partnership legally, then they will have all of the next of kin, pensions and other rights enjoyed by those who are married.

And there is nothing in the legislation to prevent any church from having a religious ceremony for a religious same-sex ceremony, should that church so desire – and the Metropolitan Community Church comes to mind in the Christian faith. The Act, however, does state that the civil partnership registration can not be made in a “place of worship”, thus calming fears by churches of any fears in the future.

Finally, there is the question of President George W. Bush and his remarks a year ago about “protecting the sanctity of marriage”.  How many actually read into the choice of words?

The word sanctity means, in US English: “1. The state of being sanctified; holiness. 2. Sacredness; solemnity” [Websters Comprehensive Dictionary].  So, as “sanctity” was a key word, what Bush really meant was the “sanctity of Holy matrimony” – and few would argue with the President on the religious side of the argument.

Gays and lesbians are no threat to civil marriage, especially in the country that is one of the world leaders in divorce or allows a pop star to get married at the start of a weekend and have it annulled on the Monday!

Matters in America have, alas, probably gone too far down the road to see any light at the end of the tunnel when it comes to same-sex marriage being recognised as a civil entity. Even if Massachusetts eventually confirms “gay marriage”, will the marriage of a same-sex couple be recognised in other states?  It will end up that counties like Canada, the United Kingdom and others will recognise a Massachusetts same-sex marriage while other states in America do not.

However, all is not yet “lost”, especially in the so-called “blue” states.  One can but hope that the legislators – and electorate – in these states can separate the wood from the trees.

But the fact remains that “gay” or “lesbian” is bad news in many parts of the USA.  This is borne out by the orchestrated campaigns against children’s cartoon characters like SpongeBob SquarePants and Buster.

Newsweek reported less than 24 hours ago on the surprising number of readers of it’s online edition who reacted in what could be seen as a homophobic way to a satirical column by Andy Borowitz who wrote under the headline Flintstones Are Way Too Gay “Fred and Barney should be banned because they are virtually inseparable, are never seen wearing pants and live together in the suggestively-named town of Bedrock”.  Borowitz even invented an organisation that was campaigning to have the Flintstones taken off television!

All this reminds one of what happened in England, and other European nations, centuries ago when groups of religious people fled their countries because of “right wing” persecution from the churches and headed west to America.

What better week than Freedom to Marry Week to start a serious campaign by all those in America – gay or “straight” – who subscribe to equality and human rights, calling for the recognition of civil marriage for same-sex couples.

12 February  2005