Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

Seventy-two Days Does Not a Marriage Make

by Tim King 11-01-2011 | 4:38pm
Print
47 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

It lasted 72 days. And now, Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries are calling it quits. The two were first spotted together one year before when Kim attended one of Kris' basketball games. After a 2 million dollar engagement ring, a 10 million dollar wedding, and a 4-hour TV special about the wedding, the two were married.

Kim has assured her fans that it was not an "easy decision." It is unclear as to what she means by "easy," considering that many people spend more time considering their next purchase at Ikea than Kim and Kris spent married. The very public and very short wedding is more unfortunate evidence of the state of marriage in our society.

Some Christians blame the high rate of failed heterosexual marriages on the segment of our population who fight on behalf of more couples having the right to get married. Equal access to the rights and responsibilities of marriage are faulted for the failure of marriages for so many others. Increasingly, those messages are falling flat. After 10 of millions of dollars and countless volunteer hours spent in the passage of Proposition 8, it failed to save another California marriage.

Marriage is worth defending. But who and what are we defending marriage from?

First, we need to defend marriage from the wrong set of values. Our society confuses "market values" with moral values. The things we value that make our market work, aren't necessarily the same things that make relationships work.

Getting in on a deal when it's cheap and getting out before the price rises too high can make you a lot of money but isn't how we should view lifelong marriage vows. Efficiency gives us increased productivity (and is the reason why we no longer live in a society where everybody farms), but it isn't a central value to building a healthy relationship with your life partner.

We are inundated with messages that reduce our identities to the things that we consume. Our happiness in "consuming things" lies in our ability and opportunity to consume the newest, the best, the latest, or whatever happens to interest us at the moment. When so much of our life and self-understanding comes from a sector of society that tells us true fulfillment comes out with a new model every season, it is little wonder that love and marriage only last that long as well.

Second, we need to defend marriage from the bride and groom. Marriage isn't just about the two people getting hitched. It should also be about the family and community that is built because of it. Unfortunately, there is a multi-billion-dollar industry committed to making couples everywhere feel otherwise, and a generation that is pioneering new frontiers of self-obsession.

While un-married myself, I've sat through enough good wedding homilies to know that couples need the support of those around them to grow and to thrive. When the life of a relationship is solely dependent on the two people in the relationship, you have a cord of two strands that is easily broken.

Recently, I attended a friend's wedding in Chicago. One of the couple's shared passions is environmental issues. Wedding favors were small jars of honey harvested from my friend's urban bee hives and the bulletin for the wedding service included information about the family farm where the main entrée for dinner had been raised.

The pastor reminded the couple, and all of us gathered, that any good marriage is "locally sourced."

"Local" was a reminder that a marriage is based in a specific context, of place and set of relationships. There, the relationship has a framework for growth.

"Source" was a reminder that a marriage has life and energy beyond itself. Neither partner should expect the other to be the sole fulfillment of all their wants and needs. Rather together they should seek nourishment and life.

It was the first wedding I had ever been to where the couple picked Isaiah 56 as one of their Bible passages. The passage served as a reminder that the couple is on a mission together that exists above and beyond their own relationship.

The passage begins:

Thus says the Lord: Maintain justice, and do what is right, for soon my salvation will come, and my deliverance be revealed. Happy is the mortal who does this, the one who holds it fast, who keeps the sabbath, not profaning it, and refrains from doing any evil.

These things are undoubtedly hard. Churches, by and large, have failed to help produce healthy marriages. The two issues I identified are not the only ones, nor are they even the most important ones. But, Christians should be ready to live out a counter-cultural ethic of relationships that tells a different story about commitment than what we hear from our prevailing culture.

My disappointment isn't with Kim and Kris. I didn't find out they were married until they were getting divorced. Rather it's that too many Christians have shirked their responsibility to defend marriage by just deciding to blame a group of "others."

T.KingTim King is Director of Communications for Sojourners. Follow Tim on Twitter @TMKing.

47 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: 1curt1

11-02-2011 @ 3:30pm

"I wouldn't outright argue that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt, but I (along with I'm sure most of the population - not just crazy fundamentalist Christians) would think it important that heterosexual marriages be given preference in that regard, given the importance of both mothers and fathers in a family."

Again, Jesse3, please look at the peer-reviewed, critically-accepted research. The difference in parenting comes between having one parent or two. It's not about the gender of the parents. Study outcomes show children do about equally well with parents of the same gender or parents of different genders. Statistically, the struggle seems to come for children who have one parent as opposed to children who have two. Single parenting is generally more difficult.

Also, no one is arguing that churches should lose their tax exempt status if they don't perform gay marriages; just like churches now don't lose their tax exempt status if they refuse to marry previously divorced people. No Iowa churches have lost their tax exempt status for not performing gay marriages. Let's try to stay in touch with reality.

by: jesse3

11-02-2011 @ 4:24pm

"Also, no one is arguing that churches should lose their tax exempt status if they don't perform gay marriages; just like churches now don't lose their tax exempt status if they refuse to marry previously divorced people. No Iowa churches have lost their tax exempt status for not performing gay marriages. Let's try to stay in touch with reality."

--You are incorrect that no one is arguing this...I know plenty of people who would like for churches to lose their tax exempt status--especially if they are not blessing same sex marriages. Many are already trying to remove tax exempt status from groups like the Boy Scouts for not allowing gay leaders--churches are just a half step away from this. This is inevitable. It is certainly going to happen.

by: jesse3

11-02-2011 @ 4:20pm

"Again, Jesse3, please look at the peer-reviewed, critically-accepted research. The difference in parenting comes between having one parent or two. It's not about the gender of the parents. Study outcomes show children do about equally well with parents of the same gender or parents of different genders. Statistically, the struggle seems to come for children who have one parent as opposed to children who have two. Single parenting is generally more difficult."

--I have actually looked at the peer-reviewed research and think there's sample selection bias going on...some research has also shown that children of same sex parents are more likely to experiment sexually. At this point, it really is too early to make strong conclusions about kids of same sex parents.

I guess your perspective on this also depends on how biologically determined you believe sexual behavior is--the available evidence indicates there are environmental factors at work. Research also shows a remarkable degree of fluidity in sexuality and sexual arousal, especially among women (who are sexually aroused by anything, pretty much).

by: jesse3

11-02-2011 @ 4:14pm

"As for adoption, I do agree that mothers and fathers are important. But I believe more strongly that a child does best when raised in a loving environment. Probably most children in orphanages would prefer to be in a family that loves them to feeling unwanted."

--And what I've said is not inconsistent with what you write above.

by: jesse3

11-02-2011 @ 4:13pm

"What it boils down to then, is money, not morality."
--It's actually both, since you're giving money to support certain relationships. Traditionally, we have given money to traditional marriages because we believe they serve a social good--ie, we approve of them and encourage them.

by: 1curt1

11-02-2011 @ 6:02pm

"At this point, it is really too early to make strong conclusions about kids of same sex parents."

In one sense, of course, that's true. Only when gay marriage and gay parenting are completely acceptable in society and not a topic for conversation on respectable religious websites will we be able to do completely unbiased research about child-raising in families with same gender vs. different gender parents. However, the research done so far, by reputable researchers and published in peer reviewed journals, is tending to show that what matters is having two parents, regardless of their gender. And it is continuing to prove what we have all known - single parenting is very difficult.

"... how biologically determined sexual behavior is - the available evidence indicates there are environmental factors at work."

In addition to the biological factors, there are also environmental factors at work that influence my love of my children. Should that mean my love for them is optional or deniable? Of course not. Most of what we are is a combination of environment, biology and genetics, and choice.

by: Joe-Allen Doty

11-02-2011 @ 6:00pm

My mother, who was the wife of a lay evangelist/pastor and a Bible/Sunday school teacher herself, told me to read Ecclesiastes 4:7-12. And after I read it, she surprised me and said in words to this effect, "Doesn't this prove that God approves of same-sex marriages?" All of the nouns in the context are masculine and it even has 2 male gender folks "sleeping" together to "keep warm." The word meaning "warm" is also used a Hebrew euphemism for sexual arousal. And the "lie together" in the text is the same verb that is found in the Leviticus verses used to condemn homosexuals by the Bible-thumpers.

by: Joe-Allen Doty

11-02-2011 @ 5:54pm

There is no support for churches to be tax exempt in the Bible's pages. And also there are no marriage rituals in the Scriptures either. Some of the Bible-thumpers who claim that gays are destroying the sanctity of marriage have been divorced and remarried. John Hagee, current pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, is very outspoken when it comes to being anti-gay. But, when he was the pastor of a church decades ago, he divorced his then wife so he could marry a woman in his church with whom he was having an affair.

by: choctaw_chris

11-02-2011 @ 5:42pm

I have not suggested that homosexuals are any less serious about committing to a relationship. It may be that the homosexual community has much to teach us. It seems to me that by embracing everything and committing to nothing we have lost our way. Inclusivity simply means that everyone is in my club but that's not how life is. Being an outsider adds a dynamic that can never be realised through normalisation.

Biblically, marriage is heterosexual and I believe that's the bottom line. If you say orange is a shade of red it ceases to be specifically orange. By blurring the boundaries we loose definition. When we revert to calling a spade a spade we will be in a much better position to determine the way forward and define what we want to achieve.

by: SunshinyDays

11-02-2011 @ 6:28pm

Joe-Allen Doty:It's true about the tax exempt status for churches not being mentioned in the Bible, but other non-profits and religious organizations also receive tax exempt status in our culture, so why not churches as well?As for marriage ceremonies being mentioned in the Bible, there are several examples of this, starting in Genesis and going through the New Testament, including statements made by Jesus. Here are a few references that you can look up: Genesis 2:23-24; Deuteronomy 24:5; Malachi 2:14-15; Mark 10:6-12; 1 Corinthians 7:1-40; Hebrews 13:4. And don't forget that the first miracle that Jesus performed was at a wedding.

by: SunshinyDays

11-02-2011 @ 6:48pm

Joe-Allen Doty :And you're right that there have been, and will be, many people in the church, even leaders, who have been divorced and remarried, and who have even committed adultery. That's wrong and a sin and I don't know of anyone who would argue otherwise. But Jesus also forgives adulterers (John 8:4-11). And what people have done in the past doesn't exclude them from still being used by God now or in the future.

by: squeaky

11-02-2011 @ 7:44pm

"Being an outsider adds a dynamic that can never be realised through normalisation."

Says someone who is in the club.

Try reading your words from the perspective of a homosexual person.

by: choctaw_chris

11-02-2011 @ 10:12pm

I don't see any problem with talking of outsiders. Many of us feel like we are outsiders from time to time with respect to some situation. Of course a same sex relationship is different from a heterosexual marriage without pointing out the obvious. There's no point pretending otherwise.

Just because a situation is contentious or fraught with difficulties or even apparently unfair doesn't mean we have to ignore the obstacles and keep everyone happy.

by: duhsciple

11-02-2011 @ 9:19pm

Beyond left, right, and center, I see a commodification of marriage. If you feel that we have blamed you or conservatives for turning marriage into a "what I get out of it or I'm getting out of it" product, then I apologize. This is on all of us. If you want to assign greater blame to someone, then send it my way. I have failed in my part of the church to turn the tide, even though I tried.

For me, this is a matter of weeping. And I weep for these celebrities, too

by: squeaky

11-03-2011 @ 2:20am

Did you try reading your words from the perspective of a homosexual? Have you spent much time thinking about what the world might look like from their perspective?

by: choctaw_chris

11-03-2011 @ 9:04am

I can only imagine how the world appears to a homosexual but if true marriage is heterosexual you must look at it from the outside if you are not attracted to the opposite sex, just as procreation is unavailable to you. Lets have a go at God for making procreation unavailable to so many people.

Inclusivity is fine as a principle but is not practical or desirable in certain situations. If you believe that God loves you and wants the best for you, you must believe that for every door that's closed there's another that's open. Opening all the doors that God has closed serves no good purpose.

by: squeaky

11-03-2011 @ 1:19pm

"I can only imagine how the world appears to a homosexual"

And I'm suggesting you should do just that.

by: JeanM

11-07-2011 @ 9:19pm

"...and is something that will soon force
thousands of churches to lose their tax-exempt status for not
performing gay marriages."

On what are you basing this statement? As I understand it, a church not being willing to perform gay marriages in no way endangers its tax-exempt status at this time. In New York, the Episcopal Church, at the behest of the Bishop, does not perform same-sex marriages and will not until do so the canons of the national church have been changed. There is no threat from the state or the IRS. For that matter, in all of the states that allow same-sex marriage there have always been plenty of denominations (maybe most of them) that don't allow marriages for gay couples to be performed in their churches by their clergy. This, at least, is a non-issue and really, there is no need to bring unnecessary fear into an already overwrought situation.

by: otrotierra

11-01-2011 @ 6:06pm

Given the high divorce rates among evangelical churches, why not advocate for a more relevant government regulation: eliminate the rights of heterosexual couples to divorce.

by: Ruth Sauder

11-01-2011 @ 6:15pm

Amen, Tim!

by: jesse3

11-01-2011 @ 6:12pm

"Some Christians blame the high rate of failed heterosexual marriages on the segment of our population who fight on behalf of more couples having the right to get married."

--Seriously? That is news to me...this has straw man written all over it. If you're going to criticize a group of people, it's best to at least get their arguments and their point of view correct. Though you make some good points here, you show a complete lack of understanding in your post.

"Marriage isn't just about the two people getting hitched. It should also be about the family and community that is built because of it."

--And this is exactly what supporters of traditional marriage argue...that gay marriage separates marriage from family and makes it into an arrangement that is only about the two people involved.

by: PDBurns

11-01-2011 @ 6:18pm

Maybe I live under a rock but who is Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries?
I would agree that the local church need to focus on marriage. It seems that divorce has become the norm and many churches even support divorce for reasons that I can't find in Scripture. Like Tim writes, we need to be counter-cultural on this issue and if that means asking some tough questions of each-other and having high expectations we need too.

by: John Mulholland

11-01-2011 @ 6:45pm

"Christians should be ready to live out a counter-cultural ethic of
relationships that tells a different story about commitment that what
we hear from our prevailing culture."

Let's see...prevailing culture says that sex before marriage is fine, living together is ok, and whatever happens between adults is their business.

I believe that the church IS teaching a counter-culture message. No doubt, we need to look inward and teach a consistent sexual and relational ethic, but understand that this will look like no sleeping together, relational boundaries and respect, and whole host of issues that Sojourners will come out against. Yep, the church can be sucky at things like this, but blaming the churches "singular" focus on homosexual relationships as an argument is a little silly.

As soon as I read the headline, I knew exactly what the bent of the article would be, I was just surprised that you took 3 paragraphs to get there.

by: 22044

11-01-2011 @ 6:58pm

You certainly won't lose any sleep by not knowing about Kim, Kris, or any of the Kardashians. :)

by: 1curt1

11-01-2011 @ 7:25pm

I think Jesse3 is mistaken to suggest that Tim hasn't gotten the arguments right of people who say that proponents of same gender marriages and unions are one of the causes of heterosexual marriage problems. I opposed the marriage amendment in Wisconsin which the state passed in 2006. That amendment says that marriage, and anything substantially similar, may only be between a man and a woman. Proponents of that amendment to the Wisconsin constitution said regularly that gay marriage weakens the institution of marriage and also weakens individual marriages. Tim was right in his statement.
Jesse3 also says that, "gay marriage separates marriage from family and makes it into an arrangement that is only about the two people involved." That is a terrible generalization to make. There are many same gender couples in the congregation I serve, and they are no less oriented to family and community than the heterosexual couples. Some have children, some do not, the same as heterosexual couples. Some have family nearby with whom they are very close, some have to travel long distances to see family. One couple moved to Iowa to be near their biological families when the recession caused them to consider vocational changes.
I'm sure you can find same gender couples who are only about their own relationship and not family or the larger community. You can also find heterosexual couples who are exactly the same way.
The differences one may see between same gender and different gender marriages is not something inherent or deficient in gay people, it is that society, through its laws and norms, has told them they cannot be as committed as the rest of us, EVEN WHEN THEY WANT TO BE.
Saying what Jesse3 said is passing on unfounded prejudices. Please, folks, look into the serious, critically accepted research. And go to a church that accepts gay and straight alike, meet some gay couples and get to know them over time.

by: SamHamilton

11-01-2011 @ 7:45pm

John,
What makes you think that Sojourners would "come out against" such things as a consistent sexual and relational ethic? I'm not sure what Sojourners, the organization, would say about these issues, but I'd bet that most of the contributors to this blog would agree with you on 90% of the issues regarding sexual ethics.

by: thevanished

11-01-2011 @ 8:43pm

So conservatives are responsible for the behavior of the Kardashians now? Interesting.

For the record, I have never heard anyone blame high divorce rates on gay marriage advocates.

Also, why this turn of phrase?

"the segment of our population who fight on behalf of more couples having the right to get married"

Why not simply "gay marriage advocates"? It's shorter and more precise.

by: duhsciple

11-01-2011 @ 8:31pm

In the past 30 years I have seen

Most people living together before marriage

Most couples spending obscene amounts of money on wedding parties

Very few couples preparing for marriage itself more than the wedding day

And no matter how hard church people work the cultural tidal wave swamps us

The celebrity couple mentioned in this article exerts a mimetic influence that shapes imaginations despite the witness my church tries to make

by: abdul muhib

11-01-2011 @ 9:37pm

Who is Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries?

by: liberalinlove

11-01-2011 @ 10:11pm

I think the message for me in this article is that it is easier to pick an issue to fight about than to work on. The bible says, judgement begins in the house of the Lord.

That's where we need to place our efforts. As Christians, when we can safely say, we've removed the log from our own eyes, and the world can actually see that we've done so, and that the ensuing fruit is sweet and Christ like, then we will have an ability to offer a redemptive marriage plan to the world, which by the way will not understand those things which are spiritually discerned.

Throwing stones at the world when our own houses are clearly made of glass, does not make for an effective church.

by: liberalinlove

11-01-2011 @ 10:06pm

Or at least no fault divorces!

by: thevanished

11-01-2011 @ 10:35pm

Humphries is one of the best defensive rebounders in the NBA. Kardashian was in a sex tape once. If it weren't for Republicans, this marriage would have worked.

by: duhsciple

11-02-2011 @ 12:35am

My prayer is for the healing of these divorcing people, and for all the people I have known who have suffered the wounds of divorce

by: duhsciple

11-02-2011 @ 12:33am

Sheesh! Who is blaming Republicans for the divorce?

This cultural sickness does not have a party label. How about this deal?

If you are an Republican and I am a Democrat, let us agree to encourage married people to be faithful to their vows in love and service. And... Let us give up the points game for who is to blame.

by: thevanished

11-02-2011 @ 1:34am

"Sheesh! Who is blaming Republicans for the divorce?"

Tim wrote:

"First, we need to defend marriage from the wrong set of values. Our society confuses "market values" with moral values."

Granted, this paragraph is more incoherent than anything, but what other conclusion am I to draw? Tim doesn't go 100 words before introducing conservatives as the bogeyman.

"If you are an Republican and I am a Democrat, let us agree to
encourage married people to be faithful to their vows in love and
service. And... Let us give up the points game for who is to blame."

Fine with that. I don't believe government should have any role in marriage. But I'm not going to pretend this post comes from the same viewpoint.

by: squeaky

11-02-2011 @ 2:15am

Very true. Those pesky Republicans are all about ruining celebrity marriages.

by: squeaky

11-02-2011 @ 2:13am

Ahh, you shouldst apply for the editing position...

by: squeaky

11-02-2011 @ 2:10am

Wait, what? You wrote more than five words! I'm proud of you!

"but understand that this will look like no sleeping together, relational boundaries and respect, and whole host of issues that Sojourners will come out against. "

I'm not sure I have ever seen Sojourners ever advocate pre-marital sex. Can you back up that claim with some evidence?

"relational boundaries and respect"

What do you mean by that?

by: squeaky

11-02-2011 @ 2:07am

"--And this is exactly what supporters of traditional marriage argue...that gay marriage separates marriage from family and makes it into an arrangement that is only about the two people involved."

I think a gay couple would say this assessment is not at all accurate.

I honestly don't see how what some people choose to do with their lives in their homes and in the family structure they choose to create affects me and my family.

by: squeaky

11-02-2011 @ 2:26am

"Our society confuses "market values" with moral values.""

Umm...the thing is, that is exactly what we do. There is nothing about that statement that I find either political or anti-Christian. We are an incredibly materialistic society.

The market values referred to are the values of Hollywood where it is no sweat to just get a divorce. That seems a valid interpretation as well and has little to do with politics...But if you must make it political, Hollywood is far more dominated by liberals than conservatives.

So, there are many other ways to take that statement rather than just assuming it is a slam against Republicans. A nice hot iron gets wrinkles out of bunched unmentionables.

by: scat

11-02-2011 @ 3:11am

For those who don't know about the Kim & Kris wedding, what a waste of $20,000,000! Yup, that was the tab for the nuptuals.
Just think what you could do with that money that would really be constructive and last a lot longer than 72 days.
Personally, I drool over the idea of building a class A rescue shelter, equipped with a state of the art mobile vetmobile and funded for decades to come.

by: scat

11-02-2011 @ 3:02am

"Our society confuses "market values" with moral values.""

Maybe I'm a little slow, but I didn't see that as being about conservatives, more about modern society as a whole.

And I am at a loss to understand how gay marriages are more separated from family than any hetero marriage. Seems that would depend on a variety of factors, such as the existence of family, the attitudes of the family, even geography. If there is a notable difference between gays and straights in terms of family support, the problem would seem to land on the shoulders of people who are not willing to accept gay people and gay marriage.

Rather than banning gay marriage, I think it would be more beneficial to address what causes rifts in or lack of family support. So many gays are without family because their family has rejected them. It seems cruel to further isolate gays who could build a family through a loving marriage.

by: choctaw_chris

11-02-2011 @ 9:29am

Sadly, marriage is a thing we 'do' and we define in our own terms. Its been Disneyfied so that when the illusion evaporates there is no substance and no real glue to hold it together. In the discussions I get involved in there is no difference between a break up between sexual partners and the breakdown of a marriage. While the feelings may be similar they are substantially different because divorce is the breaking of a covenant. It's more than a commitment to another person, its a commitment to a promise made by each person to God or higher authority and when society is full of broken promises it becomes cynical and shallow.

This is the first time I've heard the phrase 'failed heterosexual marriage'. My understanding is that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and this very phrase is symptomatic of our demise. I'm not questioning anyone's commitment to another (the bond between a mother and child is stronger than that between a man and a woman) but when marriage becomes all things to all men it loses its specialness and becomes another victim of our egalitarian society.

by: squeaky

11-02-2011 @ 12:21pm

The great irony of your post is that what homosexuals want is the ability to commit to another in a lifelong relationship that is recognized as legal by the state and bears the benefits thereof.

They are not advocating for what you describe in your first paragraph, which is the casual treatment of marriage that heterosexuals seem to engage in.

If heterosexuals would lobby for the same in their own relationships, heterosexual marriage would be much stronger.

by: jesse3

11-02-2011 @ 1:32pm

"I honestly don't see how what some people choose to do with their lives in their homes and in the family structure they choose to create affects me and my family."

--I'm actually sympathetic to this argument, and I would never be called a crusader for traditional marriage. I think it's kind of a lost cause and is something that will soon force thousands of churches to lose their tax-exempt status for not performing gay marriages. I just thought Tim's criticisms (towards other believers, no less) were completely baseless and lacking in charity.

Also, like it or not, gay marriage does involve you and your family, since you end up paying for the financial benefits that such a relationship collects. If we're going to extend those benefits to gay marriages, we should extend them to me and my brother or friend forming a partnership, as well...my main gripe with that is consistency. Also, even if it doesn't affect you and me, it still affects kids who are given up for adoption. I wouldn't outright argue that gays should not be allowed to adopt, but I (along with I'm sure most of the population--not just crazy, fundamentalist Christians) would think it important that heterosexual marriages be given preference in that regard, given the importance of both mothers and fathers in a family.

by: squeaky

11-02-2011 @ 2:31pm

As for adoption, I do agree that mothers and fathers are important. But I believe more strongly that a child does best when raised in a loving environment. Probably most children in orphanages would prefer to be in a family that loves them to feeling unwanted.

by: squeaky

11-02-2011 @ 2:29pm

"Also, like it or not, gay marriage does involve you and your family, since you end up paying for the financial benefits that such a relationship collects. "

What it boils down to then, is money, not morality.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: otrotierra

11-01-2011 @ 6:06pm

Given the high divorce rates among evangelical churches, why not advocate for a more relevant government regulation: eliminate the rights of heterosexual couples to divorce.

by: jesse3

11-01-2011 @ 6:12pm

"Some Christians blame the high rate of failed heterosexual marriages on the segment of our population who fight on behalf of more couples having the right to get married."

--Seriously? That is news to me...this has straw man written all over it. If you're going to criticize a group of people, it's best to at least get their arguments and their point of view correct. Though you make some good points here, you show a complete lack of understanding in your post.

"Marriage isn't just about the two people getting hitched. It should also be about the family and community that is built because of it."

--And this is exactly what supporters of traditional marriage argue...that gay marriage separates marriage from family and makes it into an arrangement that is only about the two people involved.

by: Ruth Sauder

11-01-2011 @ 6:15pm

Amen, Tim!

by: PDBurns

11-01-2011 @ 6:18pm

Maybe I live under a rock but who is Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries?
I would agree that the local church need to focus on marriage. It seems that divorce has become the norm and many churches even support divorce for reasons that I can't find in Scripture. Like Tim writes, we need to be counter-cultural on this issue and if that means asking some tough questions of each-other and having high expectations we need too.

by: John Mulholland

11-01-2011 @ 6:45pm

"Christians should be ready to live out a counter-cultural ethic of
relationships that tells a different story about commitment that what
we hear from our prevailing culture."

Let's see...prevailing culture says that sex before marriage is fine, living together is ok, and whatever happens between adults is their business.

I believe that the church IS teaching a counter-culture message. No doubt, we need to look inward and teach a consistent sexual and relational ethic, but understand that this will look like no sleeping together, relational boundaries and respect, and whole host of issues that Sojourners will come out against. Yep, the church can be sucky at things like this, but blaming the churches "singular" focus on homosexual relationships as an argument is a little silly.

As soon as I read the headline, I knew exactly what the bent of the article would be, I was just surprised that you took 3 paragraphs to get there.

by: 22044

11-01-2011 @ 6:58pm

You certainly won't lose any sleep by not knowing about Kim, Kris, or any of the Kardashians. :)

by: 1curt1

11-01-2011 @ 7:25pm

I think Jesse3 is mistaken to suggest that Tim hasn't gotten the arguments right of people who say that proponents of same gender marriages and unions are one of the causes of heterosexual marriage problems. I opposed the marriage amendment in Wisconsin which the state passed in 2006. That amendment says that marriage, and anything substantially similar, may only be between a man and a woman. Proponents of that amendment to the Wisconsin constitution said regularly that gay marriage weakens the institution of marriage and also weakens individual marriages. Tim was right in his statement.
Jesse3 also says that, "gay marriage separates marriage from family and makes it into an arrangement that is only about the two people involved." That is a terrible generalization to make. There are many same gender couples in the congregation I serve, and they are no less oriented to family and community than the heterosexual couples. Some have children, some do not, the same as heterosexual couples. Some have family nearby with whom they are very close, some have to travel long distances to see family. One couple moved to Iowa to be near their biological families when the recession caused them to consider vocational changes.
I'm sure you can find same gender couples who are only about their own relationship and not family or the larger community. You can also find heterosexual couples who are exactly the same way.
The differences one may see between same gender and different gender marriages is not something inherent or deficient in gay people, it is that society, through its laws and norms, has told them they cannot be as committed as the rest of us, EVEN WHEN THEY WANT TO BE.
Saying what Jesse3 said is passing on unfounded prejudices. Please, folks, look into the serious, critically accepted research. And go to a church that accepts gay and straight alike, meet some gay couples and get to know them over time.

by: SamHamilton

11-01-2011 @ 7:45pm

John,
What makes you think that Sojourners would "come out against" such things as a consistent sexual and relational ethic? I'm not sure what Sojourners, the organization, would say about these issues, but I'd bet that most of the contributors to this blog would agree with you on 90% of the issues regarding sexual ethics.

by: duhsciple

11-01-2011 @ 8:31pm

In the past 30 years I have seen

Most people living together before marriage

Most couples spending obscene amounts of money on wedding parties

Very few couples preparing for marriage itself more than the wedding day

And no matter how hard church people work the cultural tidal wave swamps us

The celebrity couple mentioned in this article exerts a mimetic influence that shapes imaginations despite the witness my church tries to make

by: thevanished

11-01-2011 @ 8:43pm

So conservatives are responsible for the behavior of the Kardashians now? Interesting.

For the record, I have never heard anyone blame high divorce rates on gay marriage advocates.

Also, why this turn of phrase?

"the segment of our population who fight on behalf of more couples having the right to get married"

Why not simply "gay marriage advocates"? It's shorter and more precise.

by: abdul muhib

11-01-2011 @ 9:37pm

Who is Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries?

by: liberalinlove

11-01-2011 @ 10:06pm

Or at least no fault divorces!

by: liberalinlove

11-01-2011 @ 10:11pm

I think the message for me in this article is that it is easier to pick an issue to fight about than to work on. The bible says, judgement begins in the house of the Lord.

That's where we need to place our efforts. As Christians, when we can safely say, we've removed the log from our own eyes, and the world can actually see that we've done so, and that the ensuing fruit is sweet and Christ like, then we will have an ability to offer a redemptive marriage plan to the world, which by the way will not understand those things which are spiritually discerned.

Throwing stones at the world when our own houses are clearly made of glass, does not make for an effective church.

by: thevanished

11-01-2011 @ 10:35pm

Humphries is one of the best defensive rebounders in the NBA. Kardashian was in a sex tape once. If it weren't for Republicans, this marriage would have worked.

by: duhsciple

11-02-2011 @ 12:33am

Sheesh! Who is blaming Republicans for the divorce?

This cultural sickness does not have a party label. How about this deal?

If you are an Republican and I am a Democrat, let us agree to encourage married people to be faithful to their vows in love and service. And... Let us give up the points game for who is to blame.

by: duhsciple

11-02-2011 @ 12:35am

My prayer is for the healing of these divorcing people, and for all the people I have known who have suffered the wounds of divorce

by: thevanished

11-02-2011 @ 1:34am

"Sheesh! Who is blaming Republicans for the divorce?"

Tim wrote:

"First, we need to defend marriage from the wrong set of values. Our society confuses "market values" with moral values."

Granted, this paragraph is more incoherent than anything, but what other conclusion am I to draw? Tim doesn't go 100 words before introducing conservatives as the bogeyman.

"If you are an Republican and I am a Democrat, let us agree to
encourage married people to be faithful to their vows in love and
service. And... Let us give up the points game for who is to blame."

Fine with that. I don't believe government should have any role in marriage. But I'm not going to pretend this post comes from the same viewpoint.

by: squeaky

11-02-2011 @ 2:07am

"--And this is exactly what supporters of traditional marriage argue...that gay marriage separates marriage from family and makes it into an arrangement that is only about the two people involved."

I think a gay couple would say this assessment is not at all accurate.

I honestly don't see how what some people choose to do with their lives in their homes and in the family structure they choose to create affects me and my family.

by: squeaky

11-02-2011 @ 2:10am

Wait, what? You wrote more than five words! I'm proud of you!

"but understand that this will look like no sleeping together, relational boundaries and respect, and whole host of issues that Sojourners will come out against. "

I'm not sure I have ever seen Sojourners ever advocate pre-marital sex. Can you back up that claim with some evidence?

"relational boundaries and respect"

What do you mean by that?

by: squeaky

11-02-2011 @ 2:13am

Ahh, you shouldst apply for the editing position...

by: squeaky

11-02-2011 @ 2:15am

Very true. Those pesky Republicans are all about ruining celebrity marriages.

by: squeaky

11-02-2011 @ 2:26am

"Our society confuses "market values" with moral values.""

Umm...the thing is, that is exactly what we do. There is nothing about that statement that I find either political or anti-Christian. We are an incredibly materialistic society.

The market values referred to are the values of Hollywood where it is no sweat to just get a divorce. That seems a valid interpretation as well and has little to do with politics...But if you must make it political, Hollywood is far more dominated by liberals than conservatives.

So, there are many other ways to take that statement rather than just assuming it is a slam against Republicans. A nice hot iron gets wrinkles out of bunched unmentionables.

by: scat

11-02-2011 @ 3:02am

"Our society confuses "market values" with moral values.""

Maybe I'm a little slow, but I didn't see that as being about conservatives, more about modern society as a whole.

And I am at a loss to understand how gay marriages are more separated from family than any hetero marriage. Seems that would depend on a variety of factors, such as the existence of family, the attitudes of the family, even geography. If there is a notable difference between gays and straights in terms of family support, the problem would seem to land on the shoulders of people who are not willing to accept gay people and gay marriage.

Rather than banning gay marriage, I think it would be more beneficial to address what causes rifts in or lack of family support. So many gays are without family because their family has rejected them. It seems cruel to further isolate gays who could build a family through a loving marriage.

by: scat

11-02-2011 @ 3:11am

For those who don't know about the Kim & Kris wedding, what a waste of $20,000,000! Yup, that was the tab for the nuptuals.
Just think what you could do with that money that would really be constructive and last a lot longer than 72 days.
Personally, I drool over the idea of building a class A rescue shelter, equipped with a state of the art mobile vetmobile and funded for decades to come.

by: choctaw_chris

11-02-2011 @ 9:29am

Sadly, marriage is a thing we 'do' and we define in our own terms. Its been Disneyfied so that when the illusion evaporates there is no substance and no real glue to hold it together. In the discussions I get involved in there is no difference between a break up between sexual partners and the breakdown of a marriage. While the feelings may be similar they are substantially different because divorce is the breaking of a covenant. It's more than a commitment to another person, its a commitment to a promise made by each person to God or higher authority and when society is full of broken promises it becomes cynical and shallow.

This is the first time I've heard the phrase 'failed heterosexual marriage'. My understanding is that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and this very phrase is symptomatic of our demise. I'm not questioning anyone's commitment to another (the bond between a mother and child is stronger than that between a man and a woman) but when marriage becomes all things to all men it loses its specialness and becomes another victim of our egalitarian society.

by: squeaky

11-02-2011 @ 12:21pm

The great irony of your post is that what homosexuals want is the ability to commit to another in a lifelong relationship that is recognized as legal by the state and bears the benefits thereof.

They are not advocating for what you describe in your first paragraph, which is the casual treatment of marriage that heterosexuals seem to engage in.

If heterosexuals would lobby for the same in their own relationships, heterosexual marriage would be much stronger.

by: jesse3

11-02-2011 @ 1:32pm

"I honestly don't see how what some people choose to do with their lives in their homes and in the family structure they choose to create affects me and my family."

--I'm actually sympathetic to this argument, and I would never be called a crusader for traditional marriage. I think it's kind of a lost cause and is something that will soon force thousands of churches to lose their tax-exempt status for not performing gay marriages. I just thought Tim's criticisms (towards other believers, no less) were completely baseless and lacking in charity.

Also, like it or not, gay marriage does involve you and your family, since you end up paying for the financial benefits that such a relationship collects. If we're going to extend those benefits to gay marriages, we should extend them to me and my brother or friend forming a partnership, as well...my main gripe with that is consistency. Also, even if it doesn't affect you and me, it still affects kids who are given up for adoption. I wouldn't outright argue that gays should not be allowed to adopt, but I (along with I'm sure most of the population--not just crazy, fundamentalist Christians) would think it important that heterosexual marriages be given preference in that regard, given the importance of both mothers and fathers in a family.

by: squeaky

11-02-2011 @ 2:29pm

"Also, like it or not, gay marriage does involve you and your family, since you end up paying for the financial benefits that such a relationship collects. "

What it boils down to then, is money, not morality.

by: squeaky

11-02-2011 @ 2:31pm

As for adoption, I do agree that mothers and fathers are important. But I believe more strongly that a child does best when raised in a loving environment. Probably most children in orphanages would prefer to be in a family that loves them to feeling unwanted.

by: 1curt1

11-02-2011 @ 3:30pm

"I wouldn't outright argue that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt, but I (along with I'm sure most of the population - not just crazy fundamentalist Christians) would think it important that heterosexual marriages be given preference in that regard, given the importance of both mothers and fathers in a family."

Again, Jesse3, please look at the peer-reviewed, critically-accepted research. The difference in parenting comes between having one parent or two. It's not about the gender of the parents. Study outcomes show children do about equally well with parents of the same gender or parents of different genders. Statistically, the struggle seems to come for children who have one parent as opposed to children who have two. Single parenting is generally more difficult.

Also, no one is arguing that churches should lose their tax exempt status if they don't perform gay marriages; just like churches now don't lose their tax exempt status if they refuse to marry previously divorced people. No Iowa churches have lost their tax exempt status for not performing gay marriages. Let's try to stay in touch with reality.

by: jesse3

11-02-2011 @ 4:13pm

"What it boils down to then, is money, not morality."
--It's actually both, since you're giving money to support certain relationships. Traditionally, we have given money to traditional marriages because we believe they serve a social good--ie, we approve of them and encourage them.

by: jesse3

11-02-2011 @ 4:14pm

"As for adoption, I do agree that mothers and fathers are important. But I believe more strongly that a child does best when raised in a loving environment. Probably most children in orphanages would prefer to be in a family that loves them to feeling unwanted."

--And what I've said is not inconsistent with what you write above.

by: jesse3

11-02-2011 @ 4:20pm

"Again, Jesse3, please look at the peer-reviewed, critically-accepted research. The difference in parenting comes between having one parent or two. It's not about the gender of the parents. Study outcomes show children do about equally well with parents of the same gender or parents of different genders. Statistically, the struggle seems to come for children who have one parent as opposed to children who have two. Single parenting is generally more difficult."

--I have actually looked at the peer-reviewed research and think there's sample selection bias going on...some research has also shown that children of same sex parents are more likely to experiment sexually. At this point, it really is too early to make strong conclusions about kids of same sex parents.

I guess your perspective on this also depends on how biologically determined you believe sexual behavior is--the available evidence indicates there are environmental factors at work. Research also shows a remarkable degree of fluidity in sexuality and sexual arousal, especially among women (who are sexually aroused by anything, pretty much).

by: jesse3

11-02-2011 @ 4:24pm

"Also, no one is arguing that churches should lose their tax exempt status if they don't perform gay marriages; just like churches now don't lose their tax exempt status if they refuse to marry previously divorced people. No Iowa churches have lost their tax exempt status for not performing gay marriages. Let's try to stay in touch with reality."

--You are incorrect that no one is arguing this...I know plenty of people who would like for churches to lose their tax exempt status--especially if they are not blessing same sex marriages. Many are already trying to remove tax exempt status from groups like the Boy Scouts for not allowing gay leaders--churches are just a half step away from this. This is inevitable. It is certainly going to happen.

by: choctaw_chris

11-02-2011 @ 5:42pm

I have not suggested that homosexuals are any less serious about committing to a relationship. It may be that the homosexual community has much to teach us. It seems to me that by embracing everything and committing to nothing we have lost our way. Inclusivity simply means that everyone is in my club but that's not how life is. Being an outsider adds a dynamic that can never be realised through normalisation.

Biblically, marriage is heterosexual and I believe that's the bottom line. If you say orange is a shade of red it ceases to be specifically orange. By blurring the boundaries we loose definition. When we revert to calling a spade a spade we will be in a much better position to determine the way forward and define what we want to achieve.

by: Joe-Allen Doty

11-02-2011 @ 5:54pm

There is no support for churches to be tax exempt in the Bible's pages. And also there are no marriage rituals in the Scriptures either. Some of the Bible-thumpers who claim that gays are destroying the sanctity of marriage have been divorced and remarried. John Hagee, current pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, is very outspoken when it comes to being anti-gay. But, when he was the pastor of a church decades ago, he divorced his then wife so he could marry a woman in his church with whom he was having an affair.

by: Joe-Allen Doty

11-02-2011 @ 6:00pm

My mother, who was the wife of a lay evangelist/pastor and a Bible/Sunday school teacher herself, told me to read Ecclesiastes 4:7-12. And after I read it, she surprised me and said in words to this effect, "Doesn't this prove that God approves of same-sex marriages?" All of the nouns in the context are masculine and it even has 2 male gender folks "sleeping" together to "keep warm." The word meaning "warm" is also used a Hebrew euphemism for sexual arousal. And the "lie together" in the text is the same verb that is found in the Leviticus verses used to condemn homosexuals by the Bible-thumpers.

by: 1curt1

11-02-2011 @ 6:02pm

"At this point, it is really too early to make strong conclusions about kids of same sex parents."

In one sense, of course, that's true. Only when gay marriage and gay parenting are completely acceptable in society and not a topic for conversation on respectable religious websites will we be able to do completely unbiased research about child-raising in families with same gender vs. different gender parents. However, the research done so far, by reputable researchers and published in peer reviewed journals, is tending to show that what matters is having two parents, regardless of their gender. And it is continuing to prove what we have all known - single parenting is very difficult.

"... how biologically determined sexual behavior is - the available evidence indicates there are environmental factors at work."

In addition to the biological factors, there are also environmental factors at work that influence my love of my children. Should that mean my love for them is optional or deniable? Of course not. Most of what we are is a combination of environment, biology and genetics, and choice.

by: SunshinyDays

11-02-2011 @ 6:28pm

Joe-Allen Doty:It's true about the tax exempt status for churches not being mentioned in the Bible, but other non-profits and religious organizations also receive tax exempt status in our culture, so why not churches as well?As for marriage ceremonies being mentioned in the Bible, there are several examples of this, starting in Genesis and going through the New Testament, including statements made by Jesus. Here are a few references that you can look up: Genesis 2:23-24; Deuteronomy 24:5; Malachi 2:14-15; Mark 10:6-12; 1 Corinthians 7:1-40; Hebrews 13:4. And don't forget that the first miracle that Jesus performed was at a wedding.

by: SunshinyDays

11-02-2011 @ 6:48pm

Joe-Allen Doty :And you're right that there have been, and will be, many people in the church, even leaders, who have been divorced and remarried, and who have even committed adultery. That's wrong and a sin and I don't know of anyone who would argue otherwise. But Jesus also forgives adulterers (John 8:4-11). And what people have done in the past doesn't exclude them from still being used by God now or in the future.

by: squeaky

11-02-2011 @ 7:44pm

"Being an outsider adds a dynamic that can never be realised through normalisation."

Says someone who is in the club.

Try reading your words from the perspective of a homosexual person.

by: duhsciple

11-02-2011 @ 9:19pm

Beyond left, right, and center, I see a commodification of marriage. If you feel that we have blamed you or conservatives for turning marriage into a "what I get out of it or I'm getting out of it" product, then I apologize. This is on all of us. If you want to assign greater blame to someone, then send it my way. I have failed in my part of the church to turn the tide, even though I tried.

For me, this is a matter of weeping. And I weep for these celebrities, too

by: choctaw_chris

11-02-2011 @ 10:12pm

I don't see any problem with talking of outsiders. Many of us feel like we are outsiders from time to time with respect to some situation. Of course a same sex relationship is different from a heterosexual marriage without pointing out the obvious. There's no point pretending otherwise.

Just because a situation is contentious or fraught with difficulties or even apparently unfair doesn't mean we have to ignore the obstacles and keep everyone happy.

by: squeaky

11-03-2011 @ 2:20am

Did you try reading your words from the perspective of a homosexual? Have you spent much time thinking about what the world might look like from their perspective?

by: choctaw_chris

11-03-2011 @ 9:04am

I can only imagine how the world appears to a homosexual but if true marriage is heterosexual you must look at it from the outside if you are not attracted to the opposite sex, just as procreation is unavailable to you. Lets have a go at God for making procreation unavailable to so many people.

Inclusivity is fine as a principle but is not practical or desirable in certain situations. If you believe that God loves you and wants the best for you, you must believe that for every door that's closed there's another that's open. Opening all the doors that God has closed serves no good purpose.

by: squeaky

11-03-2011 @ 1:19pm

"I can only imagine how the world appears to a homosexual"

And I'm suggesting you should do just that.

by: JeanM

11-07-2011 @ 9:19pm

"...and is something that will soon force
thousands of churches to lose their tax-exempt status for not
performing gay marriages."

On what are you basing this statement? As I understand it, a church not being willing to perform gay marriages in no way endangers its tax-exempt status at this time. In New York, the Episcopal Church, at the behest of the Bishop, does not perform same-sex marriages and will not until do so the canons of the national church have been changed. There is no threat from the state or the IRS. For that matter, in all of the states that allow same-sex marriage there have always been plenty of denominations (maybe most of them) that don't allow marriages for gay couples to be performed in their churches by their clergy. This, at least, is a non-issue and really, there is no need to bring unnecessary fear into an already overwrought situation.