The Court has ruled, but in many ways the debate is just getting started.
Eric Teetsel and Andrew T. Walker are authors of the new e-book Marriage Is: How Marriage Transforms Society and Cultivates Human Flourishing. Why and how they would make such claims still is where we begin the discussion! — KJL
Kathryn Jean Lopez: Isn’t it a little audacious to be declaring what “marriage is” when the Supreme Court has said something different?
Andrew T. Walker: It’s no more audacious than Anthony Kennedy’s decision to redefine marriage. Honest lawyers will admit that Kennedy simply inserted his definition of marriage into the debate, voiding the opinions of millions who have a different, equally valid opinion. The vision for marriage he articulated is incoherent, which gets to the point of our book. In it, we make the case that marriage isn’t up for debate. Whether explained by way of Christian theology or natural law, civilization has always understood that something unique exists between one man and one woman — and that no other relationship is like it. The Supreme Court may think it can redefine marriage, but it cannot pave over the distinctions that result because of human nature and divine design.
Lopez: Are Christians really supposed to change the world? Could it be said that ones who have advocated for same-sex marriage are, in fact, preaching the truth? What makes you so sure you are on the right side of the Gospel?
Eric Teetsel: Some Christians are called to be agents of seismic social transformation; the work of William Wilberforce, Mother Theresa, and Billy Graham changed the world. All Christians are supposed to change their world. Each of us has a sphere of influence, and opportunities every day to be salt and light within it. Too often, especially in my generation, Christians overlook the potential of their presence within a small sphere. Whether you are a pastor with a congregation, a homemaker with children at the neighborhood elementary school, or a junior executive at a regional firm, your position has been ordained for divine purposes.
No doubt advocates of same-sex marriage have changed the world, but the potency of their legal briefs and lobbying efforts pales in comparison with the passive witness of everyday gays and lesbians rubbing elbows with their straight neighbors. As homosexuality came out of the shadows and into the suburbs, arguments based largely in shared convictions about immorality gave way to widespread sentimentality for gay friends and neighbors. Ironically, faithful Christians who kindly but courageously employ the same sort of interpersonal presence will be the ones to receive the victims of this sexual revolution, bandage their wounds, and point them on the narrow road to life everlasting.
Lopez: How is marriage like the blue sky?
Teetsel: In the book I share the story of my niece asking me, “Why is the sky blue?” Though I had been taught the answer, it was forgotten, so we looked it up together and learned how the lengths of waves of light changes our perception of their color. Shorter waves, from a sun directly above, are blue; longer waves, coming across the horizon as the sun rises and sets, are perceived as red, orange, and yellow. Though I lived under and enjoyed blue skies and the rising and setting of the sun for many years, I did not understand them. Like the sun and the sky, marriage is a fundamental part of God’s created order that is necessary, ubiquitous, and widely taken for granted.
Lopez: Why does marriage have to be between a man and a woman?
Walker: Because if it isn’t, marriage doesn’t exist at all. If marriage is endlessly elastic and subject to acts of the will, then it collapses beneath the weight of its own redefinition. In the book, we write as Christians who believe in the Bible’s authority on marriage and sexuality; so obviously, we come at this from a theological angle, but we don’t leave it there. The Bible’s teaching on marriage is by definition public. The Scriptures refer to this mysterious union of complementary bodies as a “one flesh” union, meaning that the act that unites a man and a woman is the same act that has the potential to turn them into a father and mother. Such is the story of any social order. If you trace the Bible’s purpose for marriage, you’ll observe that it’s a roadmap for human civilization, designed with human longing and human fulfillment in mind. But it is also an icon or shadow of the Christ–Church union.
Lopez: How is this not a hateful position?
Teetsel: I once bumped into a pastor of a popular Evangelical church in D.C. while he was wearing a T-shirt from the Human Rights Campaign that reads “Love Conquers Hate.” I asked him if he thought I hated gay people. He tried to assuage me, saying, “No, no, no,” but his shirt left no room for another option. This false dichotomy must be confronted forcefully, not merely in self-defense, because it distorts the truth about which side is fighting for the good of others. There is a small crowd of hateful bigots whose opposition to same-sex marriage is well known, but the Westboro Baptists and their ilk are not representative of the vast majority who understand the true meaning and purpose of marriage. Ours is a stance motivated by genuine concern for those who are enslaved to sin, and for all who suffer when a deviation from what is natural and good is allowed to permeate society.
Lopez: Where in the Bible does Jesus explain that Justice Kennedy is wrong? And why should the Supreme Court and anyone outside of church on Sunday care?
Walker: If what Jesus says in Matthew 19:4–6 is true, then Anthony Kennedy is wrong. Jesus affirms all that the Old Testament teaches about marriage. If Jesus Christ is who the Scriptures and Christians believe him to be, then the justices who voted to redefine marriage have made a terrible, terrible mistake. This is not a Sunday-school truism. Being on the wrong side of Jesus Christ is to be truly on the wrong side of History.
Admittedly, those outside the church may not care one iota for what Jesus has to say about marriage. For those doubtful of divine claims on marriage, I’d put the question back on them: What makes you so sure you’re definition of marriage is right? But it’s not just Christianity that teaches the truth about marriage. All the Abrahamic faiths affirm this “traditional” understanding of marriage, as have non-religious cultures. At the same time, the issue isn’t only about what those outside the church believe or don’t believe. It’s simultaneously about those inside the church, or the synagogue, or the mosque, and those citizens’ being stripped of their rights by a bad Supreme Court ruling.
Lopez: So gay people get married. Does that really stop humans from flourishing?
Walker: As Christians, we don’t have the luxury to define what flourishing is or isn’t. God does that. We’re told in Scripture that God designed the institution of marriage as a creational structure available for all persons for their good, regardless of religion, or no religion at all. We believe, unreservedly, that when a society tampers with an institution, the long-term effects will not be positive. It’ll take decades for the social science to bear out what we believe will be the harms of same-sex marriage and parenting.
What do we know in the short term? We know that the Supreme Court denied that mothering and fathering are essential characteristics for parenting. This sends a wrong signal about the importance that mothers and fathers play in the lives of their children. Even in the happiest same-sex marriage where children are present, we have to square with this reality: Children in these partnerships are being denied either a mother or a father, which tramples on the rights of the child.
You can’t get past your biology. Each person has to reckon with the claim that God created us male and female.
We believe that the long-term effects of marriage will be the further collapse and fraying of marriage altogether. If the goods of marriage are available apart from marriage, why enter marriage at all? The effects will be a culture where fewer marriages occur and family intactness is further destabilized.
Lopez: You talk about “God’s design.” Why would this matter to a non-believer?
Walker: You can’t get past your biology. Each person has to reckon with the claim that God created us male and female. Regardless of what they acknowledge as the origin or source of their existence, ardent non-believers are still limited by being either male or female and with a drive toward experiencing love, romantic union, and commitment. Christianity explains all of that. In theological terms, we call this “common grace,” which is the idea that God bestows general blessings on all of humanity — believers and unbelievers alike — because humanity is uniquely made in God’s image. It’s when an unbelieving society has to suppress the natural truths of our biology that harm results.
Lopez: What does marriage have to do with justice?
Walker: The deterioration of a marriage- and family-oriented culture has resulted in pain and suffering on a massive scale because it is a deterioration of God’s plan for justice and social harmony. Abuse, poverty, lack of education, and crime are just a few of the social ills caused by this failure. This understanding of justice, one that sees the intact family unit as cultivating social justice and social harmony, has forced us to recognize that justice and human flourishing are tied, inextricably, to the relationships around us. When we think about justice, we don’t think about sentimentalized Norman Rockwell portraits of families gathered around a table at dinner. The Rockwell portrait may be closer to a workable theory of justice than the latest pledge drive. And that’s the point. What if we viewed a bride walking down an aisle toward a tuxedoed groom standing anxiously at an altar as the first step on a lifelong march toward justice and the common good? What if we understood that white dress and tux as work clothes, and the wedding rings as essential equipment for building a strong social foundation? What if a pledge of permanence meant more for economic security than just for the fulfillment of sexual ecstasy? Where marriage thrives, people flourish. It is not too late to rebuild a culture that understands and appreciates the meaning, purpose, and importance of marriage. And, by doing so, reversing the tide of human suffering.
Lopez: Why is this fight worth having? Can it be had even now? Even with the Court’s seemingly taking it out of political hands?
Teetsel: What choice do we have? Silence in response to a lie? Ignoring the pain and suffering of others? Acquiescence to the laws of man over the word of God? Christianity is rarely the path to cultural credibility or political power. We are not called to these things, but to faithfulness. Throughout his ministry Jesus promised his followers a life of suffering and rejection, just as he experienced. But we remember with hope and faith that, ultimately, this story does end in victory. (Celebrated with a wedding!)
Lopez: Is there really a point still in arguing what the state’s interest in marriage is? And can that ever be a winning argument when people not only struggle with infertility but also actively choose not to have children?
Teetsel: Absolutely, because the debate over the state’s interest in marriage is not going away. The Supreme Court has set a precedent: Marriage is about love, and every individual has a constitutional right to the dignity that comes from having their love sanctioned by the state through legal marriage. Now we await the ramifications for all sorts of other romantic relationships that have not previously been granted legal recognition. Furthermore, the dampening effects that the ongoing normalization of marriage as romantic love will have on marriage and family will have dire long-term consequences for our economy and expand the role of the state in our lives. As Americans wake up and realize what they’ve been handed, there will be buyer’s remorse and an opportunity to point to a better way.
Lopez: What’s transformational about marriage?
“Tthe greatest political storm flutters only a fringe of humanity,” Chesterton said. “But an ordinary man and an ordinary woman and their ordinary children literally alter the destiny of nations.”
Walker: At the very beginning of the book, we quote G. K. Chesterton, who captures the spirit of what we’re trying to communicate. He said that “the greatest political storm flutters only a fringe of humanity. But an ordinary man and an ordinary woman and their ordinary children literally alter the destiny of nations.” A marriage culture comprises a culture’s destiny, plain and simple. We note in our book how marriage is tied to poverty, incarceration, and education. When we tamper with marriage, society loses. Where marriage breaks down, poverty increases, and emotional turmoil ensues. We’re fighting not simply for a principle about marriage. We’re fighting for people and the belief that every person should be taught the truth about this wonderful institution that God gave to creation.
Lopez: How is marriage “the unexamined assumption of our time”?
Walker: Most people aspire to marriage. But few can offer a coherent definition for why marriage exists besides sex and emotional companionship. Both of those are true, of course; but marriage is about a lot more than just that. Marriage is the only institution that connects the past, present, and future generations. In conversation, people tend to think of marriage solely in terms of their marriage and miss society’s connection to marriage writ large. Society is little more than the aggregate of marriages that constitute it. If you want to see whether a culture is flourishing, see how it values marriage. We’re trying to get Christians and everybody, for that matter, to expand their view of marriage to see its connection to social health and social stability.
Lopez: Eric, you write: “Just as it requires a man and woman to create new life, a father and mother provide the ideal environment for raising children to become happy, healthy, contributing members of society. This is not always possible. Tragically, parents sometimes die, and women create children with men whom they should not marry. Nor is it absolutely true that kids are better off with mom and dad without exception. It should go without saying that it is not ideal for a child to be in a home with a father or mother who abuse them. While acknowledging these facts, and agreeing that we need to strive to come alongside those in such scenarios with wisdom, compassion, and generosity, the ideal must remain at the center of our vision for marriage and family. Children deserve nothing less.” Doesn’t that ignore reality?
Teetsel: The reality is that ours has become a society obsessed with the temporal desires of adults at the expense of the needs of children. Though the Obergefell decision is an unmitigated disaster, it may present an opportunity for advocates of children and family. The turning point for proponents of same-sex marriage was the strategic decision to cease advocating for a whole new conception of marriage and family and instead fight for access to the current institution of marriage. Leaders like Rauch and Sullivan acknowledged the good of marriage in its traditional form, movingly describing the importance of fidelity, lifelong commitment, and family formation. So perhaps now is the perfect time to have them spearhead a new movement to eliminate no-fault divorce, strengthen adultery laws, expand requirements for premarital counseling, and increase government investment in childhood well-being through the child tax credit, paid family leave, and other pro-family policies.
Lopez: What’s the Buckley Option, and how can it save the face of marriage and family in America?
Walker: The Buckley Option is my answer to Rod Dreher’s “Benedict Option.” As much as I value Rod’s perspective and agree with much of it, I don’t believe strategic withdrawal is the best approach. Letting culture roll off the cliff while we retreat into the desert seems to abdicate our responsibility of acting as a speed bump. Tending to our own communities is a must, but a Christianity that isn’t simultaneously attentive to both its own institutions and its public witness simply cannot fulfill the robust demands of orthodoxy. If Christian doctrine is worth anything, it’s worth something because Christianity believes its orthodoxy is always personally and socially transformative. Christianity is good for culture despite whether that culture considers it good or not. That’s the paradox of Christianity: When acting as a contradiction to the spirit of the age, its luster becomes more resilient.
Pertaining to marriage and family, it means that the church must shore up its understanding of marriage locally and congregationally. Churches can no longer assume that its definition of marriage will be the accepted norm. The moment we’re in will require churches to get serious about church discipline. At the same time, it will require the church to publicly witness to the truth of marriage for the sake of Christian faithfulness and out of love for one’s neighbor. This means taking public action and registering your dissent when necessary. And that’s what we’ve done and will continue to do. In the wake of the ruling, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission released a statement signed by over a hundred leaders about our place in society as marriage continues to decline. I was one of the drafters of a resolution, at this year’s Southern Baptist Convention, titled “On the Call to Public Witness on Marriage.” In short, we testify to the truth of marriage by refusing to cower. We have to go public and insist upon the timeless truth of marriage.
Lopez: What are you grateful for, despite what happened at the Court on marriage?
Walker: I’m grateful for the happy band of warriors that refuse to quit amid mounting opposition. Moments like this refine where Christ’s true church is found. While it will grow more difficult to be a confessional, orthodox Christian in the coming months and years, if Christianity is true, its promises will transcend any one culture in particular. I’m not fearful for Christianity in America; I’m fearful for a culture that’s loosening itself of limits and boundaries that the Christian moral tradition believes are life-giving.
Teetsel: In one recorded incident in the book of Acts, Peter and the apostles are caught preaching the Gospel in defiance of the orders of the high priest. For this they were beaten. Afterward, they rejoiced “that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name.” Christians are entering a difficult era, one that has already involved some real persecution. More is coming. Yet I am grateful for the many faithful brothers and sisters who continue to stand firm and believe, to borrow a phrase from Paul, that in the end “we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.”
— Kathryn Jean Lopez is senior fellow at the National Review Institute, editor-at-large of National Review Online, and founding director of Catholic Voices USA.