I guess this marriage could be viewed as the world’s first heterosexual marriage casualty to “the attack on marriage,” even if it’s self-inflicted. The story does raise a legitimate question about whether the state should even be involved in marriage. I would say that there is a list of privileges associated with marriage which the state recognizes and maybe it should just be recognized as a contract which is defined by those privileges, and any couple is welcome to go off and call it what they want. And maybe those privileges shouldn’t be afforded at all – maybe, for instance, anyone who cares enough to come to a hospital to see a patient should be allowed to see the patient, and maybe just let anybody contract how they want to contract for life arrangements on their own.
Anyway, I understand what this couple believes, and I don’t see it as hatred. I see it simply as a desperate attempt to hold onto a world view which simply excludes love they can’t understand. Their theology doesn’t hold that the love is wrong. They don’t believe it’s real, or that it can be real, and therefor they don’t recognize the expressions as those of love, but rather what they would call “lust.” They cannot see it any other way and take the Bible as the literal word of God.
And ultimately what they are affirming here is that their relationship is defined by the state, as opposed to merely recognition by the state.
And so, maybe, the state shouldn’t even be in the business of recognizing it. If the state pulls out of marriage altogether, then nobody is stigmatized. Not the same sex oriented. Not Christians. Nobody. You define your arrangements and if you want a Church involved – your choice.
In the meantime – makes me think of the kids who protest by holding their breath until they turn blue.