Recently, a legislative committee in Nevada was taking testimony on whether or not to place on a state-wide ballot a proposed amendment to the Nevada constitution. If approved by the voters, it would remove language defining marriage as between a man and a woman and replace it with a declaration that the state will recognize any legal marriage regardless of gender.
As might be expected, there was testimony in favor of the amendment as well as arguments against it. Many of those in favor mentioned the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage and suggested it mandate that marriage is open to all those claiming various forms of gender diversity. After all, said one advocate of the amendment, the Supreme Court says that “love is the law.”
What the advocate and his companions meant was clear. Any persons regardless of sex or gender who find strong attraction between themselves should be allowed to marry. The entire meaning of love can be discovered by simply listening to feelings on two fronts. First, is a person sensing their identity to be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, pansexual, asexual, transgender or some other gender diverse identity from the more than one hundred gender states so far listed? Second, does that person feel mutual desire with another person to unite in a romantic, personally fulfilling relationship? Thus, since “love is the law,” and the two questions have been answered, the couple can proceed immediately to exchange wedding vows.
At first the phrase “love is the law” sounds like the instruction Jesus gave to His disciples to “love one another.” Repeatedly, in the letters of the apostle Paul and other New Testament authors, Christians are called to a profound love, embracing even enemies as Jesus commanded. Sermons and Sunday school classes are often devoted to the Christian duty to practice the “Law of Love.”
However, “The Law of Love” to which people of faith are called involves both a radical openness and clear boundaries simultaneously. It requires a yes and a no whenever Christians interface with people and their community well-being.
On the one hand, “The Law of Love” can include romantic attraction, friendship, family affection and every other form of warm relationships between individuals and groups. Nevertheless, a far wider and deeper spectrum of human endeavor lies within the principle of “The Law of Love.” We have already seen that Jesus included enemies in the broad circle of such love. So, we may presume that every dimension of humanity, born and unborn, women and men, rich and poor, must be treated with respect, whether or not warm feelings exist in the relationship. Here is a radical call to attitude and action. In the face of all that may lead us to retaliatory violence, authentic Christianity says an emphatic yes to the dignity inherent in every human being.
On the other hand, “The Law of Love” says an equally emphatic no to all ideology and behavior that undermines the well-being of the human community. This love is all about boundaries clearly marking what makes for health and what works against communal thriving. While there is widespread disagreement on the exact contours of the boundaries, generally speaking “The Law of Love” has always upheld time-tested, traditional standards of conduct and conscience. For example, Christians have for centuries observed the effects of following, or refusing to follow, the social heritage they have received in Scripture and church teaching. Their conclusion is that binary marriage between a man and a woman, family based on marriage and faith shared in familial surroundings are key elements in a constructive, creative, sustainable society. “The Law of Love” must say no to anything that minimizes or destroys those key elements, or any other beliefs or actions contrary to proven benefits for humanity.
What is it that those who hold to “love is the law” offers humanity? Marriage reduced to a sort of joy ride between any two individuals without due regard to the intended dignity of both woman and man. Childless relationships touted as a boon to society. An unending process of inventing different combinations of cupidity. The whole world depending on how people feel and simply accepting whatever it is they wish to express. Pure hatred toward anyone suggesting boundaries be placed around expressions of any affection related to sexuality.
As a matter of fact, why should any boundaries exist where “love is the law” prevails? Mothers and fathers love their children. Why not marriage between a mother and son or daughter? Or between father and daughter or son? Or marriage between siblings or other close relatives? Why not marriage between three or more persons? What could be better than union between several women and a man, or several men and a woman, or several persons of the same sex, or a whole crowd of people claiming multiple genders? Hallelujah! “love is the law” is here. Let us remove all those silly social constraints imposed on people by oppressive Judeo-Christian bigots!
In the end, “love is the law” must give way to “The Law of Love” or humanity will simply drown in an ocean of subjective self-fulfillment.
William Tarbell
4251 Desert Rain Ct.
Sparks, NV 89436
Telephone: (803) 920-4060
