What God has joined together

It was not a committee that settled this. It was a reading. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Jesus Himself quoted it: “from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female'” (Mark 10:6). And then He drew the consequence that governs every marriage since: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6). Paul put the same word into it: “‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'” (Ephesians 5:31).

The claim on the other side of this row is not a modern invention and it is not a Western fashion. It is an ancient one, and it is written in the book that the platform this row stands on has always quoted: “If a man lies with a man as with a woman, they have both committed an abomination” (Leviticus 20:13). The Christian who is asked to accept the redefinition of marriage is not being asked to accept a novelty. He is being asked to accept that a word in the Bible means something other than what it means.

That is a serious thing to be asked, and it deserves a serious answer rather than a shout. So here it is. Marriage in Scripture is not a contract; it is a covenant. Malachi makes the word explicit: “the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have broken faith, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant” (Malachi 2:14). A covenant is not a licence either party may renegotiate when it becomes inconvenient. It is a binding, life-long, public promise — and the two promises it makes are “I will be yours” and “I will be faithful.” That is why the row’s standard is not a preference but a definition. The question is not whether the State may bless certain relationships. The question is what the word means, and whether the law should say that it means something other than what the Creator of the word said it means.

And that matters for Christians for a reason that is not prudential. If the definition of marriage can be changed by legislative majority, then so can the definition of anything else that the law touches — and the ground on which the Church has always stood, that some things are not ours to vote on, begins to disappear from under us. “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do — do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). There is a way of voting that builds a society in which the Church can still speak, and there is a way of voting that gradually makes the Church’s speech illegal. “If anyone is unwilling to work, he shall not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10) is a principle about the ordering of a society; a society that will not hold a line on the definition of marriage will not hold a line on much else.

But — and this is where a Christian has no business being smug — the way we defend the definition is itself part of the defence. Jesus said that the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love your neighbour as yourself (Matthew 22:37-39), and He Himself said that a new command He was giving was to love one another (John 13:34). The row is called “Against Same-Sex Marriage.” It is not called “Against Gay People,” and the distinction is not squeamishness, it is theology. Every person who loves Him and is loved by Him is a neighbour. “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love” (1 John 4:8). “Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring glory to God” (Romans 15:7). A Christian who holds this position and who is unkind in how he holds it has not defended the covenant; he has damaged the reputation of the One who gave it. “Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you the reason for the hope that is in you. But respond with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). Both halves of that verse are required, and the second half is the one that is usually forgotten.

There is also a much more practical reason the platform will not soften this. The argument for redefining marriage does not stop at the wedding. It runs through adoption, through who may be a parent, through what a school is required to teach a child about the family, through the medical and legal consequences of the change, through the definition of a father and a mother in law. Every one of those is a matter of public policy, and every one of them is settled by whoever wins the argument. A vote cast without understanding that is a vote cast blind.

So the test is a test of a commitment, in writing, to a definition. Read the manifestos of the parties on your ballot for 4 November and look for the sentence. Does the party commit to the definition of marriage as the covenant of one man and one woman? Does it commit to defending that definition against amendment? Does it commit to the protection of the Church’s right to teach and to preach the truth about marriage — and to the right of parents and churches to raise their children in the faith, without being made complicit in a view they reject? And does it commit to those things in terms, or only in a rally speech? A party that mentions “family” in a paragraph about housing grants has not made a commitment about marriage.

And to the Christian reading this, the question underneath all of it is the one every voter has to answer anyway, whatever is on the ballot paper: “Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve” (Joshua 24:15). Not which party, ultimately — that is a downstream question. The upstream question is what you are asking the country to be built on, and the answer to that is not one you can outsource to a platform you have not read.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The same arguments are made in the same words, and the same voters are asked the same question in the same terms. On 4 November, you can stop the loop: read the manifestos, find the sentence about marriage, and vote for the party that means it.

Mark the tick if this analysis holds. And in the comments: if the definition of marriage can be changed by a vote, what else in the law can be changed the same way — and should it be?