Same-Sex Marriage and Hospitality: A Pentecostal Response to

Obergefell v. Hodges

On June 26, 2015 the United States Supreme Court released its landmark decision
regarding Obergefell v. Hodges. The High Court ruled, The Fourteenth Amendment requires a
State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed
out-of-State.1 In essence this 5-4 opinion legalized same-sex marriage in the United States.
The Courts ruling spawned a variety of responses from Christian denominations and
church leaders. Some openly praised the decision, yet others staunchly condemned it. Nancy
Wilson, global Moderator of Metropolitan Community Churches stated, Today, love and
equality win! The Supreme Court concluded that all loving couples deserve the right to marry!
Finally, the U.S. Constitution applies to every family I am thrilled but we cannot rest until all
people, regardless of race, gender identity, and sexual orientation are free to live without fear.2
The United Church of Christ (UCC), which identifies as an open and affirming denomination,
also celebrated these events. For nearly eleven years this denomination has officially stood for
marriage equality, as demonstrated by its 2005 resolution entitled Equal Marriage Rights For
All. This document states:
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Twenty-fifth General Synod of the United
Church of Christ affirms equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender and declares
that the government should not interfere with couples regardless of gender who choose to
marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of legally
recognized marriage.3

For the UCC, Obergefell v. Hodges took major legal steps toward providing justice for
marginalized groups of people.
On the other hand, many Christians responded to Obergefell v. Hodges with discontent,
and Pentecostal denominations, for the most part, proved to be no exception. George O. Wood,
1 Supreme Court of the United States, 2014 Opinions of the Court.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/14 Accessed?
2 Love and Equality Win!, Metropolitan Community Churches, http://mccchurch.org/love-andequality-win/ Accessed?
3 Equal Marriage Rights for All, United Church of Christ.
http://www.ucc.org/lgbt_issues_marriage-equality_index. July 4, 2005. Accessed?

Superintendent of the Assemblies of God (USA), reacted negatively toward the Courts decision.
He wrote, Today is a sad day for America...As a Christian minister and general superintendent
of the Assemblies of God, I am deeply concerned with the Courts redefinition of marriage and
the negative effects that it may have on religious freedom.4 Mark L. Williams, the General
Overseer of the Church of God (Cleveland, TN) stated:
The Church of God stands with fellow Christians who understand that God intended
marriage to be between a man and womanWe urge the pastors and members of the
Church to continue to hold high the biblical standard for godly marriage. A legal
definition of marriage may have changed, but the orthodox understanding based on Gods
revelation has not changed. We call upon men and women to demonstrate to a confused
world the fulfillment that results when they covenant in marriage to practice faithful and
sacrificial love.5
Thus, reactions to Obergefell v. Hodges are primarily fragmented along liberal and conservative
lines, and the rejoinders offered above demonstrate the depth of the divide within Christianity.
Despite such dissenting disparate responses, are these the final words on the issue of
same-sex marriage for Pentecostals? Do such stances represent non-negotiable doctrine or can a
Pentecostal disagree and still be a Pentecostal? This essay seeks to explore another possible
response. Principally, I argue that, by using a Pentecostal hermeneutic, Christians can recognize
marriage equality as a matter of justice, and as a result, Pentecostals should offer our support in
securing and retaining this right, and as well as any auxiliary rights, for others. I proceed in the
following manner. First, I provide a brief survey of legal rights that correspond to marriage rights
more broadly. This cursory survey will demonstrate the legal ramifications tied to same-sex
marriage and why it is a far-reaching social issue. Next, I argue that homosexuality should be
bracketed as a moral concern to focus solely upon the legal rights concerning same-sex marriage.
This essay does not argue for the rightfulness of or wrongness of homosexuality; rather, I suggest
that opinions on homosexuality can be set aside to focus upon same-sex marriage as a matter of
social justice. Finally, I suggest that same-sex marriage should be examined through the lens of
hospitality. Specifically, I maintain that Amos Yongs theology of hospitality can be extended

4 George O. Wood, Statement Regarding the Supreme Courts Same-Sex Marriage Decision,
PE News, http://penews.org/Article/Statement-Regarding-the-Supreme-Court-s-Same-SexMarriage-Decision/. See also The General Council of the Assemblies of God, Homosexuality,
Marriage and Sexual Identity,
http://ag.org/top/beliefs/position_papers/pp_downloads/pp_4181_homosexuality.pdf. Accessed?
5 Mark L. Williams, Statement of the Church of God Regarding Same-Sex Marriage Court
Decision, Church of God, http://www.churchofgod.org/same-sex-marriage-statement.
Accessed?

beyond his original argument to construct an alternative Pentecostal response to same-sex

marriage.

Same-Sex Marriage and Legal Rights

For many Americans, marriage is a significant right in and of itself, but this right also dictates
other rights, which extend far beyond the immediate boundaries of the wedding vows. Before
marriage equality was granted by the Supreme Court, same-sex couples were routinely denied
access to numerous rights that most married opposite-sex couples have takentake for granted. For
example, among tThese rights include are hospital visitations, medical decision-making,
inheritance rights, and access to medical insurance to name only a few.6
In countless situations where hospital visitations were limited to family members,
individuals have been denied their right to be with their same-sex partners before, after, and/or
during medical procedures. Unfortunately, countless individuals have undergone traumatic and
life-changing procedures, and many others have died, without their same-sex partners at their
bedside.7 Additionally, in the absence of equality of marriage rights, individuals have been
denied the ability to make medical decisions for their incapacitated same-sex partner. Until
recently, same-sex partners have not been considered next- of- kin, so and as a result the right to
make medical decisions in some situations the right to make medical decisions havehas been
deferred to distant family members or the state, despite both same-sex partners possessing power
of attorney for one another.
Additionally, before Obergefell v. Hodges, same- sex -couples were not guaranteed equal
inheritance rights in comparison to opposite sex couples. In the event of death and when the
deceased did not leave a will, then, the surviving partner did not automatically inherit their
rightful property. In some instances the State decided to exclude a partner from obtaining his/her
inheritance, regardless of the nature and length of their relationship. In other situations same-sex
couples were liable for a higher inheritance tax. This inequality resulted from same-sex partners
not being recognized as legal relatives. In order to avoid this injustice a number of same-sex
couples underwent a process whereby one partner legally adopted the other in order to secure the
same inheritance rights as opposite-sex couples.8

6 For a more detailed list of these rights see Evan Wolfson, Why Marriage Matters: American,
Equality, and Gay Peoples Right to Marry (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004), 194-?????
7 Hospital Visitation and Medical Decision Making for Same-Sex Couples, Center for
American Progress,
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2014/04/15/88015/hospital-visitation-andmedical-decision-making-for-same-sex-couples/ Accessed?

Finally, same-sex couples have been routinely denied the same benefits as opposite-sex
couples in relation to health benefits. Companies that provided benefits to the spouses of their
heterosexual employees, for instance, were not obligated to provide coverage for same-sex
partners. Furthermore, insurance companies regularly deprived same-sex couples the right to be
covered under the same family plan, which in most cases was more costly for the insured parties.
More recently, though, many of these practices were changed due to the legislation provided by
the Affordable Care Act.9 Given the newness of Obergefell v. Hodges, however, many policies
that stand in opposition to same-sex rights have yet to be challenged.
Equality of marriage laws help to ensure that individuals can obtain certain rights,
including but not limited to the ones mentions above, notwithstanding their gender and/or sexual
orientation. But securing these rights has unveiled a very complex social issue. This complexity
stems from the fact that a large number of conservative Christians stand in opposition to
homosexuality. According to many of these Christians, homosexuality is sinful, and, because
God condemns it, support of same-sex marriage also promotes homosexuality. But even if
homosexuality is deemed to be immoral a point that I do not argue address one way or another
within this paper is it morally just to deny fundamental rights to these individuals? Considering
all of the rights that correspond to the institution of marriage, opinions on the issue of same-sex
marriage cannot be distilled to simply stating that homosexuality is right or wrong. As
demonstrated above, much more is at stake. Yet repudiating disallowing same-sex couples these
rights is a major implication of the official responses offered by the COG and the AG. Their
opposition to homosexuality extends to include a denial of equality to same-sex couples under
the law. This opposition by the COG and the AG to marriage equality, in my opinion, is not valid
because legal rights and sexuality are wrongfully conflated.
Whether or not homosexuality is morally right or wrong is a separate issue from the legal
right to marry and its accompanying rights of hospital visitations, medical decision-making,
inheritance rights, and access to medical insurance. Christian responses to same-sex marriage
tend to treat these issues collectively, when they should be addressed independently from one
another. There are three principle reasons for differentiating the two. First, sexual relations, even
within the confines of a legal marriage and regardless of the sexual orientation of its participants,
are not guaranteed. Marriage does not give an individual unmitigated sexual access to their
partner. After marriage, a spouse obtains retains the moral and legal right to abstain from sexual
relations with his/her partner.10 Second, from a legal and moral standpoint, marriage does not
require sexual relations between spouses. If this were true, then individuals who are severely
8 Susan Donaldson James, Gay Man Adopts His Partner to Avoid Inheritance Tax,
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/gay-man-adopts-partner-avoid-inheritance-tax/story?id=19512067
Accessed?
9 HealthCare.gov, Same Sex Married Couples, https://www.healthcare.gov/married-same-sexcouples-and-the-marketplace/ Accessed?

physically disabled and unable to engage in sexual relations would be denied the legal and moral
right to marry. Thus moral and legal rights pertaining to sex are not intrinsically bound to legal
marital rights. Thus moral issues concerning sex are not fundamentally entailed coupled within
the legal right to marry.
Third, sex and marriage rights must be examined independently because it should not be
assumed that sexual intimacy is the primary motivation, or even a motivation at all, to marry.11
This is true of both heterosexual and same-sex couples. Sexual intimacy can be secured without
marriage, so there must be other factors at stake. According to Revel and Riot, a non-profit
organization that advocates LGBTQ equality, Gay and lesbian couples want to get married for
most of the same reasons that straight couples want to get married: love, rite of passage, and
celebration of commitment.12 Emotional intimacy, such as love and commitment, do not require
sex. Moreover, such intimacy can occur between heterosexual individuals of the same sex.
Consider the nature of the relationship between David and Jonathan in scripture. Hence

10 If after marriage one partner decides to abstain from sexual relations for the duration of the
marriage and before marriage there was a mutual agreement between the partners that there
would be sexual relations, then there may be moral issues involved. But this is a different topic
and not relevant to the goals of this paper.
11 Although it is often presumed that sex occurs within marriage, we should refrain from making
this assumption a universally accepted norm. This is because there are a significant number of
sexless marriages. While percentages vary with age, the National Survey of Sexual Health and
Behavior suggests that within the U.S. 3.5% of married women 25-29 years of age and 6.5% of
married women 30-39 years of age had not experienced vaginal sex within the previous twelve
months (in which study of the two mentioned by them and in what year?). The same survey
suggests that 1.6% of married men 25-29 years of age and 4.5% of married men 30-39 years of
age also had not engaged in vaginal sex during the previous year. These numbers tend to increase
with age. Debby Herbenick, Michael Reece, Vanessa Schick, Stephanie A. Sanders, Brian
Dodge, and J. Dennis Fortenberry, Sexual Behaviors, Relationships, and Perceived Health
Status Among Adult Women in the United States: Results from a National Probability Sample,
Journal of Sexual Medicine 7, no. 5 (October 2010): 277-90; Debby Herbenick, Michael Reece,
Vanessa Schick, Stephanie A. Sanders, Brian Dodge, and J. Dennis Fortenberry, Sexual
Behaviors, Relationships, and Perceived Health Status Among Adult Men in the United States:
Results from a National Probability Sample, Journal of Sexual Medicine 7, no. 5 (October
2010): 277-90. I am not aware of any statistics concerning the number of sexless same-sex
relationships; however it is reasonable to infer that they do exist. Thus sex may be normative
within marriages, but it is not practiced universally.
12 http://www.revelandriot.com/resources/marriage-equality/ Accessed?

emotional intimacy, if in and of itself, is not sinful. This aspect of marriage does not demand
sexual intimacy and can be examined independently.
To conclude this section, marriage is a multidimensional relationship and may include,
but is not limited to, legal, social, emotional, and sexual dynamics. However, we should avoid
viewing marriage solely, and maybe even primarily, through the lens of sex something with
which many Christians can be charged. Consensual sex is a mutual exchange between
individuals that may or may not occur within marriage. It is a private decision made between two
complying adults, but sex is neither necessary nor guaranteed. So with this understanding in
place, we have good reason to treat marriage and sex independently. This point should not be
limited to opposite-sex couples and heterosexuality, but it should also include our treatment of
same-sex marriage and homosexuality. These are two separate issues that may overlap within the
practical domain but not necessarily on a legal, philosophical, or even theological level.
Therefore, one can address homosexuality on moral or religious grounds, yet refrain from
implicating same-sex marriage legal rights and vice- versa. This is not to deny that the
moral/religious realm and legal realm overlap at times. In fact, I will argue below that a
Pentecostal ethic requires Christians to challenge laws that neglect individuals of fundamental
rights. Nevertheless it is possible to bracket questions regarding the morality of homosexuality in
order to consider Christian responsibilities connected with same-sex marriage. In order to do
this, I turn our attention to a theology of hospitality.

Same-Sex Marriage Rights and a Theology of Hospitality

Theologian Amos Yong develops a theology of hospitality that is informed by both
Pentecostalism and pneumatology in his book Hospitality and the Other. Herein he argues that a
theology of hospitality should influence both Christian thought and practice, especially when one
is engaged in interreligious dialogue. According to Yong, the Spirit of God operates beyond the
four walls of the visible Christian Church, and it is through divine hospitality that one encounters
the work of the Holy Spirit (62). The Spirit operates through many tongues and many
practices, sometimes unexpectedly, and in this way Gods hospitality is extended to the world.13
Hospitality has both Christological and pneumatological dimensions. Yong argues, We can
understand the entire life of Jesus, including his ministry of hospitality, as pneumatically or
pneumatologically constituted (101). Consequently, if we are to model our lives according to
Jesus, then we, too, must also adopt a Spirit-led life of hospitality.
According to Yong, interreligious dialogue is one area that can benefit from a theology of
hospitality. He draws from Kosuke Koyamas Waterbuffalo Theology, arguing that people within
other religious traditions should not be treated as a means to an end (e.g.,i.e., to be evangelized);,
rather, they are to be regarded as neighbors who may have insights to share with us (79). Yong
13 See also Amos Yong, The Spirit of Hospitality, Missiology: An International Review 35, no.
1 (January 2007),: 55-73.

writes, A theology of neighborology proposes ways forward that emphasize dialogue, learning
about the other, and working together to strengthen the nation (80). This requires us to engage
people of other faiths as an equal (83). Hospitality also requires that we see ourselves as both
guest and host. We must interact with our neighbors and not close ourselves off to what they may
have to offer us (124-25). These interactions may bring about mutual enrichment, mutual
transformation, and authentic vulnerability on both personal and institutional levels.
Yong focuses upon interreligious dialogue, but his theology of hospitality also presents
has direct implications for Christian practices. For him, Jesus Spirit-filled ministry becomes
paradigmatic for all Christians, especially in concerning the manner that in which Christ
challenged social conventions in order to extend hospitality. Jesus was indiscriminate in his
ministry of hospitality, reaching out to poor, oppressed, and marginalized persons. Yong,
therefore, argues that salvation is multidimensional, and social justice is one of these dimensions.
He writes, The quest for peace has to be accompanied by acts of justice because there can be no
reconciliation, harmony, or tranquility wherever there is injustice (142-43). A theology of
hospitality helps us to identify areas of need and helps us also to be conduits of Gods love and
grace.
Yong suggests that Pentecostals must act toward furthering social justice along three
avenues: women's rights, racial equality, and the structural, economic, and political realities
which undermine peace and justice in the world.14 Although Yongs theology of hospitality does
not address same-sex marriage rights, I suggest that it can be extended to consider these issues.
Historically, Pentecostals have not viewed homosexuality through the lens of hospitality. In fact,
quite the opposite stance has been taken. More often than not Pentecostals have viewed
homosexuals as sinful individuals who are quite possibly demon-possessed.15 By and large,
Pentecostals have treated homosexuals as the Other, and in many cases even worse, as an
enemy. In many ways these characterizations are similar to the manner in which Classical
Pentecostals have treated people of other faiths. Indeed, Pentecostals have leveled comparable
claims of sinfulness and demon-possession against members of other religions.16 But Yongs
theology of hospitality challenges these perspectives and attempts to open respectful and sincere
interreligious dialogue. Using these principles, his theology of hospitality presents offers
implications beyond interreligious dialogue, which can be applied to a Pentecostal
understandings of homosexuality.
14 Yong, The Spirit of Hospitality, 63.
15 See, James S. Tinney, Homosexuality as a Pentecostal Phenomenon, A Black Fire Reader:
A Documentary Resource on African American Pentecostalism, edited by Estrelda Alexander
(Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2013), : 226.
16 Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los
Angeles: L.I.F.E. Bible College, 1983, 1987), 487-88.

First, rather than viewing the LGBTQ community as the Other, Pentecostals should
engage this community as neighbors. Successful instances of interreligious dialogue show that
Christians can disagree with the beliefs and practices of other religious, yet still engage in fruitful
dialogue. A theology of hospitality suggests that Christians should also embrace those within the
LGBTQ community as dialogue partners. They should not be shunned, even if opposing views
exist. As a neighbor, LGBTQ individuals have a voice that deserves to be heard, and Christians
should turn a listening ear to their concerns, desires, hopes, dreams, and struggles. In so doing,
we extend a sincere hand of fellowship and may find common ground in the midst of potential
differences. We may find new ways in which the Spirit is at work. We should resist viewing the
LGBTQ community as a placeone that is void of the Spirit, especially when we consider that the
Spirit is poured out upon all flesh. The Holy Spirit blows where she wishes.
Second, a theology of hospitality calls upon Christians to stand alongside our neighbors
who are oppressed. It is not enough to simply engage in dialogue; Christians are called to
respond to injustices against our neighbors. Differences in beliefs do not prevent Christians from
bringing peace and fairness to oppressed individuals within other faiths. So just as Christians are
compelled to act upon social justice issues involving people of other religions, we should also
reach out to the LGBTQ community. Gods children are beckoned to fight for and restore justice
to anyone who has been deprived of it, and the LGBTQ community should not be an exception.
Gods love does not discriminate, so neither should human acts of hospitality. God does not call
upon his people to select who should be recipients of justice. Rather divine hospitality, which is
given through the Spirit, urges us to reach out to the Other.
In Luke 10:25-37, Jesus tells the Parable of the Good Samaritan in order to address a
certain lawyers question, And who is my neighbor? (v. 29). In the parable, the Samaritan
helped a distressed traveler without regard for his identity. The Samaritan assisted the traveler
because they were neighbors. Merely being a fellow human established this neighborly
relationship. In Romans 12:20, Paul quotes Proverbs 25:21 in saying, If your enemy is hungry,
feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. He also adds, Do not be overcome by
evil, but overcome evil with good (Rom. 12:21). If this is how Christian are instructed to treat
their enemies, then how much more hospitality should Christians, including Pentecostals in this
instance, extend hospitality to our neighbors. Hospitality calls us to go beyond merely being kind
to others. Rather, it requires us to offer respect, dignity, and justice to all people. Yong supports
this assertion, writinges, The charismatic practices of the church include both signs and
wonders and works of mercy and compassion and acts of social liberation. The hospitality of
God is thus embodied in a hospitable church whose members are empowered by the Holy Spirit
to stand in solidarity and serve with the sick, the poor, and the oppressed.17 Extensions of
hospitality are not dependent upon gender, age, race, ethnicity, social status, or religious beliefs.
Gods hospitality, which exudes from us with the help of the Spirit, are for all of Gods children.
A theology of hospitality means that fundamental human rights must also be secured for
all people, regardless of their sexual orientation. Despite ones moral or religious stance on
17 Yong, Spirit of Hospitality, 63.

homosexuality, one can work to secure the legal rights of same-sex marriage and all that goes
along with it. As I argued above, legal rights pertaining to same-sex marriage can be treated
independently of sexuality. Thus one can disapprove of the morality of homosexuality, yet still
recognize the need to secure legal rights for LBGTQ individuals. Being a neighbor entails
recognizing the humanity within everyone without regard to their sexual orientation. Allowing
others to be present with a loved one while they are taking their last breath, allowing individuals
equal access to healthcare, and allowing one to inherit what rightfully belongs to them
recognizes their personhood. Anything less denies persons their dignity and respect. Anything
short of this is an injustice and does not treat them as a neighbor. Therefore, even if one opposes
homosexuality, one can still stand up for justice.
Third, a theology of hospitality is not coercive. Objections to marriage equality, however,
often fall into this category. Basic rights have been denied to same-sex couples in an attempt to
coerce their conversion to a conservative moral or religious agenda. It Doing this is an attempt to
force homosexuals to abandon their lifestyle and beliefs. Yet conservative Christian responses to
homosexuality have established a double-standard. They tend to marginalize homosexuals more
than any other group and these tactics are inconsistent with their other responses to other moral
concerns. Christians rarely work to deny fundamental rights to others groups of people who
commit heterosexually immoral acts, namely sexual ones. One prime example of this
contradiction is adultery. While conservative Christians by and large would agree that this act is
sinful, they do not actively use the legal system to deny rights to these offenders. In their eyes,
both sinful acts are sexual in nature, involving sex outside the confines of Gods intent. So why
not strip adulterers of legal rights such as those which have often been denied to same-sex
couples? Conservative Christians, including Pentecostals, have established a double standard.
Not every act that is deemed sinful requires a legal response, as demonstrated by their response
to other sexual sins.
Even if homosexuality is a sin, should we not trust that God can change these persons
heartshomosexually-inclined hearts through non-coercive means? Should we not attempt to
change their hearts and minds through godly love? Personally, I maintain that hospitality should
not expect anything in return, and evangelization should not be a motivation. Nevertheless, using
the legal system, as the Church has historically done, is an unjust approach ; it only functions
in a divisive way. It puts up boundaries and fosters resentment between LGBTQ individuals and
Christians at largeity. Ultimately, this pushes many homosexuals away from Gods message of
love. A theology of hospitality resists this such a response.
Finally, a theology of hospitality requires us to periodically break social conventions. The
ministry of Jesus becomes paradigmatic on this point. Jesus interactions with the woman at the
well, lepers, and drunkards along with his violation of Jewish customs display his unorthodox
methods of ministry. A theology of hospitality calls us to similar actions. Yong writes, We need
to be sensitive to the Spirits leading to determine if and when the social conventions of
hospitality prevalent in any particular place and time are to be appropriately upset (107). A
theology of hospitality calls upon Christians today to challenge traditional attitudes toward samesex marriage and homosexuality. Ideally, the Church would have been on the frontlines fighting

for same-sex marriage rights; instead, a majority of the Church is lagging behind. In his Letter
from Birmingham Jail the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. exclaimed, Injustice anywhere is a
threat to justice everywhere.18 And I contend that this prescient statement is no less applicable to
same-sex marriage rights. In Kings letter he also condemns the Church of his day for not doing
enough, and I fear that the same is true of the contemporary Church regarding same-sex marriage
rights. The Church should be leading the charge for securing these rights. Instead it is
predominantly lagging behind.
In conclusion, solidarity with oppressed individuals should exist, regardless of the moral
standing of the individuals being possessed oppressed and regardless of our Christian
understandings of morality. At any time in which any individuals rights are being
disenfranchised, . Christians must act. Conservative Christians, including Pentecostals
denominations and leaders, should reconsider their responses to Obergefell v. Hodges and
marriage equality.

18 Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, in Blessed are the Peacemakers:
Martin Luther King, Jr., Eight White Religious Leaders and the Letter from Birmingham Jail,
edited by S. Jonathan Bass (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 2001), : 239.