What if we disentangled the church from the state on this matter, framing this debate, not as one, but as two important debates?
There is the civil debate: Should the government legalize gay marriage, thereby extending to same-sex couples the same responsibilities and benefits granted to opposite-sex married couples? What public policy best serves the common good?
There is the religious debate: Does the theological definition of the sanctity of marriage include the blessing of same-sex unions?
Yes, yes, we have heard this all before, and all because yet another religious figure wants to make sure hat homosexuals can marry. In short, this essay is a red herring dragged across the path so that opponents of ssm will be led astray. The argument is sound, in a limited way; its agenda clear and reprehensible. One wonders, has she read the scripture on this subject, and/or does she care? Larry
Should the clergy get out of the business of legalizing marriages? I don’t think so, but I don’t think it’s a big deal. Get married in church and have a clerk of the state there to witness it.
However, what the author is really proposing is that Christians should not bring their beliefs about marriage to the public debate. This is the tired and refuted argument for the naked public square. Two thousand years of Christian reflection on marriage is a great boon to the state when it reflects on the public goods of marriage.
I think Rev. Siler has it turned around 180 degrees. It is not the Church that should get out of the marriage business, it is the government.
The government’s interest is not in who is “married” to whom, but in who forms a household. Marriage is a sacrament. Here I mean the word in its broadest connotation, as well as it’s “Catholic” denotation. Marriage is considered a vow before God in many religions, not only Christianity. It is sacred. In essence, any interference pro or con, by a state of the US is a violation of the division of Church and State.
The government’s interest is to define what constitutes a household. It strikes me as ludicrous that a gay couple should be able to enjoy legal benefits that, say, a pair of widowed sisters, living together with children of one or both, could not enjoy. There are any of a number of “households” that exist that will likely never qualify for “marriage”- unless we extend it to mean any two or more adults who decide to get together for an indeterminate amount of time and occasionally occupy the same domicile. So, rather than broadening the legal concept of marriage, would it not be better to remove the state from marriage altogether? The state can go ahead and do whatever it wants with “unions”, “households”, “couples”- for purposes of taxes, inheritance, pensions and benefits. But let’s reserve marriage to the churches, synagogues, mosques and temples. Allow a religion or a denomination to define marriage according to their scriptures and traditions. Allow the Catholics a Catholic marriage, Muslims an Islamic marriage, and let’s get the State of New Jersey, or Alabama, or Nevada out of the church’s (or synagogue’s or mosque’s) business.
Larry, I agree with you that this essay raises a red herring which is that the civil debate should be separated from the theological debate. What in effect the author is saying is that the religious can not bring their arguments to the public forum, but that the non-religious can bring their arguments. Of course, I don’t expect an atheist to be moved by an argument premised upon revelation, but that shouldn’t preclude me from making the argument and encouraging my government representatives to adopt my argument into law. That’s democracy!
The second concern that I have with the essay is the implication that there is a faith community truth about marriage and there is a civil society truth about marriage
Sorry, clicked to soon. The second concern … . The truth is one.
#3, I agree with you that the government does not have an interest in regulating who chooses to live with whom, but the government does have an important duty to regulate all marriages which by defintion have as their end procreation whether those marriages actualize procreation or not. Common sense and all the data suggest that it is in the best interest of children to be raised by their biological fathers and mothers in intact homes. It is good public policy to encourage strong marriages since it is in the best interest of society to have spiritually healthy children.
Siler is a liberal urban Baptist whose former congregation was removed from membership in the local Southern Baptist association. The Baptist opposition to any connection between church ad state goes back to the Baptism schism from the Church of England in the early 17th century. Lacey’s history of marriage notes that the church began to regulate marriage in the 11th century and the Church of England courts continued to deal with issues of marriage (and probate) well into the 19th century. The Church continues to issue marriage licenses in England though there is a parallel registry system.
In America the royal ecclesiastical prerogative assigned to the royal governors authority over marriage and probate and the fees from licenses was a significant part of the governor’s income – and one of the few sources not controlled by the colonial legislatues. This income was one reason – according to Mills’ _Bishops by Ballot_ for the overt opposition of the royal governors to the proposals for an American bishop before Independence.
The French Revolution anticlericalism was spread all over Europe by Napoleon and resulted in the goernment taking authority over marriage from the church.
#6)
Perhaps I did not go into sufficient detail. I would fully agree that society has an interest in keeping families together (indeed, one of the issues is that with governments involved in marriage, divorce is too easy). All I am saying is that the definition of “marriage” should be left in the hands of religious communities, and that the state should not borrow sacramental wording for something that in its view is a dissolvable legal contract, and then take the further step of imposing the state’s definition on the church. Let’s face it, we are about 15 minutes away (not literally, but it could happen at any time) from a church being sued for refusing to perform a gay wedding. And 1st Amendment notwithstanding, I am not sure that the suit will be thrown out of court. Or having some state pass a law that will require all ministers who are licensed to perform marriages to perform them upon demand for anyone with a marriage license.
I think there is an even better question: should the government get out of the business of legalizing marriage? The business of legalizing a family is as old as a bride’s dowry. The government no longer needs to license and regulate what has become the personal choice of two people. If the government stops issuing marriage licenses, the church can decide its marriage standards and rubrics without fear of government interference / pressure.
Sounds like a great answer to the problem.
-Jim+
The answer is so very simple. The civil union provides to those who so engage with those benefits of the secular world. It is not longer properly called marriage, bucause THIS word includes the sacramental, which the st ate cannot touch. So clear is this distinction that the disjunction between civil unions and marriage now has the status of law. Talk about a radical proposal: Call civil unions civil unions and call marriage marriage. The first is controlled by the Constitution and t he second is controlled by the churches. ONe goes to the town office and signs a civil union license which grants all those benefits. One goes to church and signs a marriage license which certifies that this man and woman have participated in a sacrament.
Why is this so difficult? Because the *&%+#@ homosexual lobby wants to have its cake and eat it too, and it wants even more to stuff its power to dominate in the faces of those it hates. New word: Heterophobia, a form of socially sanctioned bigotry. It’s hard to imagine, that a three or four per cent minority can swing the whole dog under it cringes to escape another swing. Larry
Civil society has an interest in promoting marriage. Good marriages are good for society. Civil society has no compelling interest in promoting civil unions. Individuals are already quite capable of contracting their relationships. Civil courts will enforce contracts and that is the sum total of interest a society has in voluntary unions. Marriage is of a different kind. The stability of marriages has a deep effect on the stabilty of society. We are already beginning to see that the no-fault divorce laws made divorce too easy and some states are beginning to re-examine their laws.
At this point I think churches are well protected by the 1st amendment. It may be that minsters will give up their right to be state agents, but so what.
The government has an interest in protecting civil unions, or a partnership, because it is the cheapest form of the welfare state.
Since most of the arguments against homosexual marriage are based on the pieties of faith rather than evidence, let churches be religious and decide not to marry whoever they don’t choose to marry. Let the needs of the state be separate.
There are good reasons to keep property between two people (rather than three or four), in part because of simplicity and human nature. Polygamous societies tend to be more violent , less egalitarian, and more tyrannical.
I think plenty of gay people would give up the idea of marriage if they thought it was a matter of equality. Let the churches be exclusive, and let the democracy be fair. People have a right to love who they wish.
[blockquote]The government has an interest in protecting civil unions, or a partnership, because it is the cheapest form of the welfare state. [/blockquote]
That’s true. The question is whether same-sex relationships demonstrate the same stability, statistically, as heterosexual relationships.
[blockquote]Since most of the arguments against homosexual marriage are based on the pieties of faith rather than evidence,[/blockquote]
And most of the arguments in favor are lies and frauds.
[blockquote] let churches be religious and decide not to marry whoever they don’t choose to marry. Let the needs of the state be separate.[/blockquote]
Well, gosh, isn’t that just an argument straight from a fundamentalist’s play book, prior to, say 1975. While the fundies were living pure lives and ignoring the larger culture, religious liberals in the 60s were engaging politics, as I’m certain John Wilkins knows and supports when the issues go his way.
In the meantime, it is becoming more and more clear just how toxic “gay liberation” is to society. It kills everything it touches. The lies, manipulations, oppressions and obscene behavior of gays are making more and more clear why societies, across religions and across time, have generally rejected, or at least controlled, same-sex practice.
#11: It may have an interest in promoting the sacramental marriage, but they have no official – that is, civil – power to do so. The First Amendment forbids such interference. That this promotion should be carried on, however, explains why civil society has a real interest in civil unions, for their promotions will allow marriage, properly so-called, t o be carried on without interference by liberal agendas.
to be sure, churches can marry whom they will – regardless of number. Christian churches may NOT marry whom they will because of scripture. Now, TEC is not a christian church, so they can marry whatever sex and number they choose. The state however, can refuse to grant a civil license to such unions if it chooses because such unions do not promote marriage properly so-called. The refusal of that civil license means that the “married” people have none of the civil benefits. If that were the case, fewer homosexuals would undertake to marry since it would make the civil license impossible.
This seems quite reasonable: The state rules that those who homosexuals who marry will not be granted civil licenses, and it is in the best interests of the civil state so to rule. Would such a ruling violate a homosexual’s civil rights? Indeed, it would not, for the homosexual would have perfect freedom to acquire a civil license. However, marrying first would cross the state’s genuine interest and the civil license could be withheld – or for that matter revoked. To take such an approach would solve a lot of problems. The state cannot protect marriage directly, but it CAN protect it indirectly. Larry
“In the meantime, it is becoming more and more clear just how toxic “gay liberation†is to society. It kills everything it touches. The lies, manipulations, oppressions and obscene behavior of gays are making more and more clear why societies, across religions and across time, have generally rejected, or at least controlled, same-sex practice.”
this is, of course, without any sort of evidence. It’s just bias. A personal perspective.
Words Matter: you are a better, more Christian, purer, more perfect, less sinless, person who knows Christ as someone who is like Jesus. I, however, am a sinner. You are in heaven. Good for you. I admire your cleanliness and perfection. Fortunately, God’s grace is powerful, even for a lowly sinner like me, who isn’t as good, or as perfect as you are.
Wilkins, I would offer you as evidence for the toxic effects of homosexualist dogma. The hate you evidence for orthodox Christians on this blog is a long-standing witness against your “liberal” religion. Certainly, your own sect is dying at an increased pace, kidnapped, dragged to a theologically wilderness, raped, and is now being strangled to death.
It’s one thing for you to play church on Sunday morning in your pretty robes. But in the real world, tell the college adminstrator fired for standing up to the gay brownshirts there’s no evidence. Tell the Canadians dragged into the Star Chamber of the “Human Rights Commissions” there’s no evidence. Tell the business in Canada and now the United States sued for refusing to support sexual perversion there’s no evidence.
Of course you know these things, and lacking the honesty to deal with them, you go all sarcastic with me. It’s what we expect from a lib-prot preacher boy backed into the corner and faced with something other than his sick, twisted ideologies.
And for more evidence of toxicity, read the juvenile, disingenuous, hate-filled comments by homosexualists on this thread.
http://www.getreligion.org/?p=4204#comments
Well, Words. you provide evidence that people have gottne fired for what they believe. That’s too bad. You don’t provide evidence for what “toxicity” is. I can’t tell. Do people get angry? Yes. In blogs? yes. We end up saying things we wouldn’t say in person, sadly.
I do think that it has infected you given the tone of your comment.
Was I sarcastic? Yes, a bit. But you do think you are better than me, don’t you? All dressed up in my pretty robes? With my sick and twisted ideology, whatever it may be?
Words – I don’t want you to have a gay relationship with anyone. If you were to be in one, yes, it would be perverted. But let others make the decision for themselves. That’s all. If you want to talk about the destruction of society, perhaps you might want to consider the likes of Mr. Maddow and others who frauded millions of their dollars.