The New Hampshire Legislature approved revisions to a same-sex marriage bill on Wednesday. If Gov. John Lynch signs the measure into law, the state will become the fifth in New England and the sixth nationally to allow same-sex marriage.
Lawmakers have been working on the bill for months; gay-rights supporters hope the latest changes will ensure it becomes law. The changes further emphasize that by legalizing gay marriage, the state will not impinge on the religious freedom of those who do not believe in it. Mr. Lynch, a Democrat, has indicated he approves of the latest revisions.
First the Governor will veto the bill, the legislator will not be able to over-ride it, so the State Supreme Court will over-turn the veto.
Well, that’s what’s happened in every other New England state!
The governor signed it.
I can’t believe how far down the sewer New England has gone in the just the last few decades.
Jim, surely you jest?
For one, “every other New England state” cannot possibly include Rhode Island, which has not yet acted on SSMs (though it is in the works). Secondly, in Maine, Governor Baldacci did sign (which is why GLBT activists are making such a big deal about it being the first state to legalize by full, legitimate legislative process – and not by judicial fiat – though there is a veto referendum in the works). Thirdly, I’ve not heard that the courts were at all involved when the Vermont legislature overrode Governor Douglas’ veto. And fourthly, I’ve also not seen anything to suggest the court decisions in Connecticut and Massachusetts had anything to do with threatened vetoes (though Gov. Rell did threaten a veto of proposed legislation).
Do you base that little zinger on anything, or do I just file it under H for “hyperbole”.
Do the words “moral cesspool” ring a bell?
It is a shame that NH chose to take this route. I am sorry that they decided to follow the crowd and act immorally. I will keep their government in my prayers that they will reverse this terrible decision.
The only rational decision for a country that is not a theocracy and which has no state religion is to remove the issue of marriage from the state altogether. Marriage should be affirmed as a religious institution and the state should stay out of it. What now is defined in law as “marriage” should be relabeled as a “civil union.”
Any persons who want their domestic relationship recognized before the law should be required to have a civil union performed by a civil official. Anyone who wants to be “married” can go to their respective place of worship and speak with their respective clergy person and ask to be married. That decision will then be up to the religious body without respect to state law.
Under the mercy,
John
Folks on this site will still be complaining about the “immorality” of SSM long after all 50 states allow it. At least you’ll make an interesting footnote in the history books so that future generations will have a chuckle at your expense.
Of course, Ad Orientum is absolutely correct and his formulation save us all a great deal of useless dithering. What the state does has its own dynamics and is unrelated to how we, as Christians organize our rites and obligations. I simply do not care what the state calls a “marriage.” My concern is how my Church perceives the estate. In all this hoopla, I have never seen the first hint that any legislature, any court, any person, thinks that they can force a Christian (or, for that matter any other religious institution) church to abandon its doctrinal requirements on the attributes of a religious marriage. All the hissy-fits in the world won’t change the fact that religious marriage has never been at issue in any of these secular/political discussions.
Jric777– Prayer, yes. However, this is a “lives, fortunes and sacred honor” situation. Time to show the risk-taking of which early Christian martyrs were made. In addition to prayer, how about letter-to-the editor writing, appearing steadily before local government bodies, organizing a local bloc of Christian, Moslem, Jewish and athiestic parents and others in charge of children? And, of course, when homosexualist lesson plans/instruction turn up in the schools, stand up, take it to the PTA, withdraw the children if necessary, find alternatives. Throw political heat on politicians who support the homosexualists. There is always passive resistance, refusal to pay some state and local taxes. There is incarceration. Certainly, there is withdrawing from churches which, passively or actively, enable the spread of homosexuality among the cutlure and our children and grandchildren. In this regard (and I left the Episcopal church in ’03), I have yet to understand those who know what is right and Biblical, but continue in Episcopalism. This includes the dear elves and director of this blog. Things have moved far beyond where they are: there is no longer any effective “fighting from within” — not when state legislators and governors, suported successfully by such churches, impose their standards on our families.
Richard Hoover: are you aware of any church that has been required by the state to conduct a same-sex marriage (or a man/woman marriage for that matter)?
Marriage is a creation institution, antedating the Fall into sin. Because of this, the Church has always recognized marriages performed by civil authorities as valid marriages, and it has had a ceremony to bless a civil marriage. The Church has also recognized that the marriages of members of other faiths, or of no faith at all, are valid marriages. The Church has also taught that marriage should ideally conform to the standards given in Scripture, since these standards are the Creator’s design for marriage. The Church has always sought (though not always in the best ways) to have the laws of the various nations in which it exists to conform to God’s teachings on marriage, since God’s design is what will produce the best and happiest families, even among non-Christians.
To split marriage into Church-performed and Church-recognized marriages on the one hand and state-performed and state-recognized civil unions on the other would save us a lot of grief. We would not have to do the hard work of making concerted efforts to lobby, teach, debate, etc. We could simply do our thing, and let the state do its thing.
Such a division of Church life and state life has never occurred in the history of the Christian faith. Christians have always believed that being a Christian had implications for citizenship. And taken to its logical conclusion, to divide relationship into marriages and civil unions, each one performed separately by its respective authority, would lead to such nonsense as a person simultaneously in a civil union with one person and a marriage to another person. Do we really want to do that?
There are ways of requiring and requiring.
The pressure for acceptance will be termendous and will require the Christian, who want to remain true to the faith, to withdraw from participating in secular life. This is something that most of us have not had to do, but if you want examples look to the Orthodox Jews or Amish in this country or Christians in Saudi Arabia? Are we willing and able to withdraw from the world like that?
Can you imagine Churches not recognizing the validity of secular marriage and requiring remarriage as a Christian? Can you not think of all the ways that secular anti-descrimination and hate crimes legislation can be used to coerce acceptance and to force the Churches to bow to the secular culture? How about the lose of tax exempt status? To say that the Churches can’t be brought to heel as 8 suggests is not the whole story, because there are ways even if indirectly.
And don’t forget those clerics and Church members who believe that the Church should follow culture. We generaly recognize secular divorce without giving it a second thought for example.
NoVA Scout
While I am not aware of a clergy person being required by the state to perform a same sex marriage or to bless one, there have been instances of wedding service providers (such as photographers, reception halls, etc.) being sued by same sex couples for not providing the service to them.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
13, and that could be applied to church parish halls if those are rented out or otherwise made available to the public.
Why is this so difficult to understand? The state cannot make marriages because marriages are spiritual in fact and in substance. The First Amendment keeps the state out of marriage. It must be so.
The state can regulate civil partnerships precisely because they are civil. When Vermont and (now Cal) separated the civil partnership from marriage properly so called, they did not create two different kinds of marriage or two roads to the same end. The clear intent is was to separate the civil from marriage (or the sacramental) and this genie cannot go back into the bottle. The civil partnership is an agreement; marriage is a transformation. The civil partnership signs papers; the marriage exchanges vows. The rule is straightforward: the state can guarantee civil benefits but it cannot create marriages; the religious institutions can marry but they cannot entail civil benefits. This restructuring is entirely even handed since they apply to homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. There is no separate-but-unequal to this. There is no other rational solution to this.
The civil and the religious have been separated and must stay that way. So there are two routes with different ends: One takes out a civil partnership license and receives the benefits the state provides. The couple goes to a church or religious institution, exchanges vows, and receives such spiritual benefits as this provides. Why is this so difficult? Civil marriage has simply become a contradiction in terms.
It is interesting that the liberals, who cite the First Amendment at the drop of a hat, suddenly can’t see or understand its application when their own agenda is effected.
Homosexuals can marry right now if they choose and the state can neither stop nor foster them. Religious institutions can marry whom they please if their canons permit it, any number or any species indeed. It has always been so, and TEC will make this pretty much a uniform practice. Larry
9.
Richard,
It was your choice to leave the Episcopal Church. It is my choice to stay. There is much work to be done and if no one is here to do it then the fight is lost. I choose to stay and hopefully go to seminary after my graduation from college. We must stand up and honor the will of God by fighting against the dilution of His Gospel. If the Episcopal Church is allowed to continue in this way, then we have not done our jobs as Christians. The propagation of God’s kingdom is of utmost importance. We have to make sure that His word is taught correctly and not diluted to justify sin.
In Christ+
jric777
Friends– I made my earlier pitch as a grandparent, with children in view. Children don’t know the difference between secular and religious marriages. Mostly, they know only what they are told in school, what they see of the culture. In terms of protecting our children and safeguarding their (our) future, I don’t think that the homosexuality issue and the defense of marriage can be met by a retreat to the church bastion (certainly not to the bastion of the Episcopal Church). It’s not that tidy: some future New Hampshire legislature will go there too, one way or another, looking for our kids. If we are not yet at the point where we must withdraw(see Brother Michael) we are surely at the point where we must put up a good public fight. Best.
16, by all means stay and resist, but don’t ignore reality and do so with your eyes open. To which Episcopal seminary will your Bishop allow you to go? TESM or Nashotah House?
18.
Honestly, VTS or possibly Sewannee.
Larry Morse in #15 says [blockquote] Why is this so difficult to understand? The state cannot make marriages because marriages are spiritual in fact and in substance. The First Amendment keeps the state out of marriage. It must be so. [/blockquote]
If that is so, then why is there a service in the ’79 BCP for the blessing of a civil marriage? I will admit that such a service is not in the ’28 or ‘1662 – but I will reiterate that the Church holds marriage to be a creation institution, and that civil marriages are valid marriages even if not blessed by the Church.
Where do you get the idea that a marriage can only be properly a marriage if it is conducted by a priest of the Church. When I was studying at VTS, our liturgics professor emphasized that marriage is valid no matter who conducts it, state or Church, and that this had been the view of the Church down through the ages.
Add to this the idea that whatever the state says is legal means that it is right and good for the culture at large, and the dividing of state civil unions from Church marriages becomes a font of nonsense and chaos.
The more the state holds itself apart from God, the more it will become a ravening beast that will destroy its citizens. Soviet Russia, for instance.
Wow! New England’s a moral cesspool because of gay marriage? That’s really good to know. Graft and political corruption in New England began as soon as the Mayflower pulled into Plymouth. It’s been alive and well for several centuries now. This week Sal Dimasi, former Speaker of the Massachusetts House was indicted on a substantial list of federal charges. He is the third speaker in a row to face federal charges. And lest we pick only on the Commonwealth, there was good old Buddy Ciance, former mayor of Providence RI who did significant time in the “gray bar hotel” for federal racketeering charges. Let’s not forget the amazing list of public works boondoggles paid for by the people of New England and all the other taxpayers of America, like the Big Dig, brought to you in large part by the entire Massachusetts congressional delegation, especially Teddy Kennedy. The Church, state, and number of prominent individuals and institutions were so successful in circumventing the laws against slavery that it is now suggested that much, if not most, of New England’s economy was dependent upon the slave trade (which was officially illegal in all New England states). And the discrimination against just about every group present in New England’s history: first the Native Americans, then the Catholics and Jews, then the Blacks, then the Irish, the Poles, Italians, then the Hispanics (I know I am leaving someone out) is so legendary that when black professional athletes used to end up on a Boston team, they called it “being traded way up south!†One need only view some of the news reels from the Boston School Busing days to see the wonders of New England’s history of race relations. Even now, for instance, there are numerous places where one can be stopped and harassed for “driving while blackâ€. There have been wonderful and notorious criminals and crimes in New England, not all committed by elected officials, as well as alarming trends in such things as sexual promiscuity among children, the rise of gangs, drug use, and gambling (both legal and illegal) that help New England stand out above the rest of this nation . A recent study indicated that New England is the least religious section of the US. Moral Cesspool? D’you think? But it’s all attributable to legalizing marriage between people of the same gender. Hmm. I thought it was the repeal of the blue laws that kept the sale of liquor on Sundays and stores opening on Sunday before noon illegal. One more thing, if churches could be sued for refusing to solemnize marriages, RC’s Episcopalians, and the Orthodox, who will not perform marriages for divorced persons with the approval of their marriage tribunals, bishops or other ecclesiastical authorities, would be sued daily. As far as I know, no one has ever sued a church because they could not use the parish hall.
The next to the last sentence in my comment should have said “without the approval” ‘Sorry
“As far as I know, no one has ever sued a church because they could not use the parish hall.” 21, That’s because up to now that hasn’t been declared discriminatory against a protected class.
Re #11
Hakkatan (& etc.),
While mostly historically accurate your post ignores the fact that United States is not a theocracy and has no state religion. We are a religiously pluralistic society. What you seem to be calling for is conformity of the secular law on marriage to scripture. I don’t see how that is possible without crossing major constitutional boundaries.
The state is not mandating TEC or anyone else accept civil unions. That is the decision of TEC. As I noted in my comment, each church body will be able to decide for itself who it will marry and who it will not. If TEC’s theology demands it accept civil unions then that is on TEC not the state. And I do not think it is a compelling argument for the continued blurring of the lines between church and state which affects other religious groups.
[blockquote] Because of this, the Church has always recognized marriages performed by civil authorities as valid marriages, and it has had a ceremony to bless a civil marriage. The Church has also recognized that the marriages of members of other faiths, or of no faith at all, are valid marriages. [/blockquote]
This is not true. It [i]might[/i] be true of TEC. But it historically is not true of the Church. Marriages which contradict the teachings or canons of the Church have never been recognized by the Orthodox Church or the Romans.
The suggestion that a church might be put in the position of marrying someone in a civil union with someone else is silly, unless of course the church chooses to do that. I put absolutely nothing beyond TEC. But I am confident most other churches would not agree to do such a thing.
Br. Michael asks…
[blockquote] Can you imagine Churches not recognizing the validity of secular marriage and requiring remarriage as a Christian?[/blockquote]
Yes I can, quite easily in fact. Not all churches have the anything goes theology of TEC. Generally speaking the Roman Catholic and Church and certainly the Orthodox would not recognize the sacramental nature of marriages that are inconsistent with church canons or teachings. In Europe where what I propose is already the norm, people routinely are married (I prefer the term “civil union”) by the state and then go and get a religious service if they so desire later. No church is obliged to accept civil unions as religiously valid against their wishes.
As for overt state coercion of churches to alter their beliefs to conform to modern society I don’t see it happening. The First Amendment is still on the books. Beliefs to the contrary seem more than a bit paranoid. But on the off chance that I am wrong; the day the state, backed by the courts, tells the Orthodox Church it has to marry two guys or girls is the day I book a one way flight out of the country.
As long as churches in the USA remain independent of state or federal funds they will always be free to follow the dictates of their beliefs, even if they are viewed as discriminatory by society at large. It was not until Bob jones University was receiving federal funds in the form of guaranteed student loans that they got in trouble for racial discrimination.
The United Methodist campgrounds had trouble with barring the use of their gazebo for a union ceremony by a lesbian couple because years before they had declared the property a public right-of-way to avoid paying property taxes and later had declared it available to everyone to use in exchange for a state funded program which provided them money for repairs and maintenance. You cannot receive public funds and discriminate.
The folks running into the issues mentioned by Phil have had businesses in cities or states where the business licensing and public accommodation laws bar discriminating based on gender or sexual orientation and not necessarily laws that provide for domestic partnerships, civil unions or legal marriage of same sex couples.
But if you do not wish to serve a particular client, there are ways to be unaccommodating or unavailable without screaming from the rooftops that come hell or high water you will not serve a protected class of folks. Stupid is as stupid does.
#20. Why the civil marriage in the BCP? Because the issue had not been forced as it has been now. Over the past centuries, this scarcely-considered jumble that “marriage” represented was allowed to stand because there was so little reason to challenge it. But Vt. and Now Cal have separated the two, quite clearly and distinctly. And the intent is perfectly clear: There are civil partnerships and then there is marriage properly so called. Not two routes to marriages or two different kinds of marriage. The BCP is simply out of date (if it was ever relevant to begin with).
Are you married? Did you get married because you wanted to inherit or visit your spouse in the hospital? Or did you get married because you were in love – and if love is not a spiritual condition, then the west has been fooling itself for centuries. If you are married, take a way the civil benefits, would you still feel married?
Of course you would. But take away the spiritual elements and leave only the civil, would you then still feel married. Indeed you would not.
Where did I say that a marriage had to be done by a priest in a church? I never said any such thing. But it mus be done by an institution with some sort of religious standing since the very word “vows” suggests beyond a doubt what the transformation consists of.
“Add to this the idea that whatever the state says is legal means that it is right and good for the culture at large, and the dividing of state civil unions from Church marriages becomes a font of nonsense and chaos.” The very notion that whatever a state says is legal should NEVER mean that it is automatically good and right for a culture. Now THIS is a font of nonsense and chaos, and I do trust that the rest of those reading this passage felt their skin crawl at this declaration of the state’s absolute power to rule what we are permitted to think. This is frightening. And an excellent reason to separate the state from the spiritual absolutely.
In the long run, the First Amendment either will be enforced or it won’t. Marriage is an affair of the spirit, a consecration; do you not believe that? In short, the rules have changed, but neither the courts nor the legislatures have paid attention to the distinction yet.
L
Ad Orientam wrote [blockquote]While mostly historically accurate your post ignores the fact that United States is not a theocracy and has no state religion. We are a religiously pluralistic society. What you seem to be calling for is conformity of the secular law on marriage to scripture. I don’t see how that is possible without crossing major constitutional boundaries. [/blockquote]
Yes, I am calling for secular law to conform to Scripture. If Scripture is God-breathed and authoritative, what it says about human relationships is true – whether or not anyone believes what it says. In point of fact, the laws of the West are founded on the essential outlook of the Bible – that is why bigamy is illegal, for one thing. Over the centuries, a lot of non-biblical stuff has crept in, but the Ten Commandments and many other biblical principles lies behind the legal system of the West.
To say that, however, is not to say that Christians have no other thing to say than, “It says in the Bible that …, therefore our law should say ….” If, as I believe to be true, the principles given in Scripture for human interaction and society are indeed how fallen and fallible human nature is supposed to work, then there will be plenty of logical and empirical arguments to be made as to why the law should follow the teachings of Scripture (and we need not point out that they are Scriptural – only that they are indeed what works best).
I am not saying that we should be a theocratic nation. I am saying that we, as Christians, have plenty of reason to argue for the goodness and justice of what we know to be biblical teachings on the ordering of society, and that, as citizens of a democracy, we have every right to make our case.
I am also saying that laws which do not follow the basic biblical principles will not, over time, be what is best for society. Certainly, we can save ourselves a lot of trouble if we let the government do what it wants – but society will pay for our lack of standing up for biblical values and principles.
Larry Morse, I am not saying that it is a good thing that people regard what is legal as what is moral – only that they do so. Many people are not believers in the Lord Jesus, and even many believers are ignorant of basic teachings – and so they will follow the herd. When the state adopts principles contrary to God’s revealed wisdom, it has assented (ignorantly but truly) to things which will imperil its well-being. To have the state say that all manner of relationships may now receive the civil rights and privileges of marriage will indeed save us the trouble of having the make the case from logic and empirical means that marriage is properly reserved for one man and one woman. To allow the state to do so, however, will not save us from the consequences of violating God’s principles.
Yes, marriage is a spiritual thing, and as a believer, I got married expecting God to be in our marriage and to be with us to enable us to be married in the fullest sense. The civil blessings that come with marriage are there (even if the state is ignorant) to protect the relationship and to carry out its purposes, including being a secure place in which to raise children. But, again, marriage antedates the state; the state has simply sought to regulate and support something it inherited from a beginning lost in the mists of pre-history. We who know the Bible know that marriage is a creation institution, but the state only knows that marriage has always existed, albeit with a number of different expressions.
We allow the separation of marriage and civil unions at our peril – and not only ours, but at the peril of everyone.
Will B, I have lived in Massachusetts for the last two decades. I know how corrupt New England is. To have all of New England (except RI, for now, at least) recognize same-sex unions as having the same moral worth as heterosexual marriage does not plunge New England from perfect moral rectitude into the hogwallows of turpitude. It is, however, a huge and glaring step further along the path of a decaying society.
I sometimes think that those who advocate the propriety of same-sex sexual relationships are, perhaps unconsciously, taking advantage of the fact that a great proportion of those who were born after 1945 have kicked over the moral traces and have been casual about their own sex lives – and so feel that they have little room to protest, having also violated sexual norms and advocated changing them as they did so.
Re #27
Hakkatan ,
Sorry but when we start legislating our religious beliefs we are heading down a slippery slope. The separation of Church and State must be enforced rigidly. Once we legitimize legislating our faith what is to stop someone from doing it to us? Where do we draw the line? Is it OK to legislate Christian values but not Muslim? What happens if Muslims or atheists gain a majority in the legislature? What about Mormons in Utah? Do they get to legislate their faith?
This is very dangerous ground you are treading on my friend. Once it becomes OK for the church to meddle in matters of state it becomes impossible to keep the state from meddling in the affairs of the church.
For my part I remain committed to the Constitution in matters of governance. I will let the Church preach morality.
In ICXC
John
(Cognitive Dissonance: A staunch monarchist with libertarian sympathies)
Ad Orientam said, “I will let the Church preach morality.”
So what are legislators, especially those who know and love the Lord Jesus, supposed to do? Observe what the Church teaches in their personal lives, but legislate as though God and his principles and precepts did not exist?
As citizens, we have every right to advocate and work for our values being both the general structure and the particular laws of our land. We are foolish if we think we can do so simply by saying, “I support this law because it is what the Bible teaches,” but we can certainly advocate what we believe to be best for society by making the necessary arguments from logic and evidence. If we are persuasive, godly values will be enacted into law, without necessarily being labeled as godly. If we are not persuasive, ungodly values (or less godly values) will be enacted, and we will have to live with the consequences. That is the nature of the political process.
The Constitution forbids the State from telling what the Church what to believe. It forbids the Church from issuing edicts which must become law. It does not forbid Christians from working in the political process to advocate for their own values.
Jesus is lord OF ALL. If he is not, I can see Christians ignoring their rights to work for godly values – but if he is indeed Lord of all, we are duty bound to work as best we can to have godly laws – because they are true and because they are best for all.
A question for Larry Morse: in separating religious marriage from civil unions, do you intend that they be entirely separate, or would you want the Church to require a civil union before performing a marriage? If you mean by “entirely separate” no requirement for civil unions before marriages in church, then chaos will ensue. A person could be in a civil union with one person, and in a marriage with another.
If, however, you mean that the church should require a civil union before a marriage ceremony, as in France and other places in Europe, then much less so. My comments above are based on utter and total separation, which was what you seemed to be advocating – but I may have misunderstood what you meant.
No, you have not misunderstood me. There should be an complete separation, and indeed, that is precisely where we should be now.
Can one get married without first obtaining a civil partnership license? Of course, but why would one want to do so? Lacking such a license, would the marriage be less a marriage? No. Can one get a license for a civil partnership and avoid getting married? Of course. This is what happens now. But it is not a marriage because the first amendment forbids the state’s intrusion therein. Could a person be in a civil partnership with one person and a marriage with another. Sure, just as one may be a part of a LLC and be married. A civil partnership is like any other partnership: It is a legal device to secure certain kinds of civil benefits. But a civil partnership is not a union, properly so called, that is, a joining together in a physical, mental and moral transformation. This had better NOT be in the state’s power.
Civil union, like civil marriage, has become a contradiction in terms. There can be no civil union, only civil partnerships, precisely BECAUSE they are civil. Would you ever called a corporation a union? Obviously not, and for the same reasons. This redefinition of marriage, a long time coming, has clarity, rationality and constitutionality on its side. To allow “civil marriage” is to perpetuate the old confusion, and to this extent, marriage properly so called is damaged.
I might add, Hakkatan, that the whole left wing push for ssm has ignored many matters of substance that do indeed damage marriage properly so called. The first is this: Is it wise or socially desirable to create legislation that institutionalizes sodomy? Does making it legal make is a cultural good? Who will defend sodomy as a sound practice, a cultural good, an additional piece of diversity that must be accepted? I submit, that the civil marriage business, in so institutionalizing, substantively damages marriage because it substitutes sterility for fertility, substituting that system of intercourse (that evolution has spend countless millennia perfecting)
for a practice that can only be called aberrant, utterly counter to the survival of the species. Larry
Larry –
Let me get this straight. If I understand you correctly, marriage as you hold it is only possible when a) two Christians enter into it, and b) when it blessed by the appropriate ceremonies of the Church by a valid minister.
A civil partnership is an arrangement recognized by the state which grants certain privileges (tax filing, hospital visitation rights, medical decision rights, etc) to the members of the partnership. I gather from what you say that this state-recognized relationship may or may not involve sexual relations, and may or may not involve children. And you do not seem to advocate a binary relationship – so I am I right in assuming that in your view a civil partnership could be among three or more persons?
If I am understanding your position on marriage correctly, only Christians can be married. That makes me wonder about husbands and wives prior to the existence of the Church. Were Joseph and Mary married? Zechariah and Elizabeth? Adam and Eve?
My conviction is that marriage is a creation ordinance, given to humanity as the sole arena for sexual relationships and the rearing of children before humanity’s rebellion against God in the Fall. Having been instituted before the Fall, it is for all humanity, not simply for the people of God. To the best of my knowledge, the Church has always recognized the marriages of two Buddhists in Japan, two animists in Java, or even a harem in Arabia as true marriages, even if deficient in all that God intended for marriage to be. They have not been blessed by a priest of the Church, but they are still marriages within the institution that God established for all humanity. Marriage is a gift of common grace, and not inherently and only of sacramental grace is another way to put it – but of course a Christian couple is wise to receive a blessing from the Church when they are married. It is the most fitting thing to do.
Let me get this straight. If I understand you correctly, marriage as you hold it is only possible when a) two Christians enter into it, and b) when it blessed by the appropriate ceremonies of the Church by a valid minister. (From Hakkatan)
I don’t understand this, Hakkatan. I said nothing about restricting marriage properly so called to Christians. What I said is as true of Muslims or atheists. Either may receive a civil partnership license and enjoy the benefits that the state provides. Presumably, atheists would wish no more. But they are not married, for this is a spiritual transformation wherein a state may not interfere.
Now if they wish marriage properly so called, the clearest route is through a recognizable religious institution. But can two people marry themselves because they say they will? Sure, I suppose, but my guess is that for this transformation to take place most surely, there must be a mediator, a transmitter through whom the unifying power can flow. But cannot two people use their own intense love to accomplish the same end. Once again, I guess so – if it works. But marriage properly so called has a CONTEXT – a religious one – as the ceremony, rooted in continuity with the past, reenacts the ancient bond, and all watching are the witnesses thereto.
Now, Hakkatan, I have not thought this through clearly, and yet, I can see t hat such a notion of marriage is rooted in a deep truth,
older than any church, which binds a man to a woman so that evolution’s deepest behests are carried out – and mind you, I see evolution as God’s intelligent design, for I do not see how it can be viewed otherwise. Larry
I am sorry, Larry, if I puzzled you. I am just trying to figure out what you mean by “marriage properly so called.” I must have missed the definition you gave earlier somehow. What you are calling marriage does not fit in with what I have learned about marriage either from a theological or a sociological definition. The 1662 prayer book refers to three purposes for which God instituted marriage “in the time of man’s innocency.” First, as a means to procreate and raise children (and in the case of Christians, for these children to be raised in “the fear and nurture of the Lord.”) Secondly, marriage was instituted as “a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication.” Thirdly, marriage was given for the “mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other.”
When I talk about marriage, that is what I am talking about – a lifelong union of a man and a woman for those three purposes. (Of course, our culture currently ignores the second purpose in its exaltation of sex for pleasure, but even with that, most people believe in faithfulness within marriage.) “Marriage properly so called” seems to be something different, or to add some other dimension – and that dimension seems to be more subjective than objective. The 1662 statement is objective, while referring to the subjective aspect as well.
Can you help me understand what you are talking about? Your desire to separate church marriages from state civil partnerships would make more sense to me if I knew.
Hakkatan: Because this has been moved to a back page, our discussion is probably dead. And yet. Your persistence is asking for clarity has been both helpful and useful to me. I wish that Kendall had been able to keep this alive on the front page. Our debate seemed to be potentiallly very fruitful, especially because it has forced me to examine my arguments to find the means for clarity. I am sorry that this has to be left incomplete (for all practical purposes). Still, your critique was worthwhile and I do hope that this subject will come up again so I can spell out with greater care what it was I was arguing. Larry