Dr. Seitz, one of the pledge’s authors, said that as an academic he does not “do the kind of weddings on a regular basis as someone whose full-time job” is in the clergy. And many of those who have signed his pledge appear to be laypeople, or women in traditions in which women do not perform weddings. Like them, he is mostly an observer, and one of his observations is that we are in “a funny time.”
If marriage moves toward becoming just “a contract between two people, the state can take care of that,” Dr. Seitz said. “And it makes a lot of sense ”” property, custody of children.” But he believes that marriage needs more, and that the state may be weakening, rather than enhancing, the customs and mores that uphold the institution.
Dr. Radner, the pledge’s other author, is on sabbatical in France, which has long separated religious marriage from civil marriage. Seeing the separation up close has only made him more of a fan.
“Just living here made me realize that the church can function rather well,” he said, “and also avoid some of the conflict that we seem to get all embroiled in in the U.S. over sexuality matters, by being somewhat disentangled, practically, from the civil marriage system.”
I have occasionally seen it suggested here in the UK that churches which refuse same-sex ceremonies should be stripped of the right to hold ceremonies which are recognised by the state. As in France a couple would then have to have a civil ceremony and a religious one, usually in that order. It’s possible in France to have them on the same day. The danger is that the religious ceremony is seen as a ‘blessing’; and of course couples can opt for a civil ceremony alone.
A nice try at distortion: “But as same-sex marriage becomes the law in more states — at last count, 35 states”
So-called “same sex marriage” hasn’t become the law in 35 states. It has been imposed, against the will of the people in most, if not all [memory fails me] the states by the Federal courts.