Rabbi Elizabeth Bolton was always vexed by the notion that despite the country’s traditional separation of church and state, Maryland gave her – a religious leader – the power to change people’s legal status by signing their marriage licenses. At the same time, the Reconstructionist rabbi from Baltimore was troubled by the state’s laws prohibiting same-sex marriage.
Finally, after contending with her conflicted feelings for years, she decided she had had enough: She told couples she would happily conduct religious wedding ceremonies, but to find someone else to sign their civil documents.
The legalization of same-sex marriage in 2004 in Massachusetts – the only state where such unions are legal – was the tipping point for her. “The incongruity of that not being possible here was heightened. It was the last straw. I finally was able to say with clarity: ‘I really cannot do this anymore,'” said Bolton, the rabbi at Congregation Beit Tikvah.
Bolton has joined a small but growing band of clergy who have decided that they won’t sign any marriage licenses as agents of the state until it allows gays and lesbians to marry. Some rabbis and ministers in states including Virginia, Minnesota, Michigan and Connecticut have told their congregants that when it comes to weddings they are in the business of religious ceremonies – only – and they have redirected couples to the local courthouse for the paperwork.
I’d be interested to hear her idea of what pre-marital counseling should consist of.
This seems like an attempt by a woman who evidently cannot accept the interpretation of scripture that her own religion has used for how many thousand years? She wants to hold marriage hostage until everyone sees it her way. A definate version of the self centered, arrogant, narrow minded “progressive” that intends to hijack her religion. This is an example to me of how TEC has been perverted.
This is excellent news. It means she’s no longer in the marriage business and will probably drive young families out of her congregation. Think of all the couples she will not lead in the wrong direction …
Brian
One couldn’t sit down and design kooks any kookier than some of the Episcopal “clergy” whose amusing theology and politics are recounted on this blog. I’ve quit putting up resistance to my initial gut response – laughter. It’s supposed to make us healthier, right?
[blockquote] they won’t sign any marriage licenses as agents of the state until it allows gays and lesbians to marry. [/blockquote] I have a better idea, one that can be applied to Massachusets. Refuse to sign any marriage licenses as an agent of the state until the state recognizes that a marriage can only exist between a man and a woman.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
I wonder if she ever uses the Shellfish argument…
This how they get it done! This is how they get the press and the focus all on them. It has worked in the past and it will continue to work until we on the other side say, [i]”No more! Go form your own church with a Good Story Book as your guide and blessings on ya. This one has been established and it ain’t changin for your worldly ways to help you feel good about your sins![/i]
DONE!
To be fair, I know priests who agree with the stand of this rabbi, but for reasons unrelated to the argument over same-sex unions. Rather, it is out of theological conviction that they do not want to be “agents of the state.” We had this discussion in seminary, once or twice. Personally, I have not ever taken the step of requiring civil legalities to be completed separately from a couple’s faithful commitment before God; but I will admit that I can see some merit in the argument.
I have always had some discomfort with my function as an officer of the State when I solemnize a marriage and sign the license. My discomfort has gotten more intense, the less clear it becomes that the State means by marriage, something close to what I mean as a Christian and a priest.
It might not be all that bad if, as a consequence of all this same-sex marriage horse-hockey, Christian clergy are removed altogether from the licensing function. As far as I know, in a lot of countries, couples “get married” by the civil authorities according to the laws of the State, and then the Christians, now married, go to the Church for a blessing on their marriage. I have no personal experience with this. Some of you might have.
It would mean a change in our marriage liturgy, in that the Blessing of a Civil Marriage would replace the present service. Instead of dealing with a couple not yet married at the time when they appear before the priest, we would be recognizing that they are already married.
Does any of you reading this have an opinion one way or another? What’s at stake? Help me sort it out, someone.
I agree with Jane Ellen #8, but rejoice that the practical effect will probably be as Brian of MD #3 describes.
#9, I have very dear friends, both strong evangelical Christians who got married in Switzerland 4 years ago. He’s British, she’s Swiss. They had their civil wedding on Thurs night and their church wedding on Sat. afternoon.
Thursday night and Friday were absolutely horrid for the bride. I was staying with her family and she and I spent many hours together, espec. Thursday night. She was married in the eyes of the State, but they had not made their vows before the Lord, and thus they did not feel married. It produced deep confusion. By rights she should have spent Thursday night with her husband. But as a Christian neither of them felt that was right, as they regarded the spiritual service and vows as much more important than the civil ceremony and so they waited until after Saturday night to start their life together and their honeymoon. I will not quickly forget my friend’s longing and tears in the almost 48 hour interval between the two ceremonies and the great sense of confusion that having “two” distinct marriage ceremonies produced.
Honestly, elves, I don’t see the problem with the scenario you recounted. Why not look at the civil ceremony as the necessary preparation for the real marriage? It used to be that when you became betrothed (engaged in modern lingo) the social bond was very strong. You were seen as married in all but the ceremony (which is why Mary was called Joesph’s wife even while they we still only betrothed). And yet it was expected that conjugal relations would wait until after the wedding ceremony. Your friends were only confused by themselves, not by the separation of civil and religious ceremonies. They should have known beforehand what was entailed and what ceremony would be most important to them.
Yeah, I don’t get that, #11. Personally, I would look at the civil procedure as paperwork, and wouldn’t consider myself married until doing so before God. That situation wouldn’t give me a second thought.
No priest…Christian or Jewish (rabbi)…could honestly fail to understand someone’s reluctance to become a tool of the state.
But, honestly, in the American Church, no clergyman is compelled to solemnize any marriage. So, why is this article about anything other than lesbian/homosexual activism? Holding legitimate couples hostage to one’s misguided (and immoral) convictions about the right to solemnize sinful behaviors (i.e. homosexual practices), is the worst form of self-aggrandizement: “I’m above all this; I get to set my own standards for discerning what my duty before God is!”
The priest is not a “tool of the state”. Christian Matrimony subsumes civil marriage, i.e., it is the larger and greater thing. A case can be made for separating the civil and religious aspects into two ceremonies, as in Europe, but it’s equally sensible for a Christian minister (or Rabbi or Imam) to witness the couple’s administration of the Sacrament of Matrimony (in Catholic terms, but you can adapt as needed) and, oh, yes, by the way, do the civil thing as a practical convenience.
As always, a consideration of civil marriage should include consideration of just why the state bothers. What is our communal interest (outside of Faith) in marriage? Then, of course, you can ask how, or if, same-sex relationships fit into the state’s interest.
#15. Words Matter wrote: “…As always, a consideration of civil marriage should include consideration of just why the state bothers. What is our communal interest (outside of Faith) in marriage? Then, of course, you can ask how, or if, same-sex relationships fit into the state’s interest.”
As far as I can tell, that hits the nail on the head.
In an earlier time, we could have said that the State operated on the presumption that men and women marrying, and staying married to each other (their original spouses), and rearing children in homes where both parents were involved in their lives, etc… that it was a more just and well-ordered society when people did these things. It wasn’t identical with Christian sacramental theology, but it was in some way congruent with it.
With homosexuals having made marriage the arena of their Rights campaign it’s becoming really unclear what the State’s interest is, except as far as the State has some concern in administering contract law, or overseeing the sharing or dividing of property when the contract relationship is dissolved.
#16 – actually, it is not gay marriage that has caused the marriage crisis, but such things as liberal divorce laws and companionate marriage. If marriage is nothing more than the state recognizing the fact that a man and a woman has pooled their resources together in a household, then why not same-sex marriage? Indeed, same-sex marriage may very well be inevitable throughout the United States since the working model for marriage assumed by American culture as a whole is the companionate marriage, making the refusal to recognize same-sex marriages a seemingly arbitrary act.
#11:
A friend of mine attended a marriage service that included both a judge (“vested” in his judicial robes) and a priest. First the judge stepped forward and performed the civil wedding. Then the priest stepped forward and married them sacramentally.
It sounded to me like a nice way of making it clear what was the jurisdiction of the state and what was the jurisdiction of the church, while at the same time avoiding that awkward in-between period your friends had to endure.
I agree, Violent Papist (#17), that the behavior of heterosexuals, including Christian heteroseuxal married people, was undermining the presumptions about marriage that I described, long before anyone imagined we’d ever be having a debate about same-sex marriage.
So, if the State’s interest is no longer based on moral assumptions, but just a question of administering contract and property law, then there isn’t a whole lot of reason why the State couldn’t call any relationship, of any two or more people, of whatever sex, for any duration, however long or short… I guess there’s no reason why the State couldn’t define that as a marriage.
Sorry not to get back to this thread yesterday. I was only able to be online quite briefly yesterday morning and then away from my computer all afternoon & evening.
I certainly wasn’t trying to generalize from my friends’ experience to say that civil marriage is a bad thing, just to illustrate one possible pitfall. I’m sure the scenario Ross describes in #18 would have been far preferable for my friends. However it wasn’t on offer. Their civil ceremony had to be performed at the municipal offices during certain hours. So the Thursday evening slot was as close to their church wedding as they could get.
And #13, they too assumed it was only paperwork, etc., except that the local town clerk or whatever had lit candles and she read a poem, obviously wanting to make it a bit more “special” given that many couples never have a church wedding any more, and the brides’ family brought lots of flowers and organized a surprise party afterwards. So it became a much bigger deal than the couple wanted or expected. But even so, my friend told me it wasn’t the poem or the candles or the party, etc. that created her confusion, but being pronounced as “married” by the town clerk. Words have power, and to be told on one hand you’re “married” but then to have to continue to act as if you’re not because you don’t believe the State actually is able to confer authority and blessing of marriage DOES create a cognitive dissonance and tension.
Obviously having no time lag between the ceremonies would make a huge difference. Still, I for one, see great value for Christians in having the “civil ceremony” and “religious ceremony” be one and the same.
–elfgirl
The matter still is fairly simple. First, the rabbi is grandstanding for the liberal cause, as so many rabbis now do. Second, There is nothing to stop her or any other church from marrying homosexuals- unless the church canons forbid it. The state cannot interfere because that would violate the 1st Amendment. When the church marries a couple, they are activating a spiritual alliance of a special sort.
The civil union is no part of this ceremony. When one obtains a wedding license, this actuates the civil union – as we now call it- and these are subject to the constitution, obviously. It is properly called a civil partnership, for it is no different than any other business partnership. It is patently not marriage, which is a spiritual affair and not subject to the constitution.
The civil and spiritual aspects should be separated because they are unrelated and derive their authority from unrelated sources. Why is this so difficult to grasp and institutionalize?
TEC can marry all the homosexuals it wishes and as many as it wishes, if the canons permit it. WE know that TEC pays little attention to scripture, so this hindrance is removed. Should the state recognize it? No, it is not the state’s business. Should all churches recognize such marriages? Obviously not, for many, such a relationship is an abomination. And there the religious matter ends.
The state should only recognize civil partnerships because that is its only legitimate involvement. This matter is easily solved if only we wished to. Larry
Maryland’s marriage law does indeed treat marriage as a civil conract. It specifies that Judges, clerks for judges, and county clerks can sign marriage certificates. About thirty-five percent of opposite-sex couples have ceremonies signed by one of these officers of the state.
#15 asks: As always, a consideration of civil marriage should include consideration of just why the state bothers. What is our communal interest (outside of Faith) in marriage? Then, of course, you can ask how, or if, same-sex relationships fit into the state’s interest.
The state bothers because marriage law solves all kinds of practical, property problems such as rights of inheritance, legitimacy of children as heirs, fair allocation of tax burdens for a household, and recognition of rights to joint decision-making by couples. And yes, these same concerns do pertain to same-sex couples as they do to opposite-sex couples.