It's important to trace the history of marriage within the Western Christian tradition to understand the ironic conundrum with which Americans find themselves today.
Early Christians in the first through third century understood marriage to be a union between one man and one woman created by God as a consummated partnership described in Genesis 2. Early Christian leaders, such as the Apostle Paul, explained that marriage was more than just a union between two people. It was an act of worship that pointed to Christ's sacrificial relationship with the church (Ephesians 5). Therefore, marriage was not about a contract or a financial engagement as had been the custom for centuries prior, but a sacred union that should reflect God's love. Christ turned the accepted cultural norms about marriage on its head.
Later, in the fourth century, Constantine, the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity, instituted Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. This act formalized Christian customs and grew the responsibility of the Roman church, which over time became formally responsible for performing weddings.
It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century that the recording of marriages and establishing of rules for marriage became a function of the state. Martin Luther, the Catholic priest who initiated the Reformation in Germany said that marriage was a "worldly thing ... that belongs to the realm of government." A similar opinion was expressed by John Calvin, his Swiss counterpart. Calvin and his colleagues reformulated Christian marriage by enacting the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, which imposed "The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage" as valid.
By the 17th century, many of the Protestant European countries' governments were responsible for instituting marriage.
English Puritans who rejected the Church of England's view of marriage and immigrated to America in the early 1600s, believed that marriage was a civil contract, not a religious ceremony. The law they instituted required that marriage be "agreed" or "executed" (not "performed" or "solemnized") before a magistrate, not a minister. They also legalized divorce if the terms of the marriage covenant were broken. These customs became the model for marriage throughout New England. Other parts of colonial America followed different traditions -- Virginians followed the Anglican view of marriage, Quakers brought their own version to Delaware, and Catholics instituted their belief in Maryland and other states.
Unlike its European counterparts, which instituted civil marriage in the 18th and 19th centuries, the United States left the issue of marriage to the states. Marriage was not codified until 1996 through the Defense of Marriage Act. In fact, marriage today resembles a mélange of western Christian marriage traditions within a federalist system.
Since 2004, six states have granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire New York, Vermont and Washington, D.C.). Washington and Maryland recently passed laws to grant same-sex marriage licenses, which voters may overturn in November. In California, same-sex marriage could be legally performed between June 16 and Nov. 4, 2008, until voters passed Proposition 8, which prohibited it. As of May 8, North Carolina voters passed a gay marriage ban. To date, 12 states prohibit same-sex marriage by statute and 30 by state constitution. On May 9, President Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to express his support for the legalization of same-sex marriage.
How did we get in this quagmire?
Were it not for the Protestant Reformation, marriage would not be considered a civil institution today. Had Christians followed the early church's example, marriage would never have been thrust into the realm of the government at all.
In light of this, Christians find themselves in an ironic and divided situation. As citizens of a secular country they must be licensed by the state to validate a practice that is rooted in a religious belief. Should this be the case? Should a practice rooted in a Judeo-Christian faith even be under the auspices of government? If marriage had been left to the church, the church could marry those who practice and follow its beliefs. Civil unions among same-sex couples could be left to the government, providing the full range of civil liberties citizens in a democracy expect. The fact that marriage is governed by the state, defies its purpose intended by God for heterosexuals and prevents civil liberties from being granted to same-sex couples.
Granted, 17th century Puritans viewed the government as agents of God's authority, but they never could have foreseen how non-Christians would want to use a Christian practice as a political right.
The sanctity of marriage, as defined in Genesis 2, would be best preserved if marriage were left to the authority of the church. Instead, most Bible-believing Christians find themselves defending a religious practice that was never designed to be governed by a secular institution.
James Wharton: Who Died and Made the Church God?
For instance, Augustine argues in his On Marriage and Concupiscence that for human beings in general the natural goods of marriage are the goods of procreation and fidelity, and he suggests that only for believers is there also a sacramental good. This is not a turning of marriage on its head; it is placing a crown on its head.
Similarly, while Aquinas does say that from the perspective of excellence the sacramental good of marriage is primary, he immediately clarifies that from the perspective of what is “essential” to marriage the natural good is primary. For Aquinas the sacramental good of marriage purifies and elevates the natural goods but it can never be separated from them or opposed to them. Aquinas writes that “it is clear that ‘offspring’ is the most essential thing in marriage, secondly ‘faith,’ and thirdly ‘sacrament’, even as to man it is more essential to be in nature than to be in grace ..."
See more on this at http://matthewtuininga.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/dont-believe-the-media-christians-have-always-viewed-marriage-as-a-fundamentally-natural-i-e-secular-institution/
Marriage isn't sacred. It's a human institution. It's changed over the millennia and from society to society. It's not any church's property and they have no right to try to bend secular law to their beliefs.
It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century that the recording of marriages and establishing of rules for marriage became a function of the state."
--------------------------------------------------
You do realize this "timeline" is pathetic, don't you ?
"...Over time became formally responsible" can mean anything, including "they didn't recognize marriages officiated by anyone else". So what ?
EVERYONE, including non-Christians, got married between the 4th and 16th century. Or would you say they didn't ? :))
On the other hand, you seem to disregard the fact that your religion is and WAS not the only one. Do you mean to tell that in the "over time" interval, marriages officiated by other religions were not valid ?
Or will you soon find yourself "defending a religious practice" from Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and every other religion ?
Marriage was never meant to be a religious practice (you notice this phrase the same wealth of arguments you used in your article = 0 ).
A very poorly written article. It would benefit from some kind of references and from some clear and objective information.
Is this not one of the reasons that gay people want a legal marriage?
---
Throw the Jew down the well.
And the Muslim.
And the Buddhist.
And the Hindu.
And the Agnostic.
And the Atheist.
And, of course, the Gay.
What are you planning for non-Christian citizens of the United States? A pogrom?
Two other points I'd like to make:
(1) churches already have the option of not recognizing marriages they don't approve of.
(2) seeing as some churches *do* approve of same-sex marriages, taking the government out of the picture still wouldn't put a stop to same-sex marriages.
In practice Christians did not follow the early church's example for most of the last 2,000 years.
" The fact that marriage is governed by the state, defies its purpose intended by God for heterosexuals and prevents civil liberties from being granted to same-sex couples."
If Civil marriage has been the law for 200 years, as the author admits, that might mean that strictly speaking, marriage IS a civil matter. It's the religionists that are trying to appropriate it for themselves, in defiance of history.
The purpose intended by god, according to you. God isn't mentioned in our marriage laws. Nor it is "intended" for heterosexuals. Any man and any woman can get married; heterosexuality isn't required. Nor Sex. nor Children.
NOR religion.
It isn't god that is preventing civil liberties from being granted to gay people. It is moralizing, busybody Christians trying to mold secular law into their versions of "sin" that are doing that.
It's a word (con) game you people play. you pretend a careful distinction between the person and behavior, allegedly loving the sinner but not his sin, the "good Chrstian" way of saying "Here's my middle finger". But when it comes to rights and civil liberties, that distinction evaporates. When talking about marriage, job security, or renting an apartment, suddenly the Bible declared “it’s a sin”.
And sinners don't get rights. Well, gay sinners don't. Newtie can commit adultery on his third wife iwth his potential fourth, despite the sins of divorce and adultery, and you won't say a word.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
"Marriage will be better if marriage is not marriage anymore."
The debate over marriage has nothing to do with civil liberties. Anyone can marry under the same restrictions as anyone else. The debate is over whether marriage continues to serve a unique purpose in society.
Same-sex marriage activists do not believe so.
Therefore, their view is anti-social.
But let us not be anti-social.
Let's support society.
Let's support marriage.
Here's an idea: Let's support reality. Let's support fairness. Let's support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Sheesh...
Yes, they can. However, a subset of a subset of society wishes to marry someone of their own sex. This desire not being fulfilled is not a violation of civil liberties or of the equal protection clause. While I understand that you do not like marriage as it is now, the point that any homosexual can marry in any state of the Union and receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-sanctioned matrimony is legitimate.
Thank you for taking the time to respond, even though we disagree.
People can live in stable relationships without marriage. 50% of marriages end up in divorce. In fact, many non-marriage relationships last longer than your median marriage.
People can have babies and raise families without marriage. Close to 50% of all children are born outside of marriage.
From the state's point of view, Marriage is fundamentally a legal partnership between two individuals establishing a form of kinship. The benefits to society are minimal.
And thank you for the even-keeled tone of your response. There is really too much belligerence, it seems, on this website.