Photo: Here I am officiating my sister Deanne's wedding.
This past December, my wife, Robin, and I celebrated 20 years of marriage. That chilly 1990 December morning at Ocean Avenue Presbyterian Church, before God and our community, we boldly and tearfully exchanged vows proclaiming our commitment to one another in marriage. Oh wait, that wasn't REALLY the marriage, at least not in the eyes of the state. Not until the witnesses and officiant signed our licence were we "officially" married. Religious blessing or not, the civil rights we enjoy because we got hitched did not begin until that license was signed and received by the county registrar.
In my world and understanding of marriage, however, we were married when we exchanged vows and said "I do," and we were joined legally when the license was signed and received. This separation is very clear to me, but our nation's current marriage debates exists because we have confused and combined the two. I am not the only person who thinks this relationship is not only awkward, but constitutionally inappropriate. And while I applaud President Obama's recent decision regarding the Defense of Marriage Act, I for one believe that the government should get out of the marriage business all together.
I offer a few thoughts...
Civil Unions make sense. Our government is responsible for the civil rights of its citizens. Moral codes will always be part of a national dialogue, but the only reason that the government should be interested in the bonds between two people is to regulate issues of taxes, property, contractual obligations, etc. and NOT the religious/spiritual nature of relationship. The civil relationship, should two people choose to enter into this kind of agreement, is purely legal and not about a spiritual bond of marriage.
Defining Marriage is a no-win situation. Let me be as clear as I can be. There is not one "Biblical" definition of marriage. Yes, there are examples of one man and one woman who are married, but even my kids know that there are also examples of marriage that go far and beyond the limits of one. I am shocked when Christian leaders talk about the Bible, especially in a civil context, as if is clear on the subject of marriage. This debate about and continued use of this "Biblical marriage" interpretation to inform civil relationships will lead nowhere and further blurs the separation of church and state.
Marriage is deeply spiritual. First, I know that there are many who believe that marriage as an institution, religious or civil, is a bankrupt social construct. And there are times I see some marriages and kind of agree. But call me old-fashioned, I still believe in the beauty of the institution of marriage. It would be all the better if the government left the marriage part to the religious community In my understanding of Biblical marriage, scripture invites us into deep and intimate relationships with one another, two individuals, who seek to commit their lives to one another, growing individually and together into God hopes them to become. Other religious traditions will bring a different perspective, and barring destructive practices, should be allowed to exercise their marriage perspectives.
I am not an agent of the state. While I do enjoy saying the words, "By the power given to me by..." that is mostly out of nostalgia for the classic wedding experience and my secret desire to be a cop, neither of which is reason enough for me to officiate weddings on behalf of the state. In no other part of my life as a pastor am I asked to be an agent of the state. Yes, I am responsible to the state when it comes to reporting abuse, but even then I do not act on behalf of the state in any other part of the process. This blurring between church and state is a relationship whose time has passed, if it ever had a time in the first place.
So there you have it, my quick thoughts on marriage, civil unions and why the government should leave the marriage life of its citizens to someone else. I look forward to what will surely be a spirited conversation.
This post first appeared on my general blog, www.reyes-chow.com. If you would like to engage in real time, please feel free to reply to me on Twitter via @breyeshow or visit me on my Facebook page.
Follow Bruce Reyes-Chow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/breyeschow
Chris Cassidy: Obama: Down With DOMA
Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
HRC | What the Defense of Marriage Act Does
Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
Obama Decides Defense of Marriage Act Is Unconstitutional, Orders ...
Obama admin will no longer defend federal marriage act in court ...
Obama Admin Moves To Dismiss Defense Of Marriage Act Challenge
Obama drops defense of Defense of Marriage Act : SFGate: Politics Blog
The federal government’s current primary role is providing financial benefits to couples with marriage licenses issued by the states.
The federal government began its involvement in marriage about 80 years ago and its subsidies to couples with marriage licenses have been accumulating over the years. There is no evidence that the institution of marriage is stronger now than it was 80 years ago. There is no indication that federal subsidies have helped strengthened the institution of marriage.
The vast bulk of these subsidies go to our more affluent couples. We could justify ending the federal government’s involvement in marriage with the argument that married couples in need of financial support get very little federal financial support, if any, and that government marriage subsidies go mostly to affluent married couples who do not need it.
Do these subsidies provide incentive for couples to get a marriage license? It is hard to imagine a couple in their twenties and in love deciding to get a marriage license because the wife will be able to collect 50% of the husband’s Social Security when they are in their sixties.
Government should = Civil union/Agreement/Contract/whatever you want to call it. All the "legal" aspects like tax and inheritance and available to all consenting adult couples.
Marriage, on the other hand, should = Private Sector (including, but NOT limited to, Religious Congregations). Purely the ceremonial, symbolic aspect of a couple wishing to announce their commitment to each other, whether officiated by a priest, pastor, rabbi, humanist celebrant, druid priestess, beloved family friend, or simply by the two exchanging vows sans officiant.
To those that say that religion would then "own" marriage, isn't the official stance of the Catholic Church that any non-Catholic marriage is "invalid"? Does that stop anyone outside of the Catholic Church getting married? I can't imagine being concerned because a religion didn't accept my marriage as valid within a congregation that I'm not a part of.
Marriage should, just in my opinion, be an entirely symbolic gesture, completely private and validated only by the commitment of the couple involved (and if they wish it, the approval of their family, religious community, or whatever). I think that's the general idea Pastor Reyes-Chow is getting at.
The main reason I want the government involved with marriage is that I understand there are a lot of people intolerant of gays and atheists and I want to keep the religious from thinking marriage belongs exclusively to religion. Put another way, I want to marry too.
Do you not think I can not meet the love of my life? That I would not want to celebrate the union with my wife in a ceremony like my parents and friends before me? Of course I do. I won't do it in a church, but then again the church isn't what matters, the celebration of our love is what matters.
What is this talk about the spiritual nature of marriage? I don't see it. Or at least to the extent that I see it, it goes back to what some atheists have said about separating the numinous from the supernatural. Without god, one can still have the intimacy and relationship of a marriage. Can't an atheist enter "into deep and intimate relationships with one another, two individuals, who seek to commit their lives to one another, growing individually and together"? Same thing Reyes-Chow said, just no god.
Thanks for making that point. It is so often misunderstood or not understaood at all by those opposed to same-sex marriage.
There's nothing that says two people can't be married within their religion. Two dogs have been "married". Nuns are "married" to Chirst. The dead have been "married".
Simply, if the state isn't involved, it's just a ceremony for whatever reasons those involved might have. A license issued by the state makes it a legal contract. That much can be done with or without a ceremony. There are all the reasons in the world for the state to be involved and very little reason for religion to conduct the ceremony except as a quaint tradition.
Marriage, like other legal agreements, is a contract between two legally consenting parties. the only difference between a marriage contract and other business contracts is that the two parties agree to love each other.
Question: What happens when the two parties have a dispute and seek divorce? What legal recourse do each of the parties have, if there is no government backing their contract? If a marriage is strictly a religious institution, who should mediate a divorce, a minister? What qualifications does he have to perform such duties? What if the parties in the marriage aren't adherents of the same faith? If one is Catholic and the other is Jewish, which church gets to decide the dispute? Which parent gets custody of children? Wouldn't a church just grant parental rights to the party who was more faithful to the church, donated the most tithing, etc.? What happens if two atheists decide to get married? Which church, that they will never attend, should they go to for their wedding?
Marriage being placed solely in the hands of religion is a recipe for disaster. It's an opportunity for abuse of authority. Marriage contracts must be agreements OF the people, so they can be mediated BY the people, and beneficial FOR the people.
Actually, that's not true. there is NO requirement that they love each other, merely an expectation that that is what marriage is about.
The only requirement is that they be able to giveocnsent, they are not already married, and that they are not close relatives.
Today, in the Jewish religion, a Rabbi is not mandatory for a wedding. Here's what you do: Show up before two elders, have the groom say "I covenant you to me in accordance with the law of Moses and holy scripture," and give the bride a gift, usually a ring, that is worth more than ten sheckles.
In the late 1980's this came to mind when the assassin of Prime Minister Rabin tried to marry by proxy so he could get conjugal visits. And in the early 2000s, a 13 year old girl and a 15 year boy did exactly that, then went and had sex. The marriages were both annulled on technicalities.
Most marriages in ancient Israel were arranged by the fathers, and usually was between two first cousins. Think about Jesus saying "Let man not put assunder what God has joined together," and realize this is probably some of the finest sarcasm ever.
And in England, priests were not allowed to marry until 1756.
Before then, the couple joined in the public square, exchanged the "I covenant you to me..." line and were married. Then the families all sat down to a feast. Later, the would meet in the square, exchange vows and then, as their first act as a couple, went to said Mass. So - get the state out of marriage? How about getting the church out of it first? It would be more traditional.