Marriage: Civil and Religious Union...Not Vs.

Do we Americans merely pay lip service to the question of separation of Church and State as set forth by our Constitution? With the question of marriage, it seems we do. The struggle for marriage between people of the same gender has become a battle to give or deny equal rights to gay people. One side will win that battle, yet it will not win the war because the deeper issue is the convenient disregard for the separate and distinct roles played by the State and the Church in uniting people in couplehood. This should not be a battle of straight vs. gay, but a matter of sticking to the letter of the Constitution - which, if done, will ensure equal treatment to all under the law.

The Church's and the State's separate involvement in the process of marriage should automatically bifurcate that process: one process that is under the aegis of the State and one that is presided over by the Church, both to be considered and conducted separately. In theory, they already are. In practice, we have veered from our constitutional mandate and have made the processes, if not one single process, two symbiotic processes which, for straight people, might as well be called one - which, in fact, for straight people is called one. So, to begin with, it might help to allow for a differentiation in the nomenclature pertaining to couplehood in re-establishing a clear difference between the civil and religious processes. In other words, be clear about what couplehood involves, and call it what it is.

The State's role in couplehood is as provider of certain benefits peculiar to any and all people living as partners in a domestic relationship. A couple has a special tax status, rights of survivorship, a say in health care decisions for a partner/spouse, etc. The Church, on the other hand, provides the frame for a holy sanctification of a union between two people. The Church process is what we traditionally call "marriage," and is none of the State's business. The State's only concern should be guaranteeing that two people recognized as living in a domestic partnership get the benefits of a couple. The history and component parts of the couple aren't what matter. What matters is simply living together in couplehood. In fact, the word "marriage" should never appear in State documents because "married" is only one form of couplehood . "Civil union" or "domestic partnership" is more appropriate terminology. On the other hand, the Church's job is to determine whose marriage God would bless. So, the Church is the one you've got the gripe with when there is resistance to people of the same gender being married. Take it up with your religious leader, not your congressman or senator. "Marriage" is the business of the Church, and no politician or government official should have any jurisdiction in the question of "redefining marriage."

Some supporters of gay marriage claim that a mere civil union isn't enough to make gays feel fully enfranchised, that they must be allowed to be married. In cleaving to our constitutional mandate, we are compelled to be civilly united and/or religiously/spiritually united - and we should have two names for the two separate processes ("Yes, we've been joined in the Church, but we haven't gotten our civil union yet," or "Yes, we're civilly united, but we haven't gotten around yet to being united in the eyes of God")? Separation of Church and State calls for the possibility of official recognition both from the State via a civil union, and from the Church via holy dispensation for a union. Those people who oppose gay marriage but consider allowing civil unions want to maintain that distinction for gays by allowing them a civil union but denying them the possibility of a religious union - of being "married." However, those same opponents are happy to flout the Constitution and make no such distinction for themselves.

Church and State work together to make hetero-marriage a single process: you go downtown to get your marriage license from City Hall, and then you take that license back to your house of worship as the green light for the second part of the process. The melding of the two distinct processes yields one appellation: married. Yet calling a couple "married" does not accurately define them. A couple joined in a civil ceremony is fundamentally different from a couple joined only in a Church because the Catholic Church, for example, will not recognize a couple as married in the eyes of God until a marriage ceremony takes place in a church. The State would tell a couple who exchanged vows in a yurt in the mountains of Nepal, "Come get your marriage license, and then we'll call you married." The question of gay marriage has revealed that "married" does not work well as a catch-all descriptor. In fact, let's forget gay marriage for a minute. Straight people need to interpret the Constitution more accurately for themselves.

It is interesting that in divorce there is still recognition of the separation of Church and State. When a Jewish couple marries in a synagogue, there is sometimes a katuba, a marriage contract. When the couple wants to divorce and break that contract, religious officials review the case and decide if they will give a get to break the contract. The couple might manage to get a civil divorce decree, but the State's decision to dissolve that marriage does not necessarily make the katuba null and void, and the couple may remain married in the eyes of the synagogue. Two separate parts to that union - civil and religious - as proven by a divorce. And while the Catholic Church might say it recognizes a divorce rendered legal by the court system, essentially the Church does not. The Church maintains that the partners in the divorcing couple may never again marry in the Church. In other words, the Church never disavows the sanctity, integrity, and validity of the first marriage, even if the State does. (The Catholic Church demands an annulment for a second marriage to take place.) Again, two separate parts to the dissolution of couplehood. Why should there not be two separate parts to its creation, for everyone? And different naming for the two processes increases the likelihood that everyone will get treated equally under the law.

By the way, as in marriage, so in divorce a couple should be responsible only to the body or bodies that presided over the union. The State will preside over the dissolution of a civil union in a divorce court, and will adjudicate over matters like distribution of assets, alimony, etc. However, if no civil union ever took place, a couple should not be obliged to submit to the adjudication of the State in a divorce because the State will never have recognized the two people as united and will never have allowed them the benefits of a civil union.

A lawyer commented to me that we brought our law over from England, a country which had no separation of Church and State, and yet we pretend to have a separation of Church and State in the United States. We live in denial, he believes, about our legal system looking to religion to make our civil law, and that given the historical precedent, following the Constitution on this point is a very hard thing to do. Maybe so, but that does not mean we ought not follow the letter of our fundamental democratic blueprint. After all, we now have universal suffrage precisely because we realized that not all citizens were receiving equal treatment under the law. We have ample precedent of giving up long-held tradition in order to uphold the Constitution.

Make it simple: If you want the benefits provided to couples by the State, you have to have a civil union, whether you're gay or straight. If you want a religious or spiritual blessing, you seek that from your place of worship, whether you're gay or straight. When we adhere to the Constitution's mandate of the separation of Church and State, we can be clear about what each body's business is in the process of uniting people in couplehood. We will also find it much easier to name the separate and different processes, and to understand what a couple is doing under whose authority.

Comments

[equalground]

continued from the next blog -

Think of it as a brand name. If you are going to start a shoe company, who wouldn't want the NIKE brand name. For that matter, if you are going to start any company in any arena, who wouldn't want the NIKE brand name. Doesn't need to be the same product to have value to the product line. Basically, they wanted the designation and the designation will get redefined, marketed, and redistributed. Civil Rights and Equality have very litte if anything to do with the decision as evidenced by a dissenting opinion that stated something to the idea that the Black struggle was 100 years without progress, the gay and lesbian legistative struggle was 10 years with exceptional progress and reception. According to the rulling, so much progress was made that the separate disignation of marriage and domestice partnership was indistinguishable as to civil rights and before the law. In fact, one imposed the full rights of the other. So, when people say the designation was needed for civil rights, they have not read the ruling. The designation was needed as a barnd name. Could be an interesting storyline for an article. And all done while unable to establish "immutable rights", which were at the core of the race struggle.

[equalground]

Section VI of the CA Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the State should give both opposite-sex and same-sex couples the designation of "Marriage" or for State purposes to deny the designation of "Marriage" to both. Keep in mind that the court decided that the continued use of Marriage and Domestic Partnership did not deny any civil rights. However, doing so they felt would not satisfy the equal protection laws. Consequently, rather than take your suggestion and use a different State terminology, they concluded that both should use the term "Marriage" because of its lengthy history and that the opponents attach such great importance to the designation of marriage, quote "there can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy..." As well, not holding the designation as a State phrase would not facilitate its full educational value in teaching children. The ruling indicates that without the designation "Marriage" the gay and lesbian couple would not be afforded the full "respect and dignity" necesssary for equality. - conitnued on blog above.

[mcquaid]

I'm with nanobug. This analysis is far too clearheaded and intelligent to warrant serious consideration by our governing bodies. You left out the most important elements of American political discourse - unreasoning fear, mindless envy, uncontrolled rage and most important of all: vague, undefined "feelings").

Please try and do better next time.

[Badbone]

Where in the constitution do you find the phrase, "separation of Church and State"?

No where. The first amendment is there so the state does not favor any one religion over another. It says nothing about separation.

[gaydm]

No it actually bars the state from recognizing or acknowledging ANY religion. It actually makes Government Ignore religion's

[JohnFromCensornati]

"Do we Americans merely pay lip service to the question of separation of Church and State as set forth by our Constitution? With the question of marriage, it seems we do."

Please don't lump me in with the crowd that believes we should legislate based on pleasing the Invisible One.

[drkazmd65]

I have been married (however one wants to define the term) for just over 14 years now. The ceremony was presided over by a Catholic priest (a concession to humor our collective parents), but held in a non-denominational college chapel because neither of us really wanted a religious service.

Afterwards we never bothered to go down to the county clerk's office to pay the filing fee - so our running joke for over 14 years has been,.. we aren't really married in the church's or the state's eyes.

Personally,... I view the point as pretty much moot after 14 years together.

People really need to get over the idea of marriage being a 'religious' definition of a civil union. What business is it of mine whether two people that love each other chose to make the union legal, or religious in nature?

[nanobug]

Your idea makes far too much sense to be given serious consideration in this country right now. Lets hope Democrats gain a working majority, maybe then we'll actually see it gain traction.