My friend, Bruce Reyes-Chow, wrote a post recently arguing that the government should get out of the marriage business. And I agree with him. Sort of. I think that the Church should get out of the marriage business. Basically, I think it's a sinful practice that clergypersons act as agents of the state when they form legal contracts by enacting marriages that the government recognizes. If the church quits performing legal marriages, then the government can get on with the business of equalizing marriage rights in our country for same sex relationships, and churches can perform sacred rites for whomever they want. In other words, let's build the wall of separation higher.
In 2008, after the passage of Proposition 8 in California, I blogged about my support for gay and lesbian persons and their right to be married. If there's one thing I've noticed in the time since, it's been how few people paid attention to the nuances of my position. So I thought I'd take the opportunity to write a bit more about it now.
It is very odd to me that in the U.S. clergy act as agents of the government at weddings. In my state, for instance, the bride and groom apply for the marriage license at the county court house, but they don't actually sign the license. Instead, it's signed by a member of the clergy and by two witnesses. And, of course, without the clergy signature, it is invalid.
When I talk to pastors and priests about this, almost all of them express extreme discomfort at this situation, for it actually requires the clergyperson to act as an extension of the state. And that conflicts with the theology held by many pastors, Calvinist and Arminian, Protestant and Catholic.
The reason for their discomfort, of course, is that in both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, those in the roles of priests and prophets have used their position to challenge the governing bodies. But once you are an agent of that body -- which you are when you legally marry two people -- you lose some integrity in that prophetic role.
Further, the clergyperson is potentially at the beck and call of the government in this role.
And most problematic, from my perspective, is that the clergyperson, with the stroke of a pen, makes legal a contract that s/he has no ability or potential to end. And having gone through a divorce, I can tell you that extricating oneself from the legal contract that is marriage in our society is no mean feat. And the clergyman who married us was, understandably, not around to help unravel what he had helped establish.
I say all this to underscore what a strange thing it is in our culture that pastors, priests and rabbis, who would otherwise proudly proclaim their independence from the government, regularly act as agents of the government at wedding ceremonies.
Were we to separate legal and sacramental marriage, it would solve all sorts of problems, not the least of which is the growing discomfort that many of us have that legal marriage is available only to some responsible adults who are in monogamous relationships. To recapitulate in short what I've written in the past:
Here's an analogy: As Christians, we don't agree with the production of pornography, for it generally degrades women and debases the beauty of human sexuality. But we don't continually protest against it, and we surely don't legislatively fight to have it banned. Why? Because we consider the First Amendment right to free speech to be more important. When we put it in the scales, we believe so strongly in the First Amendment that we are willing to live with pornography.
I say the same goes for same-sex marriage. Many Christians may not like it, but our desire for people to live chaste, monogamous lives should outweigh our distaste for homosexual sex (which, quite honestly, is what most Christians disagree with). In other words, I'm asking Christians more conservative than I on this issue to consider living with legal same sex-marriage in order to encourage monogamy among gay and lesbian persons.
And to reiterate, this will not implicate any church's position on whom they sacramentally marry, if clergy stop performing legal marriages.
So, what do you say pastors (and priests and rabbis)? Will you join me and refuse to legally marry people?
A version of this post was originally published on Tony's Theoblogy.
Follow Tony Jones on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@jonestony
Charles Franklin: Support for Gay Marriage Continues to Increase
Tony Jones on Christianity and the Emerging Church - The New ...
Emerging church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Five Streams of the Emerging Church | Christianity Today | A ...
The way marriage works now is that it is a contract (highly specific) that is applied to all people. It is based upon state law. No one besides the state government can marry anyone. Do not believe me? Try to get married in a church or synagogue without any government license. A ceremony is not something that provides any weight when it comes to the law. Two children could have a marriage ceremony, but that does not mean that the union is recognized by the state.
More what I find to be hilarious is that the dope who wrote this article is actually calling for the government to become an enforcer of morality more than it already is.
The government has no place in marriage other than to serve as the authority that can make ruling about the union contract. It is not up to the state to determine that the only valid union is one that lasts forever or is only between two parties. Religion can impose moral crap like that. The government does base anything on morality (or at least it should not).
The ability to marry comes from the state. No place else. I am finishing up my application to confirm my citizenship for a European nation and I needed to provide my parents marriage certificate. I had to go to the county registrar to get one. I could not go to any religious group if a marriage existed.
Marriage/unions are a legal concept first. There is a huge moral component (mostly religious in nature; Jesus said only two partners for ever so that is how it is going to be, even if Mohammad was all cools with polygyny.)
The ability to create a legal union only exists in the government. In other countries it is actually given power in religion (through supposedly non-binding arbitration hearings based on religious doctrine.) That is not the case in the US. Nor should it ever be. The state makings rules regarding contracts and only it can enforce it.
Maybe you missed that part.
It's about time someone pointed out that marriage should be a civil/state institution, and it's the church that should be out of it, not the other way around.
http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usnj&c=words&id=14346
This is a well thought out comment. I agree with you on this. I think I am on the other side of the argument then you, I am against gay marriage. But, I have no issues with legal unions for same sex couples. What they are doing is wrong in the eyes of God, but they are still people and deserve to have similar civil rights as a straight couples. But, "marriage" as a term is a religious union and I feel strongly that it needs to stay that way. If you look and MOST religions, especially Christianity, homosexuality is a sin so it cannot be supported. So lets stop arguing about marriage and let religion have its sacred term and allow non-religious people to have civil-unions.
There is a reason for that. Prop 8 was passed by a majority of the people who voted for it- the majority of people in a state that has been brushed with the broad stroke of being full of hippies, progressives, tree huggers and gay sympathizers. Religious organizations do not own the legal system and did not decided that the gays cannot legally marry.
If gays want to have the legal right to be married then they need to win the hearts and minds of the majority- even as unfair as that sounds. Pushing your position down your opposition's throat will not make things happen any more than hope and change will.
It really should, inclusion of a 3rd wheel (even if it is "god") would only hurt the marriage. Marry based on mutual understanding of each other...not based on mutually shared interest in "god". The former is a deeper bond. The same way a marriage between two people who understand each other would probably outlast a marriage between two people who share a love for Apple Ipad