Someone with some sense!
Gay marriage is a hot and controversial topic in the US. In my view, marriage needs to be distinguished from similar civil contracts enacted by the state. The following article from USA TODAY says as much, but more eloquently.
By Oliver Thomas
Want to break up this summer's family reunion a little early? Mention gay marriage. Some of the cousins, citing the Hebrew scriptures, will call it an abomination. Others, citing the Biblical command to love our neighbors as ourselves, will say it's the proper arrangement for couples of the same gender who love each other and had no choice over their sexual orientation in the first place. Whatever your take on the subject, gay marriage may be the most divisive issue to face America's faith community since slavery. The latest opinion polls bear this out. A CBS poll in June showed 30% of Americans favor allowing same-sex marriage, 36% against and 28% favoring civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.
(Illustration by Alejandro Gonzalez, USA TODAY)
Here's something else to consider. While California and Massachusetts have declared same-sex marriage a legal right, a razor-thin majority of one judge rendered each of those decisions. Other states like New York, and Washington as well as the federal government have rejected gay marriage as a legal right. And, although some commentators in the wake of the California decision have declared the issue to have been more or less resolved, it's far more likely that conservative religious leaders are gearing up for a protracted battle that could even affect the presidential election.
James Dobson of Focus on the Family, whose radio listeners number in the millions, once called the battle over gay marriage "our D-Day or Gettysburg or Stalingrad." Do we now expect him to cut and run? The same could be said of Texas megachurch pastor John Hagee, who proclaimed, if the prohibition against gay marriage falls, "you can kiss this country goodbye." Extremes? Perhaps, but the point is that our nation remains deeply divided with seemingly little hope for consensus.
Sending marriage to church
Despite the yawning divide between the supporters and opponents of gay marriage, there may be common ground here. Consider this: Doesn't the U.S. Constitution separate church and state? In most ancient societies, it appears that the institution of marriage was conceived by religious communities, not the state. Even the ancient Code of Hammurabi suggests this. For the western world, it is Genesis (not the Magna Carta) that first declared that for this cause a man "shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
The state's interest in marriage derives from marriage's obvious benefits to the broader society. Marriage creates more stable relationships and families, more financial security and a better environment for the rearing of children. All of these are desirable things in which the state has a legitimate interest. Thus, married couples must enter into a binding civil contract that can only be dissolved by order of the court. But again, these are merely civil concerns. They do not go to the heart of whether or not a marriage exists in the truest (i.e. religious) sense of the word. Even today, some religious communities such as Orthodox Jews require a religious document called a "get" in order to dissolve a marriage. A civil divorce, albeit legally required, is insufficient and will not enable the couple to remarry within traditional Jewish law.
Given the state's legitimate, though limited, interest here, shouldn't all couples - be they gay or straight - be given the same civil contract with all the attendant legal rights and obligations? After all, legally committed couples provide the same financial and familial stability, be they gay or straight. In short, everyone who wishes to marry could be given a civil union agreement from the state. Whether a couple goes on to have a wedding ceremony would be up to them and their church. But the thing that would be enforced (or dissolved) by the state would be the civil agreement.
Theologically, this puts marriage back where it belongs. Constitutionally, it protects churches from having the government dictate to them which relationships they should or should not sanction. Finally, this sort of arrangement would be much easier to handle administratively, as couples could simply go to the County Clerk's office and sign their civil union agreements in a matter of minutes. Current practice strains the patience of the parties and blurs the church-state line. Couples must purchase their marriage license, take it to a minister, rabbi or other official recognized by the state who must then perform their ceremony, fill out the license and return it to the courthouse for filing.
The middle ground
Liberal-minded Americans should like this proposed arrangement because everyone gets treated the same, and the state deprives no one of his or her rights based upon sexual orientation. If a gay couple is denied the right to marry, it would only be because their religious community denied it, in which case they could turn to a church or synagogue that would consecrate their marriage.
Conservatives should like the arrangement because religious institutions will not be forced to recognize relationships that they feel are contrary to the teachings of scripture. Nor will they be forced to call something "marriage" that to them plainly isn't. At the same time, the proliferation of domestic partnerships would create more familial and financial stability.
There is, of course, the natural law argument that because procreation is the key aspect of marriage, gay couples should be disqualified. But, remember, this isn't a "marriage." It is a civil contract. Second, if procreation were our primary concern, current law wouldn't allow the elderly or the infertile to marry. But we do. Partnership, not procreation, is the primary feature of current marriage laws.
Two distinctly different paths lie before us. On the one hand, the nation can continue to fight. Indeed, California voters may overturn their high court's decision as early as November when a state constitutional ban on same-sex unions will appear on the ballot. I spoke with retired Mormon college professor Gary Lobb recently who said his church is conducting a campaign from church pulpits to overturn the decision. The Catholic bishops have also denounced it. Depending on which side turns out more voters, a similar initiative on the Florida ballot could tip the outcome of the entire presidential election.
But there is another path - one that requires compromise, but not the surrendering of principles. All it requires is for some wise state legislators to take the First Amendment seriously enough to get their state out of the religion business and put marriage back where it belongs.
In the church.
Oliver Thomas is a minister, lawyer and author of 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job).
By Oliver Thomas
Want to break up this summer's family reunion a little early? Mention gay marriage. Some of the cousins, citing the Hebrew scriptures, will call it an abomination. Others, citing the Biblical command to love our neighbors as ourselves, will say it's the proper arrangement for couples of the same gender who love each other and had no choice over their sexual orientation in the first place. Whatever your take on the subject, gay marriage may be the most divisive issue to face America's faith community since slavery. The latest opinion polls bear this out. A CBS poll in June showed 30% of Americans favor allowing same-sex marriage, 36% against and 28% favoring civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.
(Illustration by Alejandro Gonzalez, USA TODAY)
Here's something else to consider. While California and Massachusetts have declared same-sex marriage a legal right, a razor-thin majority of one judge rendered each of those decisions. Other states like New York, and Washington as well as the federal government have rejected gay marriage as a legal right. And, although some commentators in the wake of the California decision have declared the issue to have been more or less resolved, it's far more likely that conservative religious leaders are gearing up for a protracted battle that could even affect the presidential election.
James Dobson of Focus on the Family, whose radio listeners number in the millions, once called the battle over gay marriage "our D-Day or Gettysburg or Stalingrad." Do we now expect him to cut and run? The same could be said of Texas megachurch pastor John Hagee, who proclaimed, if the prohibition against gay marriage falls, "you can kiss this country goodbye." Extremes? Perhaps, but the point is that our nation remains deeply divided with seemingly little hope for consensus.
Sending marriage to church
Despite the yawning divide between the supporters and opponents of gay marriage, there may be common ground here. Consider this: Doesn't the U.S. Constitution separate church and state? In most ancient societies, it appears that the institution of marriage was conceived by religious communities, not the state. Even the ancient Code of Hammurabi suggests this. For the western world, it is Genesis (not the Magna Carta) that first declared that for this cause a man "shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
The state's interest in marriage derives from marriage's obvious benefits to the broader society. Marriage creates more stable relationships and families, more financial security and a better environment for the rearing of children. All of these are desirable things in which the state has a legitimate interest. Thus, married couples must enter into a binding civil contract that can only be dissolved by order of the court. But again, these are merely civil concerns. They do not go to the heart of whether or not a marriage exists in the truest (i.e. religious) sense of the word. Even today, some religious communities such as Orthodox Jews require a religious document called a "get" in order to dissolve a marriage. A civil divorce, albeit legally required, is insufficient and will not enable the couple to remarry within traditional Jewish law.
Given the state's legitimate, though limited, interest here, shouldn't all couples - be they gay or straight - be given the same civil contract with all the attendant legal rights and obligations? After all, legally committed couples provide the same financial and familial stability, be they gay or straight. In short, everyone who wishes to marry could be given a civil union agreement from the state. Whether a couple goes on to have a wedding ceremony would be up to them and their church. But the thing that would be enforced (or dissolved) by the state would be the civil agreement.
Theologically, this puts marriage back where it belongs. Constitutionally, it protects churches from having the government dictate to them which relationships they should or should not sanction. Finally, this sort of arrangement would be much easier to handle administratively, as couples could simply go to the County Clerk's office and sign their civil union agreements in a matter of minutes. Current practice strains the patience of the parties and blurs the church-state line. Couples must purchase their marriage license, take it to a minister, rabbi or other official recognized by the state who must then perform their ceremony, fill out the license and return it to the courthouse for filing.
The middle ground
Liberal-minded Americans should like this proposed arrangement because everyone gets treated the same, and the state deprives no one of his or her rights based upon sexual orientation. If a gay couple is denied the right to marry, it would only be because their religious community denied it, in which case they could turn to a church or synagogue that would consecrate their marriage.
Conservatives should like the arrangement because religious institutions will not be forced to recognize relationships that they feel are contrary to the teachings of scripture. Nor will they be forced to call something "marriage" that to them plainly isn't. At the same time, the proliferation of domestic partnerships would create more familial and financial stability.
There is, of course, the natural law argument that because procreation is the key aspect of marriage, gay couples should be disqualified. But, remember, this isn't a "marriage." It is a civil contract. Second, if procreation were our primary concern, current law wouldn't allow the elderly or the infertile to marry. But we do. Partnership, not procreation, is the primary feature of current marriage laws.
Two distinctly different paths lie before us. On the one hand, the nation can continue to fight. Indeed, California voters may overturn their high court's decision as early as November when a state constitutional ban on same-sex unions will appear on the ballot. I spoke with retired Mormon college professor Gary Lobb recently who said his church is conducting a campaign from church pulpits to overturn the decision. The Catholic bishops have also denounced it. Depending on which side turns out more voters, a similar initiative on the Florida ballot could tip the outcome of the entire presidential election.
But there is another path - one that requires compromise, but not the surrendering of principles. All it requires is for some wise state legislators to take the First Amendment seriously enough to get their state out of the religion business and put marriage back where it belongs.
In the church.
Oliver Thomas is a minister, lawyer and author of 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job).