Mawwage!
I was reading a thread on a Christian forum a few minutes ago that debated when, exactly, a couple is married: when they say "I do?" When they sign the legal document? When the pastor pronounces a blessing?
Closing it out, I discovered ladyarkham has been (in my entirely biased opinion) doing a rocking job of arguing for what I think is a sensible view on marriage today on Twitter.
And that's got me wanting to join in, so: what's marriage, anyway?
Credit for the root of this idea goes to engelhardtlm1. But to get there, let me take something of a roundabout route.
So, there's something of a tension in Christian circles as to what, exactly, we are to make of homosexual marriage. On the one hand, Scripture pretty unequivocally condemns homosexuality (without painting it as worse than, say, wrath or jealousy, just in case we started feeling Better Than); how are we to celebrate something God condemns? On the other hand, the government is not supposed to answer in detail to our particular interpretations of God's word; how are we to oppose it without compromising liberty to anyone's claims of moral outrage?
What's to be done?
The answer, I think, rests on a belief that there are things that exist, at a level beyond the government's ability to create them, and that marriage is such a thing. To be sure, not all things fit this category. My citizenship, perhaps, is a function of my relation to government, and government can grant or deny it to me as it sees fit. My tax bracket certainly is such a relation. But my existence, say - that's not a matter of law. That my mother and father are who they are is true, regardless of any legal institution insisting otherwise.
I don't mean to say that the government is entirely disconnected from these things. The government has power in practice to acknowledge my relationship to my parents, or to base its benefits or penalties around this relationship. It can forcibly separate us, or even place me in a new home and declare, "These are your parents now."
But the fact of my parenthood exists beyond these things. Whether the government acknowledges them or not, my parents are - and while it may have power to make us act otherwise, it cannot change the underlying facts.
(Now, the government could change, say, the definition of the English word "parent" - in which case, consider me to be discussing the concept we usually refer to by that word at present. Also, please don't take the above as an argument against, say, the existence of Civil Services, or adoption. It may be that, quite apart from the government's actions, a person can forfeit, refuse, or willingly add on some portion of the parent-child relation. My point is only that these things do not derive their existence from the law. If "parenthood" is too messy around these edges, pick anything else you like - that I am a certain period of time in age, perhaps, or that I was initially given a particular name.)
And there are a number of concepts along this line of reasoning. For an American, I might speak of inalienable rights - rights the government can refuse to acknowledge, sure, but rights that are yours regardless of the law. For a Protestant, I might talk about the idea that Scripture predates the church's acknowledgement of Scripture - that is, that as soon as God speaks a word, it is His word, and that the church and state can neither make it not so nor make anything he has not spoken so.
I say all of this to say: to my understanding, Marriage is such a thing - an institution of Family, not State. The government cannot create it or eliminate it, though it can choose to recognize its existence.
And as it's an institution that either is or isn't, I'm not constrained by a human sense of fairness or governmental construction in my description of it. I believe that marriage derives from the fundamental moral law of the universe, and that its existence (or lack thereof) is as real as gravity. As a Christian, I believe that moral law derives from Jehovah - and He's pretty explicit in His writings that homosexual marriage isn't.
In which case, the state can't recognize it any more than it can recognize square circles - though it could pretend to do both.
But that's my opinion, right? It may be good theology (or may not), but not everything that's theologically true should have the force of law behind it. In particular, there is no clear-cut principle of law to which I can point and say, "The government should recognize straight marriage, but not gay marriage." Which... leaves me back where I started.
So I'd add to that theological foundation a practical model that doesn't need theological backing: government shouldn't recognize marriage. At all. In any form.
No tax breaks. No marriage certificates. No "By the power vested in me by the state of..."s. No gay marriage, no straight marriage - nothing. The government should not find that a legal factor to be considered.
If you believe marriage only exists in male/female cases? You're covered, because there is no government asserting otherwise - only other people, free to believe what they want. If you're pro-gay-marriage and want government "out of the bedroom?" It's about as far out as it can get; if two men want to say they're married, the law does nothing to stop them. And in neither case is it essential that you believe marriage is some kind of inherent function of reality - but if you do, this fits.
Everyone wins.
All of this ties back to that original question: when are you actually married? And I think the answer is, "When you both assert that you are." I don't think government can create marriages, but I don't think becoming an ordained minister magically grants that power either. Heck, from what I understand, the rule of "You say you're married? You're married," held up until about the 1300s in Europe. Then the church noted a distressing tendency for men to make this declaration in private - say, in beds - and then forget about it promptly afterwards. Their solution was to make the institutional church's public acknowledgement a necessary component - and while I can see that as wise, even now, I don't think that's a good practice that can be elevated to the level of moral need.
So I plan to have a legal certificate when I marry, and a minister presiding, and an "I do" - and I plan for all these to coincide neatly, because people who come to a wedding deserve to see what they came for, doggone it - but I think it's only the last that does the job.
Closing it out, I discovered ladyarkham has been (in my entirely biased opinion) doing a rocking job of arguing for what I think is a sensible view on marriage today on Twitter.
And that's got me wanting to join in, so: what's marriage, anyway?
Credit for the root of this idea goes to engelhardtlm1. But to get there, let me take something of a roundabout route.
So, there's something of a tension in Christian circles as to what, exactly, we are to make of homosexual marriage. On the one hand, Scripture pretty unequivocally condemns homosexuality (without painting it as worse than, say, wrath or jealousy, just in case we started feeling Better Than); how are we to celebrate something God condemns? On the other hand, the government is not supposed to answer in detail to our particular interpretations of God's word; how are we to oppose it without compromising liberty to anyone's claims of moral outrage?
What's to be done?
The answer, I think, rests on a belief that there are things that exist, at a level beyond the government's ability to create them, and that marriage is such a thing. To be sure, not all things fit this category. My citizenship, perhaps, is a function of my relation to government, and government can grant or deny it to me as it sees fit. My tax bracket certainly is such a relation. But my existence, say - that's not a matter of law. That my mother and father are who they are is true, regardless of any legal institution insisting otherwise.
I don't mean to say that the government is entirely disconnected from these things. The government has power in practice to acknowledge my relationship to my parents, or to base its benefits or penalties around this relationship. It can forcibly separate us, or even place me in a new home and declare, "These are your parents now."
But the fact of my parenthood exists beyond these things. Whether the government acknowledges them or not, my parents are - and while it may have power to make us act otherwise, it cannot change the underlying facts.
(Now, the government could change, say, the definition of the English word "parent" - in which case, consider me to be discussing the concept we usually refer to by that word at present. Also, please don't take the above as an argument against, say, the existence of Civil Services, or adoption. It may be that, quite apart from the government's actions, a person can forfeit, refuse, or willingly add on some portion of the parent-child relation. My point is only that these things do not derive their existence from the law. If "parenthood" is too messy around these edges, pick anything else you like - that I am a certain period of time in age, perhaps, or that I was initially given a particular name.)
And there are a number of concepts along this line of reasoning. For an American, I might speak of inalienable rights - rights the government can refuse to acknowledge, sure, but rights that are yours regardless of the law. For a Protestant, I might talk about the idea that Scripture predates the church's acknowledgement of Scripture - that is, that as soon as God speaks a word, it is His word, and that the church and state can neither make it not so nor make anything he has not spoken so.
I say all of this to say: to my understanding, Marriage is such a thing - an institution of Family, not State. The government cannot create it or eliminate it, though it can choose to recognize its existence.
And as it's an institution that either is or isn't, I'm not constrained by a human sense of fairness or governmental construction in my description of it. I believe that marriage derives from the fundamental moral law of the universe, and that its existence (or lack thereof) is as real as gravity. As a Christian, I believe that moral law derives from Jehovah - and He's pretty explicit in His writings that homosexual marriage isn't.
In which case, the state can't recognize it any more than it can recognize square circles - though it could pretend to do both.
But that's my opinion, right? It may be good theology (or may not), but not everything that's theologically true should have the force of law behind it. In particular, there is no clear-cut principle of law to which I can point and say, "The government should recognize straight marriage, but not gay marriage." Which... leaves me back where I started.
So I'd add to that theological foundation a practical model that doesn't need theological backing: government shouldn't recognize marriage. At all. In any form.
No tax breaks. No marriage certificates. No "By the power vested in me by the state of..."s. No gay marriage, no straight marriage - nothing. The government should not find that a legal factor to be considered.
If you believe marriage only exists in male/female cases? You're covered, because there is no government asserting otherwise - only other people, free to believe what they want. If you're pro-gay-marriage and want government "out of the bedroom?" It's about as far out as it can get; if two men want to say they're married, the law does nothing to stop them. And in neither case is it essential that you believe marriage is some kind of inherent function of reality - but if you do, this fits.
Everyone wins.
All of this ties back to that original question: when are you actually married? And I think the answer is, "When you both assert that you are." I don't think government can create marriages, but I don't think becoming an ordained minister magically grants that power either. Heck, from what I understand, the rule of "You say you're married? You're married," held up until about the 1300s in Europe. Then the church noted a distressing tendency for men to make this declaration in private - say, in beds - and then forget about it promptly afterwards. Their solution was to make the institutional church's public acknowledgement a necessary component - and while I can see that as wise, even now, I don't think that's a good practice that can be elevated to the level of moral need.
So I plan to have a legal certificate when I marry, and a minister presiding, and an "I do" - and I plan for all these to coincide neatly, because people who come to a wedding deserve to see what they came for, doggone it - but I think it's only the last that does the job.