One of the more frustrating aspects about the current debate over same-sex marriage is the utter shallowness of the theology on the anti-marriage side. Having wrongfully presumed that it is their prerogative to determine whether other people’s civil marriages meet their theological criteria, the only theological criteria they offer up is that of gender. Britney Spears wants to drunkenly marry some guy for 15 minutes? No problem. A couple of straight swingers want to get married and swap partners every night til death do them part? Let ’em. But to allow any two women or two men to get married would go against their religion.
Of course, few if any would advocate that we hold anyone else’ civil marriages up to religious scrutiny. That would be considered inappropriate, overreaching. Yet, that is precisely what we do any time civil marriage is denied on the basis of gender, as there is no argument against same-sex marriage that is not religious in origin.
Here’s the problem: gay people not only are allowed to get married in my church, but have been for decades. As far as religious marriage – as opposed to civil marriage – is concerned, we will continue this forever. Yet, other peoples’ concept of religious marriage have overreached into our church building, effectively neutralizing our religious marriages so that they do not result in the same civil benefits as others. If religious marriage is going to be interchangeable with civil marriage, as is presently the case in American society, fine. But not if only one narrow interpretation of religious marriage is going to be enforced on everybody.
So the sanctity of marriage should be protected. The marriages that my church conduct should have the same legal standing as any other religious marriages. People smarter than me have drawn up big arguments around the following idea, but in a nutshell, here is my plan for restoring marriage in America.
- Religious and civil marriages should no longer be synonymous.
- Civil marriages should be called civil unions.
- Civil unions would provide all civil rights presently enjoyed by those who are married.
- Religious marriages would retain the title of “marriage” but would not, in and of themselves, provide any civil rights, benefits, etc. from the national, state, or local government.
- Civil unions would be not be denied on the basis of gender.
- It is up to the individual community of faith to determine its own rules regarding who may be married there.
January 15, 2009 at 12:22 am
Excellent post Tom. I agree that one should not be subjected to the imposition of another’s theology. Was this not the very essence of the idea of Protestantism? And was this ideal not captured in the flight of the Puritans and Separatists, this nation’s founding forefathers?
I am currently living in Mexico and here most matrimonies are performed with two components: (1) the civil wedding, performed by a judge; (2) the religious wedding, performed by an officiant representing the couple’s faith. Naturally, only the first applies legally for the state. I say this because I see some similarities to your “plan for restoring marriage to America.” Very interesting to contemplate. . .