Gay Marriage?

We’ve done a funny thing with marriage, and that’s a major reason for our nation’s hot debate about gay marriage. The traditional, typical way that weddings are conducted in our nation is a direct violation of the First Amendment’s freedom of religion. For all of the talk about prayer in public schools and nativity scenes at courthouses, we all seem to forget that members of the clergy act as representatives of the state when we officiate at weddings. I am an agent of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania when I declare two people to be husband and wife. I have this authority, not because of any civil qualifications or appointment, but simply because the Presbyterian Church (USA) has enrolled me as a minister of word and sacrament.

 This system of having church officials invested with civil authority is what our nation’s forebears left Europe to escape. Our freedom of religion is a bulwark against people being baptized into the official state church, whether they’re believers or not. People of other Christian persuasions or other religions (particularly Judaism) were persecuted, imprisoned, and killed. That’s why the First Amendment declares, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” But here we are: clergy in charge of establishing legally binding relationships that we call marriage. Meanwhile, back in Europe, where religious freedom used to be so rare and precious, the religious and legal aspects of marriage are now nicely separated. For example, in my family’s homeland of the Netherlands, marriages are always and only conducted in the town hall, under the authority of a local civil official. If you’re a Christian, you do what my parents did: have a procession from the town hall to the church, where you seek God’s blessing upon your union and dedicate yourselves to him.

 Many Christians (including me) do not think it is proper for churches to bless a same-sex couple’s union as a marriage. This is a religious view of marriage, not the legal or civil aspect that should be the topic of votes, court rulings, and Presidential comments. Let churches, not politicians, judges, and voters, debate the issue of whether or not God considers same-sex partners in the same that he views male-female couples.

 Many citizens (including me) think that sexual orientation should not be a factor that limits or denies human rights, and that same-sex couples should have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples. In other words, I and others do not have the right to impose our religious convictions upon our fellow citizens. 

This brings us to the unfortunate issue of language: marriage vs. “civil union.” Understandably, many LGBT (i.e. lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender) citizens aren’t satisfied with civil unions because they seem to be second-rate in comparison to marriages. And, also understandably, many Christian, Jewish, and Muslim citizens don’t want same-sex couples to be “married,” because it cuts against their religious values.

 I suggest that do away with the term “marriage” altogether, as a civil or legal designation. Any couple that seeks to have a legally binding relationship can do so, and we can call that relationship anything we want. Those who desire to commit this relationship to God and to seek his blessing upon it are free to do so, of course. But that celebration and service is a religious ceremony that has no legal authority.

 Not only would this help our nation avoid the religiously-inspired aspects of the gay marriage debate, but it would also help churches reclaim their convictions about marriage. Like many other ministers, I’m often asked to conduct a wedding for a couple that doesn’t care that much about faith. Getting married in the church, by a minister, is the thing to do. I urge them during premarital meetings to dedicate their relationship to the Lord, and they’ll nod their heads and agree. But that’s about it; after the rings are on the fingers and the wedding cake has been eaten, they won’t be in the church again for years. If I am no longer an agent of the state, then people will only want a marriage ceremony at the church if they really want the Lord to be the third partner of their union.