Marriage and the State, Revisited

Last November I posted about traditionalist Christian ministers proposing a separation between religious and civil marriage—meaning that legal marriage would be performed and recognized by the state, but couples also could partake of a religious ceremony, if they chose to do so. Clergy, however, would not be licensed by the state to perform marriages. Proponents of this are asking conservative clergy to pledge not to sign government marriage licenses.

As the New York Times has just run an article about this debate within conservative Christian circles, let me reiterate. Clearly, these traditionalist (or, anti-gay-equality, if you prefer) clergy are motivated by their theological opposition to same-sex marriage. So be it, I still think it’s a good idea. I’ll repeat what I said before: religion is better off the less encumbered it is by the state and its dictates. And individual liberty is better served when the state does not intrude into matters of religious conscience. As the Times article notes as it concludes:

Dr. Radner, the pledge’s other author, is on sabbatical in France, which has long separated religious marriage from civil marriage. Seeing the separation up close has only made him more of a fan.

“Just living here made me realize that the church can function rather well,” he said, “and also avoid some of the conflict that we seem to get all embroiled in in the U.S. over sexuality matters, by being somewhat disentangled, practically, from the civil marriage system.”

10 Comments for “Marriage and the State, Revisited”

  1. posted by Lori Heine on

    It is a good idea. In fact, it is a great one.

  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    The sooner that we separate religious marriage and civil marriage the better, as far as I am concerned.

    The confusion between the two has been rampant throughout the long and ugly argument about same-sex marriage — witness the constant refrain about the “sanctity” of civil law marriage, as if the marriage of two atheists is and/or can be “sanctified” — and the source of untold mischief in the discussion.

    While removing priests and pastors from a role as agents of the government will not eliminate the argument over marriage equality entirely — because conservative religionists (e.g. the Catholic Bishops, who should know better, having a theology of sacramental marriage that is distinct from marriage at civil law) seem determined to conform civil marriage law to the dictates of their religious belief about marriage — it will eliminate the bogus argument that priests and pastors will be, someday, somehow, in contravention of the 1st Amendment, be forced to marriage gays and lesbians or rot in jail, put in boxcars or subjected to a Robspierre-like reign of terror.

    Removing that bogus crap from the public debate is, in and of itself, sufficient reason to do it.

  3. posted by Houndentenor on

    This is a great idea. Is there any chance of getting religious leaders to go along with this? Aren’t there already countries that basically do it this way? (I thought this was how it worked in France.) You sign some papers and boom you’re married. If you want a religious ceremony you can have that but you aren’t required to (as you aren’t now and never were). It also removes the completely bogus argument that the state would require churches opposed to gay marriage to perform them. (If that were true we could force the Catholic church to marry non-Catholics, which we can’t. Of course this comes from a misunderstanding of the state church unity in certain countries especially Scandinavia, but that has no application to US law.)

  4. posted by Jorge on

    From what little I know about religious trends, I think Western Europe is a horrible model for how to keep religion relevant in the United States.

    If gay marriage leads to any scaling back in religion’s role in marriage, then that’s yet more evidence that gay marriage is a bad thing for marriage and a bad thing for society. Not something I want to promote.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      It isn’t an idea that’s going anywhere, so not to worry.

      Christian clergy — historically Protestants, for the most part — have long enjoyed a puffed up, privileged position in the politics of the United States (e.g. Billy Graham, “Pastor to Presidents”, who took it upon himself to opine that a Catholic should not be President and then ostentatiously prayed side-by-side with Jack Kennedy at a Washington prayer breakfast) and won’t cede a bit of influence without a fight.

      You can damn well bet that 90% of clergy won’t be willing to cede “control” over marriage, civil or religious, particularly since, in Protestant theology, which is non-sacramental, little or no difference exists between the two. Protestant inability to draw a distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage is the primary reason why we’ve had so much nonsense spewed about regarding the “sanctity” of civil marriage.

      All the yammer about “the war on Christians” is mostly whining about loss of the privileged position of Protestant Christianity in our nation’s politics and culture. If the package didn’t include lies and slander about “the war on Christians”, it would be harmless. But when the package focuses on portraying gays and lesbians (not to mention Muslims and Jews) as enemies of the American way of life in one way or another, it is no longer harmless. As Rabbi Abraham Heschel once observed, “Speech has power. Words do not fade. What starts out as a sound, ends in a deed.” Rhetoric about “boxcars” and “Robspierre”, portraying gays and lesbians as “intolerant” and enemies of religious freedom, is irresponsible and can come to no good end.

      On the other point you make, I agree that Europe is a terrible model for religious freedom. A significant number of European countries have state religions — e.g. the Church of England — and many — e.g. Germany — tax citizens to support the churches. Europe is a good example of what happens to religious freedom and religious relevancy when church and state become entangled. Americans used to understand that. I wonder sometimes if they still do.

  5. posted by Mike in Houston on

    Once again, a solution in search of a problem — as the underlying “reason” for this new embrace of church/state separation is that allegedly ministers would be required to officiate same-sex weddings against their beliefs, else they be cited under public accommodation laws and jailed for their beliefs.

    The Hitching Post non-troversy laid that lie to rest.

    There has not been a single instance in the U.S. where an ordained minister was required to officiate a same-sex marriage against the tenets of their beliefs. Not one. So there is no interference with their pastoral care.

    Ministers from sects that do recognize same-sex marriage, however, are discriminated under the law (thankfully in a dwindling number of states) because they can’t equally provide pastoral care to both gay and straight congregants.

    Frankly, I find it laughable that anyone thinks that this is in anyway a serious proposal. I put it in the rest of the un-serious blather about civil unions that was only a straw man put out by the anti-marriage equality folks in an attempt to appear reasonable — while still wrapping themselves in the mantle of — as Stephen puts it — “grievance activism”.

  6. posted by James in Chicago on

    You’ve got it all wrong. No church is under the slightest threat of being compelled by the state to perform any kind of ceremony against its will. What we have here are anti-gay bigots throwing a tantrum and threatening to take their ball and go home. Go ahead, bigots, but you never were a player to begin with. This is part and parcel of right-wing Christians’ ludicrous propaganda that marriage in this country is a religious institution – a religious institution, yet they’ve never had any problem with the state recognizing the marriages of agnostics and atheists! We all know that these bigots desperately wish that they actually had an instance of governmental coercion in regard to same – sex marriage.

    • posted by James in Chicago on

      PS. The anti-gay Christian bigots would also dearly love everyone to remain ignorant of the fact that there are churches, including the United Church of Christ with its roots in colonial America, that willingly perform same – sex marriages. So, what exactly, would the anti-gay Christians have our government do? Declare that such churches are blasphemous?!

  7. posted by JohnInCA on

    France? Um, did these guys actually pay attention to the news coming out of France when it legalized gay marriage last year? As noted, the church has been out of the marriage buisness for a long time. Didn’t stop conservative Frenchmen from objecting on religious grounds. Loudly. In confusing homoerotic displays.

    In other words: it’s a “solution” that doesn’t fix anything. The people opposed will remain opposed even if clergy don’t officiate *anyone’s* legal ceremony.

    I mean, hell, if that’s what people actually want, a compromise that allows gay marriage in a state but also changes marriage law in that state so the paperwork is it and you don’t need to get an officiant to sign, then sure, whatever, I’m not even gonna cry alligator tears over it… But I have the most severe of doubts that would win a single vote in any state legislature.

  8. posted by Kosh III on

    “religion is better off the less encumbered it is by the state and its dictates.”

    And the state is better off the less encumbered it is by religion and it’s dictates.

Comments are closed.