This should not be difficult for a nation whose creed ends in the line “with liberty and justice for all.” However, the history of how we understand civil rights has been a process of gradually coming to terms with the idea that “all” means “all.”
If I were to pose the question to my most traditional and conservative friends, “are you in favor of gay driver licenses, or gay passports” the answer would be “of course” with little or no hesitation. I should make the matter even more simple by asking if you are in favor of “Citizen Marriage.” That is really the only relevant question.
Marriage is complicated. It takes disciplined thinking to distinguish two spheres that we have collapsed together in the popular consciousness about marriage. There is the civil sphere, and the spiritual, or “values” sphere. We must separate these realms, if we are to be reasonable about this. After I have made that point, I will make a rather radical suggestion to settle this matter equitably.
The marriage that is sanctioned and licensed by the state is not the same thing that is blessed as a sacrament by a church. It sounds like it’s the same, sure. It uses the same name. The legal union that is created by mailing in a marriage license, and that ceremony presided over by a clergyman. seem to have their origin in the same event. But they do not, And that is what makes it so difficult for us to see them as two distinct creations.
The marriage licensed by the state carries no requirement for any sort of faith whatsoever. There is n or doctrinal or affiliation test. That would be unconstitutional. The matter, which is licensed by the state is a legal union like a corporation, and from which flows certain rights and privileges (such as the right to inherit, a shared credit history, hospital visitation rights, insurance eligibility, etc). Historically, the state that sanctions this union was entangled with, and in some cases was identical to the Catholic Church. This is has never been the case in the United States of America. (see: Henry VIII….it’s a long story) Though this is difficult for some to swallow, under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution, all rights extended to any citizen must be available to all citizens (like: no kidding).
It seems to me that part of the difficulty comes from the fact that the same word is used to describe both the legal union created by the state, and a spiritual union that may be created by a particular faith tradition. Your religion, if you adhere to one, might have teachings, rules and doctrines concerning marriage, it’s function, and who is eligible to be married. You have every right to teach and even enforce those rules inside the voluntary assembly of your congregation or denomination. But in America, that dogma cannot be extended to apply to all citizens, just members of your group! It should be clear to any reader of the Constitution that all rights are for all citizens, and that Church laws do not bind the State. It has taken us some time to get here, but this is the essence of American democracy. State: here. Church: over there. However, because there has been a mixing of these concepts in a “God and Country” stew that some of theologians call “American Civil Religion” it is hard for some to distinguish these very separate spheres.
For Christians, a particular sensitivity about marriage comes honestly. In the New Testament, scripture provides two central metaphors that stand for the relationship between humans and their Creator: father/son and bridegroom/bride. The former is more familiar perhaps than the latter, where Christ is described as the bridegroom, and his church, the bride. In the Roman, Orthodox and even Protestant Liturgical traditions, marriage is considered to be one of the sacred sacraments. It is completely understandable that the faithful would not wish for their ancient traditions to be re-written by the evolving ideas in one particular country. However, even a cursory survey of Christian marriage customs in just this country over the last two hundred years will reveal a dramatically changing idea of what constitutes Christian Marriage. It is not a static and unchanging thing, but has undergone considerable modification since the not too distant time when wives were considered property.
Many make religious arguments that marriage exists primarily for procreation. And, certainly that has been a big part of the history of marriages over the eons. But there has never been, and could never be a legal requirement that a marriage must produce offspring. If that were true, older persons could not marry, and neither could those who are medically unable to conceive. No one would approve of such a state exclusion.
In the case of same sex couples, a religious congregation can teach and enforce anything they wish about the appropriateness of such relationships, but only in the context of their own institution. They cannot expect their ideas to trump the constitutional protections of rights and privileges extending to all citizens.
So, the Catholic Church, or the Southern Baptist Convention or Saddleback Church is not the State of California, or The United States of America. It is reasonable for Churches to have and maintain their own values, ceremonies and traditions. But it is not reasonable for them to expect California, or Massachusetts, or the Federal government to rewrite it’s laws to be consistent with their doctrines and dogma. And, they may not do this no matter how frothy the popular sentiment might be.
Your Archbishop may well refuse to marry a divorced person. A state could have such rule. An Orthodox Rabbi may not agree to perform a mixed marriage, and, if that is the teaching of his congregation. But we may never expect that these religious teachings should dictate who should be able to get a marriage license from a window at City Hall. Religious teachings are the realm of religious institutions; they simply cannot be propagated by the state.
Think of it this way; to the Christian, water and wine are, when sanctified by ceremonial action, sacred sacraments, which are “outward, visible signs of inward spiritual grace.” Well and good. But could Christians try to pass legislation requiring that water and wine must be used for no other purposes? Of course not. It is no different with marriage.
We must acknowledge together that marriages is indeed a-changin’. For good or ill, “serial marriage” is the norm today. The modern idea of a marriage consisting of romantic soul mates who both work to bring in incomes would not have occurred to the new testament writers, or even the founding fathers. What is meant by “traditional marriage” today, is a very recent rendering of the institution.
Okay, I am getting repetitive. But I feel like I must to underline what should be simple, but, alas seems muddled to many of my dear conservative friends.
So, to once and for all tear these two overlapping realms assunder, I am suggesting a possible solution. Because the mingling of these two coterminous concepts are difficult to disentangle in the popular imagination, I will offer this simple, though radical proposal (no pun intended). I propose that the State get completely out of the marriage business once and for all, and that henceforth, all the licenses issued by all states be changed to read: “Civil Union” instead of “marriage”. This should apply to everyone. Let us take the word marriage completely out of governmental jurisdiction.
Let it mean whatever it means to you, guided by your own philosophies, or the doctrines of the spiritual tradition to which you subscribe. Let the Roman Catholics teach what they wish and conduct marriage ceremonies for only those who meet their requirements. Let the Baptists marry in their only those who adhere to their teachings. But let them have no say over who gets to shell out forty bucks at the courthouse.
In America, rights and privileges that are available to once citizen, or group of citizens, must be available to all citizens. Period. We recall how difficult it was for us to come to understand that our constitution would mean suffrage for females. It was very difficult for this nation to accept that the right to free assembly must apply also to people of color. It may be tough for some to admit that all the rights that are available to them, must be also be extended to fellow citizens who happen to be gay, lesbian and transgendered persons. And when that right is marriage, I can understand how that may a real stretch for some. They will get over it. They have no choice.
While they may teach their children whatever form of discrimination seems right and just to them, they simply may not deny other citizens their constitutional protections. It’s just that simple.
The American story is still being written, and it is a story of a country struggling, as a woman struggles with the pain of child birth, to grow into fully living out it’s own creed.
All means all. That is all.
