Church, State, and Gay Marriage
Nick Tarasen writes in the Chicago Maroon:
Let’s grant for the moment that the government’s definition of marriage has its roots in a religious definition, and that the government should follow religious definitions of marriage. The simple fact is that many religions today recognize marriages of same-sex as well as male-female couples. Why should the government defer to one interpretation and not the other? How is the government to decide which religion is right and which is wrong?
Such a decision among religions is a decision that requires the government to evaluate and judge the internal logic of religions; this, in essence, gives the government the ability to pick which religions are valid, and which are not, and give the ones it thinks valid a special recognition in the form of the governmental institution of marriage. The government, even now, believes such an act clearly violates the freedom of religion. We thus arrive at the central paradox of the proponents of this amendment: a government whose institutions are based in religion is a government that allows no freedom of religion at all.
Tarasen makes some very good points here. It needs to be remembered that too often, people assume that their particular religious beliefs or prejudices are so widespread that there couldn't possibly be any serious debate about them - thus, if the government were to favor those beliefs, no one will be discriminated against. That, however, is never actually true - there are always debates and disagreement.
There are many Christians out there who support gay marriage and who even hold marriage ceremonies for gays; for the government to adopt a "religious" definition of marriage that excludes same-sex couples is to favor some religious groups over others, and that isn't right. Therefore, the government will have to defend a ban on same-sex marriage rights on some platform other than religion - but those arguments are even weaker.
Read More:
Comments
I read your article and agree with one part of it;it is an issue of “Separation and State”. I do see this issue as an intrusion upon religious rights”.
I accept your contention that marriage has been and is still a “religious” definition. The point I think you’re missing however is should the government be using a religious terminology? This, for me, is the real issue and what has been missing in this debate.
At the time the word “marriage” was incorporated into law and tax codes. Gay Rights or even the acknowledgment of homosexuals wasn’t an issue.
So when “marriage” was incorporated into the tax codes and into the law, it was understood to mean … Man & Woman.
If this definition is no longer an acceptable one, to the public or to our court’s, then I contend that the government should have to change what word they use in law and tax codes, because “The Government” doesn’t have the authority to change the “religious” definition/meaning of a “RELIGIOUS” rite/practice as per the topic of your article;Separation of Church and State.
Maybe instead of the government issuing marriage licenses, they should be giving Civil Union Licenses?
I suggest that this as the alternative that both sides could live with, since it gives equal status under the law that gay’s are saying they don’t have, but it doesn’t use the term “Marriage” that Christians, Muslims and Jews (and perhaps other religious groups that I “MAY” not be aware of or am not thinking of right now) take offense too. The people I know that take offense to the term Marriage don’t really care if the government has some form of equal standing/protection under the law, they are taking offense to the word “Marriage” being used, since their “religious” belief and teaching is in conflict with it. They believe their religious rights are being violated and secularized to an increasingly hostile population of nonbelievers.
I make no such contention. The article I quote is arguing that even if we grant that the current civil conception of “marriage” has religious roots, that doesn’t create a sound basis for banning gay marriage.
The unambiguous fact of the matter is that marriage is not just civil, but is also a fundamental right.
The point you are missing is that there is nothing inherently religious about marriage. If there were, then non-religious people couldn’t get married.
A lot of things were understood under “marriage” at the time, many of which have been eliminated. For example, women can now own property. Marriage can be entered into for love and the couple need not intend for it to last or even be exclusive in terms of sexual behavior.
Allowing gay civil marriage would have no more impact on any religious rites than allowing interracial civil marriages did.
Since marriage is not exclusively religious, and in fact has never been, there’s no reason to do that. Maybe churches should be performing “religious union” ceremonies if they don’t like the way the term “marriage” is being used in the rest of modern culture.
Maybe the government and others shouldn’t worry about whether some Christians, Muslims, and Jews take offense at the standards used for civil marriage?
Would you have suggested such a solution for interracial marriages when churches fought to preserve pure-race unions? If you had, you’d have been a bigot.
Well, this is no less bigoted.
Really? I don’t believe you. If this were the case, then efforts to ban gay marriage would not be so broadly written as to ban anything even like “marriage” for gays — and that includes any form of civil union.
Why should the government be prevented from doing things which some people have religious objections to?
I challenge you to provide one substantive way in which the religious rights of anyone is violated if the government recognizes as valid a civil marriage which the aforementioned believers do not accept or recognize as valid according to their religious doctrines. I don’t think you can do it — and I don’t think you want to. If we accept as a standard the idea that religious rights are violated any time a religious believer doesn’t approve of the behavior which others are allowed to engage in, that would be the end of our civil liberties.
Why limit the govement to only civil unions. I was not married in a church and want nothing to do with a “pastor” blessing my marriage.
Does that mean atheists would need to eithe be satisfied with a civil union or be forced to endure a religious wedding in order to be married. Makes no sense.
Marriage in any form is an issue dealing with the seperation of Church and State. It was not the State who instituted marriage but rather it has been a “religious” practice for several thousand years. Jews, Christians, Muslims and other religions have different teachings about marriage but each of them are “religions”. The state therefore should not have a say in what constitutes a marriage.
The fact that marriage existed before any currently existing government does not entail the conclusion that no currently existing government can regulate marriage. By your argument, the fact that marriage existed before any currently existing religion means that no currently existing religion should have a say in what constitutes marriage.