The question of same gender marriage has re-ignited in the wake of this week’s New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that state laws require the legislature to change the law to permit gay & lesbian couples to marry, or to create a legal construct equivalent to marriage (i.e., civil unions).
I hold the position that the government ought to get out of the marriage business. Leave the definition of “marriage” to churches and social institutions, and simply package up the legal rights afforded to families under the heading of “civil unions”. A religion-based argument for this is as follows:
- Marriage comes from God
- The state cannot legislate whom God can or cannot join together in marriage. Any attempt to do so is at best silly, and at worst constitutes an attempt to give official preference to one set of religious views over others.
- There is however a societal benefit to having a civil package of rights and privileges associated with the creation of families.
- Therefore maintain that package of rights/privileges, but avoid the inherently religious question of who can/can’t get married by calling it something other than “marriage”.
According to Father Jake, the Episcopal diocese of Massachusetts seems to be approaching the question from the other direction, by considering a resolution to require marriages to be officiated by an agent of the state, and simply be blessed by Episcopal clergy.
Father Jake quotes the Boston Globe in providing an explanation of the proposed measure:
Episcopal priests in Massachusetts have been particularly engaged in the issue of gay marriage, because the diocese here has been strongly supportive of gay rights, but the national church’s regulations define marriage as a heterosexual institution. The local bishop, M. Thomas Shaw , a supporter of same-sex marriage, has decreed that local Episcopal priests cannot sign the marriage licenses of same-sex couples, but can bless those couples after they are legally married by clergy of another denomination or by a civil official.
“I feel this is a way to equalize an inequity in what Episcopal clergy can do for gay folks and straight folks,” said the Rev. Margaret (Mally) E. Lloyd , rector of Christ Church in Plymouth.
It’s an interesting idea, but I think the resolution ought to be re-worded.
It’s understandable that Massachusetts Episcopal priests feel bound to offer the sacrament of marriage only to opposite-gender couples, but OK to bless the unions of same-gender couples. (I disagree with that position, but I understand it and will accept it as a “given” for this post.)
Therefore, I think a better approach would be to rephrase the resolution to exhort priests to not sign government marriage certificates…at least not as agents of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts.
That provides essentially the same distinction between “church marriage” and “state marriage” that I seek by proposing that the government get out of the marriage business.