This is another weird landmark moment, like when I posted an article from James Randi's website two weeks ago. Today I find myself in agreement with members of the religious right, at least on one issue. But that's still pretty remarkable; I never thought I would agree with them on anything.
The article in question is from First Things, a publication that has been instrumental in pushing for Christian control of the public sphere, a position that I routinely mock here on Augoeides. But in response to the rising legality of same-sex marriage, the article advocates churches getting out of the "government marriage" game. I couldn't agree more.
What the same-sex marriage debate has exposed is that the way we do marriages in this country is dumb. You apply for a "marriage license" which then has to be signed by either a minister or a civil official after conducting the ceremony. A good friend of mine asked me to officiate her wedding earlier this year, but had I not registered credentials with the state the marriage would not have been legal. That's just silly.
The article in question is from First Things, a publication that has been instrumental in pushing for Christian control of the public sphere, a position that I routinely mock here on Augoeides. But in response to the rising legality of same-sex marriage, the article advocates churches getting out of the "government marriage" game. I couldn't agree more.
As the legal reality of marriage changes, we must also act. If the churches continue as if nothing has changed, the message is that for all our strong words nothing really decisive is at stake. It’s now time, then, to think long and hard about what we need to do—or refuse to do. I can’t see how a priest or pastor can in good conscience sign a marriage license for “Spouse A” and “Spouse B.” Perhaps he should strike those absurdities and write “Husband” and “Wife.” Failing that he should simply refuse the government’s delegation of legal power, referring the couple to the courthouse after the wedding for the state to confect in its bureaucratic way the amorphous and ill-defined civil union that our regime continues to call “marriage.”
Getting out of the government marriage business is exactly what Ephraim Radner and Christopher Seitz now urge. They’ve formulated a pastoral pledge. It requires ordained ministers to renounce their long-established role as agents of the state with the legal power to sign marriage certificates. I find their reasoning convincing. Easy divorce, pre-nuptial agreements, a general tolerance of cohabitation, the contraceptive mentality—this degrades and obscures the meaning of marriage. But redefining marriage so that male-female complementarity is irrelevant? That’s a fundamental contradiction of the most fundamental meaning of marriage.
What the same-sex marriage debate has exposed is that the way we do marriages in this country is dumb. You apply for a "marriage license" which then has to be signed by either a minister or a civil official after conducting the ceremony. A good friend of mine asked me to officiate her wedding earlier this year, but had I not registered credentials with the state the marriage would not have been legal. That's just silly.






