On Tuesday in Minnesota we vote not only for our favorite politicians (or least disliked) but also whether or not to add an amendment to our state constitution to define “marriage” as between one man and one woman.
For the moment I would like to table any discussion of the morality of homosexuality (i.e. the religious judgment that it is wrong or not wrong) or arguments about equal rights and look at the issue from a constitutional lens. This argument centers on the separation of church and state and how this new amendment oversteps the bounds of the government.
I have heard many argue that they are for civil unions but not for gay marriage because “marriage” is a religious word that has always meant a union between a man and a woman. And I think I would be ok with that. I would be ok with a religion defining marriage as between one man and one woman and not allowing members of the same sex to marry in their church. I would disagree with them but that is their choice to do so.
My question is, however, what business does the government have in defining marriage? If marriage is a religious term, then the government should not be calling its ceremonies that it performs at its courthouses "marriages". Rather it should call all of these ceremonies "civil unions". (Both hetero and homosexual) We should leave "marriages" to be decided by different religions.
Now granted some churches would allow homosexuals to "marry" as they defined it and others wouldn't, but that would be up to that religion to decide. Just as it is up to religions to define who is “saved” or “baptized” even though these definitions look very different in different groups and these groups would disagree with one another’s claims.
And unfortunately the state has already adopted this term of "marriage" that it uses in its civil ceremonies. I wonder if it would be possible for us to instead of trying to increase government’s involvement in marriage, to decrease it by actually taking out the term “marriage” from civil ceremonies and have people no longer “married” in the eyes of the state but “unioned”. (someone would have to come up with a better term but you know what I mean) This would put the definition of marriage back into the hands of the church rather than the state.
It seems that we are going the wrong direction on this.
I recently read:
ReplyDeleteWhereas historically, the church had had little to do with, or say about the subject, marriage now became sanctified and controlled by the church (Martin, 2007). Martin (2007) notes this shift, observing that marriage used to be seen as an economic arrangement and was performed outside the doors of the church. Then, through various contingencies (see Martin, 2007), it was taken up by the church and the marriage ceremony, symbolically, came to be performed first at the door of, and finally inside the body of, the church. Greenberg (1988) notes that this development occurred not only in the Protestant church but was taken up by the Catholics as well. From the counterreformation onwards – and not before then - it became a requirement for marriage to be performed by a priest.
Holleman, Mirjam 2009 “Deconstructing Discrimination” B.A. Thesis, University College Roosevelt Academy. Middelburg, the Netherlands. turtlestravels.wordpress.com/deconstructing-discrimination.com