Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments regarding same-sex marriage. The question everyone wants answered is: Should the governments of the fifty states and/or the federal government and its territories recognize marriage between people of the same gender, or should marriage continue to be defined as a union between one man and one woman? The SCOTUS may or may not end the legal discussions this summer. Regardless, the issue will not be settled to the satisfaction of all Americans. So, what is “marriage” and how should marriage relationships be recognized?
In the fall of 2010 I taught a series of adult Sunday School lessons on the topic of marriage. The class had nothing to do with how to treat your spouse, communication or the importance of maintaining that “spark.” Instead, we examined the biblical notion of marriage; what constitutes marriage, and what mechanisms were used to certify a marriage. The surprising discovery was that the Bible has very little to say about ceremonies, signing official documents, or any other means of making a marriage official. The language of scripture seems to indicate that even the pagans could be “married.” We see the institutionalization of marriage in the relatively late establishment of the Jewish ritual, the governmental establishment of marriage rules and laws in the Greek and Roman worlds, and the expanding power of the Catholic Church. There was a slow evolution of marriage rites and rights as pagan and Christian customs were sometimes mingled and sometimes fought over. By the 800’s A.D., marriage had to meet at least four conditions to be blessed by the Catholic Church: 1. The partners had to be of equal rank, free persons, and consenting individuals. 2. The woman had to be given away by her father and a dowry paid for her. 3. The marriage had to be honored publically. 4. The union had to be completed by consummation.
The Reformation brought about many changes in theology, including theology related to the issue of marriage. Martin Luther believed marriage was a “worldly business...clergy ought not to meddle or direct things.” Instead, marriage should be regulated by the civil authority, not the church. The Church of England recognized marriages performed places other than the church until about 1800. John Donne wrote in 1621 that marriage was both a civil and religious contract needing public proclamation and priestly benediction.
Early American colonies and states were greatly influenced by the European customs of their settlers. Generally, English customs involving a dowry, betrothal and a formal ceremony were followed. It was, many believe, the unique circumstances of the southern states that gave birth to the very modern idea of a marriage license. It may have begun as a way of replacing the European custom of the bann. This was the practice of announcing an impending marriage at a church service. With the population scattered over great distances in the South, and therefore unable to attend many church services, the bann became somewhat ineffective. So, the counties began issuing licenses. By the mid-1800s certain states were using the license as a way of giving permission for interracial marriages, unions that were illegal without such permission. The Congregationalists in the New England area believed the Bible had not established the marriage rite, so they made it a civil affair. The Quakers of Pennsylvania performed the wedding ceremonies themselves, since there was no official in their groups of “friends.” Generally, in early America, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license. There were just two expectations: 1. The parents had to grant permission for minors to marry. 2. A public notice had to be posted five to fifteen days prior to the wedding.
However, by 1929 things had dramatically changed. Every state in the union had adopted marriage license laws. Prior to this time, common law marriage existed in most states. If two people lived together like married people, they were considered married. About a dozen states still recognize common law unions. The federal government had no constitutional right to make any law regarding marriage, but it did help facilitate uniformity of marriage laws among the states, so all marriages were recognized in every state. Thus, the marriage license became standard nationwide.
Part of the debate today concerns the perceived and real benefits of legal spouses. The federal and state governments have long rewarded those who are united in matrimony. Some of these rewards include income tax benefits, inheritance tax breaks, hospital visitation rights, and so on. There are some couples who would like to avoid penalties for being married, however. Social Security benefits/penalties top that list.
People are now questioning the traditional views of marriage and asking if the state should be deciding this issue, or is it a religious or social matter? The federal government, which has no authority concerning this matter or any other not specifically granted it in the Constitution, has wiggled its way into the debate due to the financial benefits/penalties it grants for married or unmarried couples. For some, the argument is more over the term “marriage” than it is over the idea of two people living together. If marriage is a sacred union instituted by God, then the government ought not have any authority to “grant the right” to anyone. Marriage would fall into that category Jefferson termed “inalienable rights” granted by God, not people or governments. If marriage is a contract, then religious groups and their designees shouldn’t be required to act as proxies for the government by pronouncing people married, by the authority given them by the state.
Tony Campolo, a Christian minister and sociologist recently expressed his discomfort in acting as an agent of the state while officiating a sacred ceremony. His opinion is that the government should grant people legal status as partners, or whatever they want to be called. If we the people want to offer partners tax breaks and visiting rights, then let’s do it. But let’s not call it marriage, regardless of the gender of the people involved. If people want to make their vows to each other before God, in a religious building or before a religious body, they can do that. If they want to do just one, or neither, it should be their choice.
An article written by Daniel Brackins of the Bastiat Institute reveals his views on this matter. “It is time the government got out of the business of marriage and left it in the hands of individuals. Only they, as individuals, know what is best for them, whether it be through religious institutions, contracts, or common law. They did just fine before government got involved.” His argument hinges on the claim that marriage in an inalienable right that cannot be restricted or granted by human government.
I am not in favor of marriage between anyone other than a man and a woman. But I agree with both Campolo and Brackins; marriage should not be the business of government. Scripture doesn’t define marriage in terms of a license or contract. It is a union of a man and a woman. But that should be a cultural battle, not a legal one. I foresee all sorts of evil before us as our culture disintegrates into an anything goes society. If two homosexuals can form legal partnerships, why can’t groups of three or four of various genders or sexual orientations do the same? Except for the outcry that would be raised by PETA, why can’t the government allow a person to partner with an animal? Without a standard derived from an immoveable law giver, there is no logical restraint for any consenting person. However, these are matters for those of us with moral standards acquired from the immutable scriptures to address one-on-one, in our neighborhoods and work places, or with placards on the street corners, or with our congregations. When people’s hearts are changed, the laws won’t need to be.
So I’m waiting anxiously for the Supreme Court’s decision. It won’t solve any of the problems resulting from human depravity. It won’t change anybody’s mind regarding any associated topic. It won’t change one letter or punctuation mark of God’s word. It will only reflect how far we as a society have strayed from God. And that should motivate us to work or the harder to spread the good news of God’s love and forgiveness.
References:
Tony Campolo http://www.redletterchristians.org/a-possible-compromise-on-the-gay-marriage/
Bastiat Institute, Daniel Brackins http://www.bastiatinstitute.org/2011/08/04/government-should-get-out-of-the-marriage-business/
