So, let's think about this. I'm an ordained clergyperson (that's right, guilty as charged: I don't
believe in ordination, but I'm ordained. I may spontaneously combust at any moment). When I was a pastor, I performed half a dozen weddings per year. And, at each, I was acting as an agent of the state -- I signed the marriage license as a representative of Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota.In no other fuction as a clergyperson did I function as an extension of the government -- not when I was baptizing, burying, counseling, or communing. Only when performing a wedding did I, with the stroke of a pen, make official a legally binding contract that, in the eyes of the state, allowed that couple to enjoy certain privileges like the ability to file joint tax returns, visit one another in the hospital, and receive joint health care benefits from one of the partner's employers.
Readers will know that I am most decidedly not a member of the Hauerwasian Mafia. I tend more toward an American postmodern pragmatism when it comes to church-state relations. However, I do find it odious that clergypersons are called upon, in this one instance, to act as agents of the state.
Many commenters have already noted the strangeness of "legal" marriage in our society. It is incentivized in order to benefit society by promoting monogamy. Monogamy, it is held in Western society, is better than the alternatives -- we all benefit when human beings are monogamous.
At first blush, it would seem that this has to do with procreation. But the facts just don't bear this out. In fact, at this point, any man and woman of legal age and not first cousins or closer in relation can get married and enjoy the benefits thereof. The state doesn't care if Anna Nicole Smith and J. Howard Marshall ever consumated their marriage. Intercourse or not, they were married, and the Supreme Court ruled that Smith (now Smith's daughter) is entitled to a portion of Marshall's estate.
So enough of the argument that same sex marriage should be forbidden on the grounds that it will destroy "traditional" marriage and all of society because same sex partners cannot procreate. On that basis, we should legislate against infertile men and post-menopausal women getting married.
Furthermore, the argument that this is a slippery slope to polygamy, polyamory, and bestiality is ludicrous. The reason to legalize same sex marriage is actually to enshrine human-to-human monogamy in law.
The real solution is to separate legal marriage from religious marriage. The state can and should incentivize monogamy -- both same sex and "opposite marriage."
Clergy and churches, on the other hand, should have no part in legally-binding contracts. Instead, religious professionals should bless and sanctify unions and partnerships that fit within their religious traditions as part of their sacerdotal functions.
[UPDATE: In the meantime, as states continues to pass bills legalizing same sex marriage (yes, the dominoes have started to fall, and no one's going to push that Sisyphan ball of wax up the hill again), it seems imperative that clergy, who are still acting as agents of the state, are specifically protected in said legislation from being prosecuted under state anti-discrimination statutes. There are cases already in which wedding photographers have been sued for refusing, on religious grounds, to shoot a gay wedding. It seems quite likely that clergy would be subject to the same litigation if they are not a specifically protected class, under the freedom of religion clause of the First Amendmen. In other words, same sex marriage legislation should be carefully and thoughtfully crafted.
Or, better yet, clergy should stop performing legal marriages.]
Relevant Video:
Many commenters have already noted the strangeness of "legal" marriage in our society. It is incentivized in order to benefit society by promoting monogamy. Monogamy, it is held in Western society, is better than the alternatives -- we all benefit when human beings are monogamous.
At first blush, it would seem that this has to do with procreation. But the facts just don't bear this out. In fact, at this point, any man and woman of legal age and not first cousins or closer in relation can get married and enjoy the benefits thereof. The state doesn't care if Anna Nicole Smith and J. Howard Marshall ever consumated their marriage. Intercourse or not, they were married, and the Supreme Court ruled that Smith (now Smith's daughter) is entitled to a portion of Marshall's estate.
So enough of the argument that same sex marriage should be forbidden on the grounds that it will destroy "traditional" marriage and all of society because same sex partners cannot procreate. On that basis, we should legislate against infertile men and post-menopausal women getting married.
Furthermore, the argument that this is a slippery slope to polygamy, polyamory, and bestiality is ludicrous. The reason to legalize same sex marriage is actually to enshrine human-to-human monogamy in law.
The real solution is to separate legal marriage from religious marriage. The state can and should incentivize monogamy -- both same sex and "opposite marriage."
Clergy and churches, on the other hand, should have no part in legally-binding contracts. Instead, religious professionals should bless and sanctify unions and partnerships that fit within their religious traditions as part of their sacerdotal functions.
[UPDATE: In the meantime, as states continues to pass bills legalizing same sex marriage (yes, the dominoes have started to fall, and no one's going to push that Sisyphan ball of wax up the hill again), it seems imperative that clergy, who are still acting as agents of the state, are specifically protected in said legislation from being prosecuted under state anti-discrimination statutes. There are cases already in which wedding photographers have been sued for refusing, on religious grounds, to shoot a gay wedding. It seems quite likely that clergy would be subject to the same litigation if they are not a specifically protected class, under the freedom of religion clause of the First Amendmen. In other words, same sex marriage legislation should be carefully and thoughtfully crafted.
Or, better yet, clergy should stop performing legal marriages.]
Relevant Video:
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Douglas Kmiec | ||||
| ||||
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Ann,
I wish it were a paper, I should give you an A+. You make more sense and write far more cogently than I do.
One of the greatest controversies in the American Christian community is whether it is enough to be saved or does God require of us that we do our best to help others. This is hardly a new discussion and, tho' it was long agoe settled for all but the extremes here in Western Europe, it has never found a final consensus in the US.
As badly as I observe it, my sense of being a Christian is that my salvation is a gift, bought for me at great sacrifice and granted me through God's grace.
It is not a "get out of jail free card." It is not a "I'm going to heaven and you aren't na-na-na-NA-na" taunt, it is only the beginning. Forgiven of my sins, it is up to me now to return whatever portion of good I have to offer to the world. I don't see how anyone can maintain they are free of sin and I certainly don't understand this ranking of sins, Jesus made quite clear that other than to deny God, all sins are equally vile.
My position, as poorly as I live up to it, is a very European one and I have found it in Germany, Scotland, Ireland, Italy the Netherlands and the UK. Experienced it in Finland, saw it in practice in what is now the Czech republic.
And I have seen it in the work of many Christians with the poor, with the ill in America.
The genuine questioning and seeking answers is a good thing. Faith is not where free-will is bound.
I'm glad there are Christians here like you. Much as I enjoy the rhetorical battles, it does me good to encounter people who are well past me in learning.
Oh, given that the Bible clearly does grant permission for two men to love each other ...with a love greater than that for any woman... I think it is truly a shame that so many focus on the sexual aspect of relationships. A guy who is mucking out the horse stall, as my husband did for my parents today, is showing a love and devotion which can not be bad. I wonder if that is not why so many here focus their hatred on us - it frees them from having to do something positive and affirming as Christians.
I, personally, can get up on a soapbox and preach for hours about the sins of those who don't practice common sense and then go out and have abortions. Easy for me to do, I am not likely to become pregnant nor beget a woman with child.
So it is a safe place for my righteous indignation. Socially approved, too.
Much easier than visiting a sick neighbor in the hospital when most of us in the village are probably going to stick a pin in them at their funeral just to be sure they're really dead. Or drive a stake..., as my 87 year old neighbor down the road just this morning suggested. Being charitable to this neighbor is hard work. Being self-righteous is easy.
Oh boy, before anyone feels offended, I was referring to David and Jonathan, not implying heterosexual men don't love women....
Btw, Husband, thank you for answering my questions so thoroughly. I really appreciate it, and will certainly think on what you've said.
"cogently".... I had to look that one up. That is a compliment I will take!
Jim,
You are most welcome. It's been a couple of days since I visited here. I spoke from the heart and hope my answers were helpful to you. It was refreshing to not have to couch my terminology all in 'God-talk' (which, because of my background, I'm pefectly capable of).
Please let me know your thoughts when you've reflected.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.