A New National Discussion on Marriage

Too often than not, conversations involving religion and same-sex marriage stray from the civil, and head toward the raucous.  Sure, there are increasing numbers of religious organizations and clergy coming out in favor of marriage equality, and arguing that there's easily a biblical case to be made for same-sex marriage.

But obviously there's still some tension, whether it comes in the form of Pat Robertson, the form of a conservative Episcopal Church breaking away from the larger denomination, or the vigilance with which the Catholic Church is fighting to take away civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples in Maine.  Is there hope among more conservative religious institutions to have civil conversations about marriage equality?

Yes, according to the Interfaith Alliance, a D.C.-based religious organization focused on promoting both religious rights and democracy.  Their director. Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, is out with a new paper on the issue of marriage equality and religion, titled, "Same-Gender Marriage and Religious Freedom: A Call to Quiet Conversations and Public Debates."  The paper calls for a new national discussion on marriage - a conversation that should be infused by the fact that "law, not scripture, is the foundation of government regulations related to marriage in our nation."

Instead of the often volatile rhetoric coming out of the right, Rev. Gaddy challenges religious organizations to see the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage, rather than see the issue of same-sex marriage as something handed down from "activist judges" or LGBT rights groups.  Check it out:

Despite the religious community’s avid interest in marriage and heavy involvement in wedding ceremonies, legal marriage does not exist in this country without a government-issued license for marriage and certificate of marriage. Indeed, religion has no actual influence, legal or otherwise, on the United States government’s recognition of marriage. Couples do not have to be religious to get married. Religious leaders do not have to preside over marriage ceremonies. Marriage partners do not have to make any pledge to support or be involved in a religious institution. To summarize, in the United States marriage is a legal institution—sanctioned by government and restricted by the government in the number of partners allowed in a marital relationship and the minimum age of those partners.

To confuse the civil institution of marriage with a religious institution to be protected by the government is to seriously misunderstand marriage and its relationship to government in the United States! Civil law determines the formation and dissolution of a marriage as well as the duties, responsibilities, rights and benefits of married people: rights related to property, insurance, inheritance, bankruptcy, social security and more; duties related to mutual support, payment of taxes and more; and a variety of privileges....

Thankfully, the government’s control of marriage is not without limits. The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from imposing its meaning of marriage on a house of worship. Our constitutional principle of mutual reciprocity is invaluable. The government has no more right to define marriage for a house of worship than any religious body has a right to impose its sectarian view of marriage on the entirety of a government by means of law. As legal scholar Douglas Laycock asserts, “Religious and legal marriage are . . . distinct in conception as well as in origin.”

Gaddy's jumping point is President George W. Bush's comments in 2004, after Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage.  At that time, Bush said that the decision in Massachusetts to provide equal rights for gay and lesbian couples threatened the "sanctity" and holiness of traditional marriage.

But it's never been the business of government to define what should be sanctified and holy.  Gaddy makes this point pretty clearly:

Unfortunately, President Bush assumed that the courts of Massachusetts were redefining a religious institution. The courts of Massachusetts were clear: they were dealing with law as assigned by the government.

In essence, the paper from Gaddy is clear in that it draws us all back to a point of common sense: government and religion are different.  As such, it's not the business of the government to tell a religion who they can marry, just as it's not the business of religion to try and make discrimination law.

Read the rest of Gaddy's paper here.  Is it time for a new national discussion on marriage infused from this perspective?  And is this the perspective that the rather libertarian voters in Maine might see the issue of marriage equality from, as they prepare to head to the polls in November to vote on whether gay and lesbian couples should have the right to civil marriage?