Monday, August 27, 2012

Christians Should Be Outraged Over Marriage (in)Equality

Via Jenni + Karen + Jadon on Flickr

Gay Marriage.

Civil Unions.

Marriage Equality.

Via Feastoffun on Flickr


Seems like you can't go a single day without hearing these terms in the news. The most recent stats I've seen say that about 50% of Americans are in favor of legalizing gay marriage. As a nation, we are pretty much split on this issue.

When examining marriage equality beliefs along religious divides, Protestants are less likely than Catholics to approve. Protestants who attend services weekly are even less likely to approve of gay marriage.

As a self-identified Protestant Christian who attends services weekly (and recently joined the choir, can you believe it?), I am telling you, these numbers should rile people up! This entire issue should rile people up! In fact, Christians should be outraged over marriage inequality!

If there's one thing that most Christians- Catholic or Protestant- believe about marriage, it is that marriage is a sacred practice. For Catholics marriage is a sacrament. For Protestants, marriage is a sacred covenant between God, man, and wife.

Via andrewmalone on Flickr


Except for the denominations where it is a sacred covenant between God and wife and wife, or God and husband and husband. 

Episcopal and Presbyterian ministers may bless gay unions. The United Church of Christ has been legally recognizing and advocating for gay marriages since 2005. And some ministers within the United Methodist Church have become part of the Reconciling Ministries Network and perform gay marriages. As a Church, we are pretty much split on this issue.

But whether your church or denomination supports gay marriage or not, there is one thing we should all agree about and support:

It's time for the government to get out of our churches!
The government should have no say in who may marry and who may not.*

Via darcyandkat on Flickr


Marriage has certain legal rights and responsibilities associated with it. The government needs a way for you to designate your legal next of kin, beneficiary, tax partner, and whatnot. There needs to be order and records because marriage plays a role in division of property and assets, child custody, and any other number of issues if the marriage is dissolved. I get that- it can't be a free for all! 

But why should the government be granting licenses to engage in a religious sacrament or covenant? Who is the government to tell me how and when I can take communion or be baptized? Who is the government to tell me who and when I can marry?

See, the marriage license is the issue, here. Marriage licenses have traditionally been used to restrict marriage: by preventing interracial marriages; by limiting marriage of immigrants (who may not have the proper identification needed to obtain a license); by placing marriage out of the economic grasp of the poor (fees for the license plus testing in some areas!). It's ridiculous! 

Via Nate C on Flickr


So, what is the solution? 

I think religious institutions should practice their beliefs about marriage as they see fit, without interference from the State, whether that is man and wife, wife and wife, husband and husband, or husband and wife and wife and wife. Religious (or non-religious, for those who chose) expression should not be hindered by the State. For legal purposes, couples may register their marriage (or union, whatever they want to call it) with the State, and be granted specific rights and responsibilities between two** people. Those who do not wish the rights and responsibilities do not have to register their commitment, but will forfeit all protections and benefits.

Then the debate over gay marriage can move to where it should be- our churches! And all citizens will be granted the same rights and responsibilities for their registered unions. 

Doesn't this just make sense? What do you think? And what on Earth does this mean about my political affiliation?!?!



*As a nation, we believe in the legal age of consent (18, younger with parent approval in some states.) I support that as one condition/clause that should remain in place.
** Yes, only two for the rights and responsibilities, as I don't think the government should be paying survivor benefits  or trying to figure out legal next of kin between multiple spouses.

4 comments:

Missy at Its Almost Naptime said...

Girrrrrrl, you just love to stir the pot lately!

I believe that acceptance of gay marriage is indicative of the complete lack of respect for traditional marriage that has been perpetrated mostly by us bible thumping Christians. We ain't got no one to blame but ourselves.

Is it ideal? No. But - shut the door - CHRISTIAN DIVORCE IS FAR MORE DAMAGING TO THE CHURCH THAN ANY GAY GUYS GETTING HITCHED.

Let's work on cleaning our own house before we start trying to clean up people's we don't even know.

And btw, your communion/baptism analogy is brilliant. My analogy is, would I want my kids' Mormon teacher to be fuzzy on the separation of church and state? Hell to the no.

graceling said...

Missy, you hit the nail on the head... Christian divorce is hugely damaging to our families, our churches, and our witness--- much moreso than gay marriages.

I believe every religioius body had the right to interpret their sacred texts and set their practices as they see fit. If gay marriage is a sin according to their interpretation, then so be it... and when they are without sin themselves, they can go Savior, um, "save" all those sinners. But until then, let's not ask our far-from-sinless government to "save" people from their "sins."

Anna G said...

I feel the same. Maybe we ought to change the words we use. Maybe we all ought to be in "civil unions" as far as the state is concerned, and "marraiges" as far as our religion is concerned.

Missy at Its Almost Naptime said...

I do agree with you Anna. I think marriage should remain what it has been for eons - one man, one woman.

Civil unions tho, as an American, I can't deny.

I was just thinking, it's like this: suppose a bunch of polygamist Mormons got in DC (think Bill Hendrickson for President) and said "No we will set the standard for marriage and anyone who only marries one wife is breaking the law."

It's a stretch, but it puts it in perspective.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...