Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Getting married

---

Choosing to rush in where angels fear to tread, Congress in 1996 decided in a moment of total delusion that traditional marriage was under attack. In response, it passed the Defense of Marriage Act, defining "marriage" as the legal union of one man and one woman. The act was and is a solution wanting for a problem.

President Obama surprised virtually no one last week with his opinion that he favored allowing gays to marry, explaining that he could not figure out how to tell his daughters that is was OK to give some people rights denied to others. Since presidents are not ayatollahs, his opinion carries only moral weight.

No matter what the Defense of Marriage Act says, marriage is more than a union of one man and one woman. It's currently a weird combination of elements, some secular, some sacred and some outside reality. It is a legal contract, binding under state laws. It can be a covenant pledged in front of a religiously credentialed clergy. It has made clergy, in this one and only instance, into agents of the state, evidenced when they conclude wedding vows by saying something like, "By the power vested by the state, I now pronounce you ..." and then signing the legal wedding license.

It is time to officially bifurcate the state and religious roles when it comes to marriage. Government's proper role is to make sure all couples, gay or straight, have the same access, protection, obligations and benefits. Couples would get marriage licenses from government authorities in whatever way the authorities prescribed. Beyond that, the government would have no further role. The marriage contract would be completed as far as the state is concerned

Those who believe marriage to be a sacred commitment would, as they have always done, seek out a pastor or priest, a church or synagogue or temple or mosque or whatever house of worship they desire. Clergy would still provide counseling and prayer and officiate at a religious ceremony, applying any restrictions they choose. Those restrictions, in a purely religious context, become not discrimination but acceptable and accepted obligation.

Any communion that does not believe in gay marriage would not be expected to bless such a marriage because religious beliefs would be completely separated from legal requirements.

When congressmen argue about gay marriage, quoting scripture at each other, somebody is missing the point. Separating the sacred and the secular not only fulfills the letter and spirit of the Constitution, it would allow for both equality under the law for all Americans and the sovereignty of God for those who believe.

buy viagra
acheter viagra
comprar viagra