So the Californian Supreme Court overturned the state’s marriage ban. A ban that was voted for by 60% of voters in that state. It’s sure to be a popular decision. Especially with the talk radio set.

So why do I think this is a bad thing? Because it’s still legislating marriage. Marriage is inherently a religious institution. If you look at the number of different ways marriage is instituted around the world it quickly becomes obvious that the United States doesn’t just have a legal framework for marriage. It has a legal framework for a generalized Christian marriage. Then it heaps a ton of laws on top of this religious event.

I feel a lot of sympathy for the religious right on this one, because they are having their religion dictated to them. Their vision of marriage has been turned into a legal right that can be modified and changed with prevailing societal norms. We’re so used to marriage being part of the state that it doesn’t seem odd anymore. But what if communion was state sponsored? Or confession? This is the key reason that the framers of the constitution wanted a separation of church and state.

A democratic religious state would still be much freer than a complete theocracy. Look at Iran. There’s still an large amount of dissent in a country that we think of as pretty theocratic. But that’s at least partially because once a government becomes theocratic it begins watering down the religious aspects for practical concerns. After all, it’s goal is to build roads and provide electricity, and if it needs to interpret a few religious laws in new ways to do so, it’s probably going to.

Look at the LDS Church. They had polygamy as necessary to get into heaven. But even though they were a predominantly Mormon territory they denounced that part of their religion to become a member of the United States. This is what happens when politics mixes with religion. The religion always loses.

Let’s throw marriage out of the government. Civil unions for everyone. Even civil unions for polygamists. It would simplify our legal system immensly. And then you could get married in a church in whatever way you want. And no one could say a thing about it. And if your church wanted to ban gay marriages because your god hates gays, that’s your complete right. And that right wouldn’t interefe with life insurance benefits or alimony payments.

What do you think? Do you think the state should be in the marriage business?

---

Comments

Holmes (http://the-holmes.blogspot.com)

2008-05-16T20:10:34.000Z

Maybe I’m completely misunderstanding you, but I’ll charge ahead anyway. I can’t summon up a whole lot of sympathy for the religious right on very many issues, this one included. Their arguments usually sound something akin to “you’re oppressing my freedom of religion because you won’t let me oppress you for not subscribing to my religious views.” It would be one thing if they didn’t want to recognize the marriage of two men or two women within the framework of their particular church, but the fact of the matter is that they want to take it outside the church doors and into the halls of government to legislate their view of the world. They’re the ones pushing for the state laws and the Constitutional amendments to nail down the Christian right’s view of How It Oughtta Be. And I would also challenge the notion of marriage being inherently a religious institution. Sure, it may have strong ties to religion, but the definition of marriage has been toyed with and changed and restated many many times down through the centuries. Religious covenant, business transaction, power merger…a man and woman of the same color, of the same class. And now the argument is over gender. I guess my point is that there have been so many fingers in the marriage pie, so many definitions that have all tried to place limits on what marriage could and couldn’t be that I don’t think using a different term is going to defuse the argument all that much.

Tim (http://www.loadedguntheory.com/blog/director/listblog/tim.html)

2008-05-16T20:22:15.000Z

Yeah, I guess my point is that if you want your religious version of marriage you would do very well to keep it away from government. The government currently while calling the act “marriage” is actually just performing legal partnerships. Which I would contend it should stick with and tell people that if they want a “marriage” they should seek out their local church, synagogue or fertility totem. Even if the religious right gets what it wants today, by enshrining their version of “marriage” into law they are making way for it to be revised and reinterpreted. Thus diluting their original religious version of “marriage”. In other words, even though they may not realize it, they’re going to lose.