This will be interesting.
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to take up the explosive issue of same-sex marriage, thrusting itself into a policy debate that has divided federal and state governments and courts, as well as voters in nearly 40 states.
If you think about it, there seem to be two kinds of marriage: marriage as sanctioned by religion, and marriage as sanctioned by government. For example, if your religion calls for it, you and your significant other could grasp hands under a full moon, sprinkle pixie dust over your heads, and call yourself married. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the government classifies you as “married.”
Think about the polygamists who “marry” according to their religion. It doesn’t mean squat to the government.
Like it or not, there is a status between consenting adults that the government calls “marriage” that is not necessarily related to religion. My wife and I are married, but we had no religious ceremony. That status provides for certain rights and benefits from the government and society in general.
Because the status of “married” as defined by the government can be different than that as defined by religion, I think it’s important that same sex couples who want to be married as defined by government should be able to do so. That’s the very definition of equal rights under the law.
If certain religious organizations don’t want to recognize those marriages, that’s their right. No one is asking, as far as I know, that churches be forced to perform wedding ceremonies for same sex couples. If that were ever the case, I’d be on your side, Mr. Church goer.
But that isn’t the case.
This means a couple of things. If same sex marriage disgusts you in general, great, no one will be forcing you to marry anyone who is the same gender as you. Secondly, if on religious grounds you are against same sex marriage, great, no one will be forcing your religion to perform same sex marriages or to recognize same sex marriages.
Dan, are you _sure_ no one’s going to be forced to perform a gay marriage against their religion? If so, you’re wrong. What?! Yes, wrong. Think: Military Chaplains. They absolutely will be ordered to perform such marriages, someday soon, on pain of prison. And if they can be, as employees of the government (which they are), how about any church that gets a tax break and is, therefore, something of a ward of the government thereby? Now this may be a good thing or a bad thing. It may be a constitutional protection of equal rights under the law or it may be an unconstitutional mingling of church and state. Whatever it is, though, it’s going to happen.
I see your point, Tom, but I think it is a different issue. Related, yes. But different. It’s an issue that will have to be addressed as it comes up.
Ideally, I’d like to see government get out of the marriage business altogether, but I don’t think that’s going to happen. The second best outcome would be for there to be a complete separation between religious marriage and government marriage. Since there already is some separation in some instances, I don’t think it’s a stretch to see it go all the way. One is not required to have a religious marriage in order to be recognized as “married” in the eyes of the state.
I really don’t see how they’re different in any important way. You said it wouldn’t happen. I have shown you it _will_ happen, and very soon after federal recognition of gay marriage / mandate of recognition of gay marriage. Colonel Father Jesus de la Maria, SJ, US Army, is going to be ordered to perform a same sex marriage or face a court martial.
For myself, I am fairly indifferent both to gays and to gay marriage. Fact is, I just don’t generally care. But that’s not the same as being oblivious to the ramifications. You’ve surely heard the old saw, “When someone says it’s not the money, it’s the principle? Yeah, it’s the money.” That’s about half true in this case or a bit less. If it were just the money, gays could have the same tax treatment (and, by the way, the exconomic and tax implications of gay marriage are immense) and all other financial perks and duties without using the word, “marriage.” But it’s not just the money. They stand on the principle of being treated equally. Hence they insist on the word, Marriage, even if they could have the legalities without the word. I can see no principled reason, given that they’re standing on principle themselves, that they would back off from the spiritualities any place they can get them.
You will not get the state out of the marriage business because the state has an interest in couples capable of bearing children to bear them and raise them at private, rather than public, expense. This is most reliably (not perfectly, but most reliably) done in marriage. Hence the sundry tax benefits that accrue to the married and the child raising which is really the only place the federal government was involved with marriage until recent efforts at expanding the feds’ scope.
Well, if I were a man of the cloth and I knew that I was going to be forced to marry those of the same sex in the military against my religious beliefs, I simply wouldn’t join the military as a Chaplin. Again, that may or may not occur. You say that it will happen, but, at this point, it’s your strong opinion that it will happen. I’ll even go so far as saying it’s your well informed opinion. You’ve a military background, and I don’t.
If it does happen, the SCOTUS will have to take that up. I’d say that I’m pretty confident that they would rule on the side of the Constitution, but after Justice Robert’s raping of the Constitution in the ObamCare ruling, I’m not so sure.
As far as gay folks standing on the principle of equality, I think they have a point; constitutionally speaking that is. Right now, the government is involved in the game of marriage for the very reasons you pointed out. But, because of that, and the perks that come with being “married,” constitutionally, I believe they have a point.
I’ll point out again, that the religious ceremony of marriage and the state sanction of marriage (civil marriage) are not necessarily the same thing. I know of plenty of people who are “married” according to their religion but who, in fact, are not married in the eyes of the state. I do live in Utah after all.
As far as I understand, some religions don’t necessarily recognize state sanctioned divorce proceedings nor civil marriages; for example the Catholic Church. A civil marriage does not make you married in the Catholic Church, and a civil divorce does not mean you are divorced in the eyes of the church either. In fact, as I understand, a civilly married Catholic couple not having gone through the Catholic ceremony, but who are living together would be considered as committing fornication.
Again, I may be incorrect as I’m not Catholic.
The point is that since it is pretty well established that a civil marriage and a religious marriage are not equally recognized between the two institutions, I think it likely that Churches will not be forced to marry same sex couples or to recognize same sex couples as being married. And, if they are, I’m equally certain that the SCOTUS would rule favorably.
But, then again, like I said, I felt reasonably certain that the SCOTUS would rule favorably re ObamaCare. I didn’t count on Justice Roberts pulling fantasy law out of his ass to make it work.
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see at this point.
It’s going to be a multi-step process. First federal recognition of gay marriage (assuming it’s not rejected), then forcing military chaplains to perform them, then forcing civil clerics to.
And step two is a given precisely because a) this is, for gays, a principled stand, while b) the military chaplain is in a unique position, serving, as it were, two masters, and c) the US military is always used as a prostitute for social change and has been since 1862. Sometimes this is good. Other times – see, eg, project 100,000 – not so much.
I _am_ Catholic, and as confused as ever by the church’s position. I think the church is, itself, somewhat confused and struggling toward a theologically and practically sound position. For example, prior to Vatican II it was, basically, “You’re not a Catholic; you’re going to Hell anyway, so who cares if you get a hotter section for not being married in the one true church?” Since Vatican II it’s been more like, “Yes, we’re the one true church, BUT, since God is unlikely to be too worried about minor bits of dogma, doctrine, and ceremony, we don’t think you’re going to Hell for being a protestant. For that matter, since God is a loving god, and since you Buddhists and Hindus were created in God’s image, you’re not going to Hell either, so…”
The other thing about the Church (I only ever capitalize the Catholic Church) is that, as suggested above, it is about half concerned with Heaven and half with Earth. If you read, say, this:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20001109_de-facto-unions_en.html
you can find a lot of, “We’re against X not just because God said it’s bad, but in the firm belief that God said it’s bad because it works poorly, giving rise to great evil, HERE and NOW. And here’s why…”
Catholicism’s a lot more intellectually entertaining than most Christian faiths.
Addendum: I used SJ – Jesuits – for a reason. They’re called “the Pope’s Special Forces” for a reason. They don’t necessarily get a choice and a Pope may well order one or more to serve in the US military _precisely_ to take a stand against gay marriage.
You have, in any case, just laid out an interesting conundrum: a) Chaplains who take their religion seriously ought not join the military, so b) Chaplains who put man before God and do not take their religions too seriously should join the military. There’s a certain violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state floating around in that…