A somewhat lengthy post. While I have used this space to address positions of faith, and this issue may be political, it has a direct bearing on faith, and religion.
Words used to have meaning. Laws used to have force. When you have thousands of pages of regulations, where no individual can know all the laws, thus quite possibly breaking some law or other, the law isn't the problem, it is the selective enforcement that becomes the law. What does this have to do with marriage? And where did that just come from? Everything.
The current status of marriage in the United States, is this; federal and state courts nationwide are overturning the will of the people and ruling that bans against same sex marriage are unconstitutional, that by not allowing marriage between same sex partners violates their civil rights. While some states are protected, at least for a period of time, by courts recognizing that states, and their citizens can determine that status. This was given a pass by the Supreme Court this time around, but with appellate courts at odds with each other, it is almost certainly headed to the Supremes. How do they rule? Well, based on their ruling in 2013 (US vs Windsor) without a change in Justices, the decision should be to allow states to decide. They opted not to throw out bans directly, pointing out the states' jurisdiction in marriage. They overrode Prop 8 in CA due to a lack of standing by the plaintiff. (the state declined to defend its own law, and an outside source defended the law) Perhaps that is why the court declined to hear the case. They did not want to be put in the position of explaining either why they didn't rule the way they said in Windsor, or face the wrath of the gay community in overturning same sex marriages in states that have banned them.
The President has taken the position that while he supports same sex marriage, he supports the rights of churches to not perform those same marriages. There is the problem. If marriage, regardless to whom is a right, then how does the right enumerated in the First Amendment regarding freedom of religion have priority? And if it doesn't, then how can pastors, ministers etc, decline to perform those marriages? So what is marriage? What follows is my opinion.
Marriage is a religious rite. For centuries, it was a rite performed by the church, A covenant between man, woman, and God. All along, there were people that mated, that lived outside of the rules of marriage. What changed is that the state recognized and gave special treatment to these relationships. Ask yourself, if all marriages were entered into with an understanding that God was an integral part of the relationship would there be the number of divorces, and separations that there are in the US today? I would guess no.
I can see the time when clergy will be forced under court order to perform marriages that are contrary to their beliefs. I can see churches as institutions being litigated to the point of changing their doctrine, I can see the church that I belong to, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints having to withdraw the performance of marriages in its temples, performing sealings to couples that meet its definition of marriage. My opinion only. What can states do to fight this onslaught?
Simple. Pass legislation to replace the terms marriage, wedding, divorce in all statutes with civil union, or contract, or whatever you want to call it. These contracts however they are called are done by the clerks, or other designated official (non clergy) of the state. If people want to have a marriage, then they go to their church, for that rite (not right). Thus relegating to the church through private association the ability to define that rite. Of course this will not set well with those that are demanding the acceptance of their relationships as marriages. If that is the case, then perhaps the concepts of hospital visits, will recipients, or custody of children are just ruses, rather than reasons.
Comments
Post a Comment