Equality and Marriage -- Rev. Ng's View

So it's Holy Week -- and I am over my head with stuff to do to make it through the week -- but what I am doing -- following the Supreme Court in a way I haven't done since I left the practice of law. It's a momentous week for our country -- one that I believe will be remembered for some time to come. It's a moment when we have been squarely faced -- as a nation -- with the question of whether we really mean what we say:  "Liberty and justice for all."

I wanted to write today to put down my thoughts about this whole equality of marriage rights issue, because I think about it is a way that I don't hear represented much in the media. Perhaps it's my background as a lawyer and a minister -- or maybe I'm just out to lunch -- you can decide.

It seems to me that one of the main reasons we have trouble discussing and addressing this issue is the entanglement of church and state at it's heart -- though often unstated. Opponents of equal marriage rights repeatedly -- and often loudly -- define "marriage" as between "one man and one woman" (the subject of the DOMA challenge for federal law). But where do they get that definition? If pressed, it all comes down to their interpretation of the Bible, i.e., that the Bible defines "marriage" that way. We can have a whole long discussion about that interpretation -- but I will leave that for another time. My point here is that most opponents of equal marriage rights rely on the Bible for their definition of "marriage." Even if someone points to the definition in law, historically, we can go back and see that likely that definition for government purposes was borrowed from either the Bible or church tradition. Indeed, though I am not an historian -- legal, religious or otherwise --  I suspect that the legal use of the word "marriage" itself was likely lifted from the church -- as "marriage" is an historic sacrament of the church. We in the Protestant tradition may have stripped it of its "sacramental" status, but it is still a religious covenant, involving blessing by the church or other religious institution.

Until very recently in history, the church and the civil government were joined at the hip. There was an official state church -- even in some states in the early days of our nation. So this commingling of the civil and the religious initially made sense. But as we developed the (very wise) concept of separation of church and state, some remnants of the earlier system remain. "Marriage" is one of them.

We, and other countries now accept that a "marriage" ceremony may be performed by purely civil or state authorities -- like a judge, or justice of the peace, or notary public -- any official authorized by the law to accept the oaths of the participants. No religious authorities need be involved. In many countries, in fact, a couple needs to be "married" twice -- two ceremonies -- one in front of civil authorities, once in front of religious authorities. Though only the civil ceremony is required by law -- the other is a matter of religious choice. But the religious authority does not stand in for the state in the ceremony. It is purely between the couple, the church or other religious institution, and God.

Not so in the United States. If a couple choses to be married in a religious ceremony, the religious authority also acts as a representative of the state (though we wear blinders to keep us from seeing this fact). Ministers sign the marriage license. The state accepts the ceremony performed by the religious institution for it's purposes. And here's the rub:

The state cannot tell me, or my church, whose union we may or may not bless. The state cannot define "marriage" for the church, as a religious covenant and union. All the state can do is define which unions it will recognize for legal purposes. I can perform a marriage ceremony for any couple permitted by my religious convictions and authorized by my church. That is not, as some have said to me, "illegal." That union may not be legally recognized, or accorded the same rights as other unions, but it is still recognized in the sight of God. The state has nothing to say about that.

But because we see civil "marriage" and religious "marriage" as the same thing -- and treat them that way in our law -- we get into this mess about how to define "marriage" under the law, and continue to graft Biblical and religious definitions into the debate. This was made patently apparent in the Supreme Court arguments yesterday -- where we heard things like, "marriage is for the purpose of procreation," and the usual "one man, one woman." Justice Sotomayor exploded those arguments beautifully, I think.

All the government can regulate are "civil unions" or "civil marriages." That's it. And if you strip the definition of "union" or "marriage' down to it's civil (as opposed to religious) components -- what we find is the committed union of two adult human beings -- two people over the age of consent who have chosen to live their lives as a single, conjoined entity. That choice has legal consequences -- rights and responsibilities. And without the religious subtext, there is no rational reason to distinguish between two adults based on things such as religion, race, or gender. The government doesn't keep a Jew from marrying a non-Jew. The government (at least now) does not prevent a Caucasian from marrying an African-American. Etc. All couples willing and able to make this commitment should be treated equally under the law -- entitled to the same rights and having the same responsibilities -- and one of those rights involve having the same "label" under the law. I loved what Rob Reiner said last night on TV, that the concept of "civil union" for gay couples is like saying you have all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, but you are not a "citizen." Doesn't make sense -- unless you want to keep the definition of "marriage" pure because of a religious subtext.

The separation of church and state is a good idea -- for the church as well as the state. This does not, in my opinion, mean that religion has nothing to say in the public arena. On the contrary -- it will always be the job of the church to speak truth to power. And I have no problem with religious authorities advocating based on their religious beliefs. But we need to be clear that is what we are doing. Don't pretend that you are making some sort of neutral argument, when you're not.

But more than that, I believe there is a difference between advocating for a position based on religious conviction and grafting religious definitions or beliefs into the civil law -- especially where, as in this country, we supposedly have separation of church and state. Looked at as a civil matter, all people in our country need to be treated equally under the law.  It's called "equal protection," and it is a cornerstone of our law and our very concept of what it means to be free.

I think we need an explicit separation of the ideas of "civil marriage" and "religious marriage." Religious authorities need to understand (and based on many of their comments I don't think they do), that if the government recognizes same-sex marriages they will not be forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. The state can't tell them to do it, anymore than it can tell them not to do it. It is up to the individual religious authorities to wrestle with the Biblical and religious implications of "marriage" before God. The government's recognition of the equality of marriage rights doesn't tell them what to believe.

Perhaps it is even time to go to a system of separate civil and religious ceremonies in this country as well -- to avoid this confusion. The simple civil ceremony can happen when the couple picks up the marriage license.

My denomination, my church, and my religious convictions tell me that all committed unions of adults are equal in the sight of God. My religious convictions also spur me to advocate for the equality of marriage rights under the law. I will continue to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies -- and pray for the day when they will be recognized not just by God, but by the law.