How to Resolve The Same-Sex Marriage Issue
I’d like to share what may be a novel perspective on the same-sex marriage issue, which is presently under heated debate at all levels of government, as well as at the office water cooler and cocktail parties. When people discuss whether the government should or shouldn’t permit same-sex marriage, I find myself wondering why someone hasn’t yet asked the meta-question…
I’d like to share what may be a novel perspective on the same-sex marriage issue, which is presently under heated debate at all levels of government, as well as at the office water cooler and cocktail parties. Being such a charged topic, I can’t help but worry that my ideas may not be well-received by all readers, but if you think about them in the right context, I believe that they present a more fair solution than any other I’ve heard to date.
Incidentally, let me just state here at the outset that when I use the terms “priest” or “Church” in this article, it is for convenience and readability only. I intend them as non-denominational terms; it would simply be cumbersome to have to continue to refer to the concepts they represent as “priest, rabbi, imam, shaman, or other holy man or woman” and “church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other house of worship,” respectively.
Anyway, to begin, we’ll need to review some historical context. If we look back 500 years or so, monarchs didn’t preside over weddings – priests did. Priests even presided over monarchs’ weddings. Such was the Church’s power over marriage that in the 1500s, when King Henry VIII couldn’t get the Church to permit him a divorce, rather than decree himself divorced, he formed a new Church, “The Church of England,” to do it for him.
In my mention of the story of Henry VIII, I left out one important detail: Henry appointed himself the leader of his new Church, thereby fusing the powers of Church and State under a single common steward. I don’t know if this was the first incident of such a fusing, but it’s certainly one of the early and notable ones. After this fusing, it didn’t take long before his government began persecuting religious dissenters. In the 1600s, seeking religious freedom, 20,000 Puritans fled to the New World, followed by flights of Quakers, Baptists, and Protestants. These early settlers and their reasons for coming here are an important and telling part of American history.
As Britain’s and the colonies’ positions became more and more diametrically opposed, eventually a revolution was sparked, forming what we now call the United States. In its formation, the US’ founding fathers codified some of the issues at which they had been at odds with Britain. They created a Constitution that enumerates and upholds the population’s inalienable rights. They then wrote amendments to that constitution, the first ten of which are known as “The Bill of Rights,” which specifically discuss freedom of religion as one of those inalienable rights; they separated Church and State.
Liked it


-
-
Post CommentChristian Miller
On June 12, 2010 at 12:31 pm
You are on the right track. Get government out of both the marriage and the civil union businesses. An additional issue are the exclusive financial benefits that the goverment provides to people with goverment marriage licenses and not to single people. For example, the government pays us an additional $9000 per year in Social Secutiy payments soley because we have a government marriage license/certificate. This is terribly unfair to older people with marriage licenses.
A couple does not need to profess love, committment or agree to live together or make babies to get a government marriage license. So what is government’s purpose being the the marriage business?
Brian Maverick Blum
On September 5, 2010 at 11:24 am
Thanks for the support, Christian!
I did broadly address the government-financial issues you raise in my article: “The government should not marry anyone, nor regard anyone differently whether the Church considers them married or not. The government shouldn’t care whether you or anyone else considers you married or not. If all men are created equal, the government should treat every individual the same, married or not. Its sole role in the matter should be in the enforcing of civil law, including any contracts into which people freely enter.”