HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017398.jpg

4.2.12
WC: 191694

Since my youth, the movement toward full equality for gays has made great strides, despite continuing religious objection from some church groups and some Orthodox Jews. The fact that many churches, as well as conservative and reform Judaism, support equality has muted the impact of the religious right somewhat on this issue. Before long, I predict, it will not be an issue for most Americans.

In 2003, during the beginning of the presidential election season, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts rendered the first-in-the-nation decision declaring it unconstitutional to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. This decision was truly a knife that cut both ways: it was a Magna Carta for gay and lesbian couples, but it was also a boon to social conservative candidates who could use it as an important part of their appeal to the majority of Americans who then believed that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples.

I decided to write an op ed that would seek to eliminate gay marriage as "a wedge issue" in the upcoming political campaign. In it, I argued that if marriage is indeed sacreda divine, a blessed sacrament between man and woman as ordained in the Bible, it would follow that the entire concept of marriage has no place in our civil society, which recognizes the separation between the sacred and the secular, between church and state. Just as the state has no role in baptisms, circumcisions or other religious rituals, it should play no role in sacred marriages.

The state is, of course, concerned with the secular rights and responsibilities that are currently associated with the sacrament of marriage (as it is with the safety of baptisms and circumcisions): the financial consequences of divorce, the custody of children, Social Security and hospital benefits, etc.

The solution I proposed is to unlink the religious institution of marriage -- as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union -- from the state. Under this proposal, any couple, regardless of gender, could register for civil union, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.

Religious couples could then go to the church, synagogue, mosque or other sacred institution of their choice in order to be married. These religious institutions would have total decision-making authority over which marriages to recognize. Catholic churches would not have to perform or recognize gay marriages. Orthodox Jewish synagogues would not perform or recognize a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew who did not wish to convert to Judaism. And those religious institutions that chose to perform or recognize gay marriages could do so. It would be entirely a religious decision beyond the scope of the state.

Under this new arrangement, marriage would remain a sacrament, as ordained by the Bible and as interpreted by each individual church. No secular consequences would flow from marriage, only from civil union.

In this way, gay couples would win exactly the same civil rights as heterosexual couples in relationship to the state. They would still have to persuade individual churches of their point of view, but that is not the concern of the secular state.

Not only would this solution be good for gays and for those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, it would also strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by

311

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017398