kyleandkelly.com

This one’s been brewing in me for awhile, and recent events (including the “Senate’s rejection of the proposed Amendment”:http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/samesex.marriage/index.html) have brought it to the surface.

Unlike many of my friends and family, I oppose a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. I oppose it from two perspectives: one political, the other religious.

h2. From a Political Perspective

Some historical background: our Founding Fathers made it “very hard to amend the constitution”:http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#process. Two-thirds majority in both halves of the legislature, approval by three fourths of the states–that’s quite a few people agreeing on something.

Furthermore, the tenth amendment (hence part of the “Bill of Rights”:http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html) states that all powers not granted explicitly to the federal government were reserved for the States or the people:

bq. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

For 200 years, states have had the right to define marriage as they desire, and the system has worked. This state of things came into question when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial court struck down the state’s constitutional laws banning gay marriage. President Bush and other advocates of a constitutional amendment feel federal action is necessary to keep activist judges from overruling the state or the people.

That brings us to today, when the Senate rejected the constitutional amendment. Republicans lost the votes they needed for a two-thirds majority due in part to defections by moderates such as John McCain. McCain’s statements from the floor are an eloquent summary of my own feelings:

bq. The constitutional amendment we’re debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans. It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them.

Furthermore, he pointed out that existing measures already in place protect against the breakdown of society and chaos feared by advocates of the amendment. The 1996 “Defense of Marriage Act”:http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm defines marriage as between one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law and protects states from having to recognize marriages performed in another state with differing laws.

He concluded that if DOMA was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, or if state legislative remedies were unable to reign in activist judges, then a constitutional amendment might be appropriate:

bq. What evidence do we have that states are incapable of further exercising an authority they have exercised successfully for over 200 years? We will have to wait a little longer to see if Armageddon has arrived.

Even if I did not have misgivings about the amendment based on my religious beliefs, I would still object on the grounds laid out above.

h2. From a Religious Perspective

This is the area that I’m more open to persuasion on. My thoughts thus far run like this:

As a Christian, I believe that marriage is not something a secular government has the power to grant; it can only be granted by God through the agency of the Church. At best, a secular government can recognize a civil union between a couple. I believe this in part because of my beliefs in regards to weddings.

I consider a wedding to be to marriage what baptism is to one’s personal faith. It is a declaration before the church of God’s will at work, and the church’s responsibility to uphold that declaration (be it one of salvation or of marriage). Anyone who attended our wedding might remember that our service consisted of three commitments–to God, to each other, and to the Church. The last section was responsive, with the congregation asked to affirm their commitment to us as a couple.

This sidetrack onto a discussion of weddings is simply to show why I feel a marriage can only be granted through the agency of the Church, as it consists in part of a commitment between the couple and the Church. I’m not alone in making a distinction between a marriage as granted by the State, and a marriage as granted by the Church. In “Mere Christianity”:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060652926/002-4751276-2427221?v=glance C.S. Lewis states:

bq. Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one; the other is the quite different question–how far Christians, if they are voters or members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for everyone. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.

How does this apply to my refusal to sign a petition supporting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages? I believe that by signing the petition, I, as a member of the Church, abdicate my responsibility for governing marriage. Marriage thus becomes strictly the realm of the State, and controlled as such.

Though I may agree with the sentiments expressed in the amendment (marriage is between one man and one woman), I believe passing such an amendment would present a dangerous precedence of the federal government meddling in something that should be the realm of the Church. What if the amendment was passed? It would open the door for the federal government to continue to define what marriage is, and there is no guarantee that future definitions would be so Christian-friendly.

h2. Loose Ends

Some of you may spot a contradiction in my two perspectives. In the political one I seem to have no problem with states defining marriage, yet in the religious, I advocate marriage being the realm of the Church and worry about the government defining marriage. I believe there is a middle ground in this contradiction–state government is inherently closer to the people, hence it can be more responsive to the people. While an aggressive stance on marriage by a state government would have my hackles up, I’m more comfortable with the responsibility for defining a civil union (i.e., marriage in the eyes of the state) falling on the government at this level.

When all is said in done, my feelings on this issue are still very much in flux and I remain open minded to the viewpoints of other Christians.

written by Kyle