Marriage and the State
In preparing for my state constitutional law exam I came across a quotation from a federal case, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), which I think is interesting. The Court writes:
Marriage, as creating the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature. That body prescribes the age at which parties may contract to marry, the procedure or form essential to constitute marriage, the duties and obligations it creates, its effects upon the poverty rights of both, present and prospective, and the acts which may constitute grounds for its dissolution.
Although the opinion is well over a hundred years old, I think you’d find significant agreement with the sentiments behind it from most citizens today. But as a self-described ‘Christian libertarian,’ the quotation makes me squirm. I certainly agree with the Court’s view that marriage is “the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution.” But it is precisely for that reason that I feel the state should stay away from marriage. For an institution so important (and so rooted in religious faiths) it should not be left to the whims of a secular democracy. I think this is partially why beloved Christian author C.S. Lewis wrote the following:
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.
3 Responses to “Marriage and the State”
Joshua,
I think you make a good point. As a gay man, I have no problem with the notion of a clear distinction. Sadly, those on both sides of the issue have unspoken agendas. Following up on your libertarian remark, I appreciate that you can make a separation that honors your faith yet still seeks to afford equality from a constitutional vantage.
I wish those with agendas would cease couching their arguments in meaningless rhetoric so that we could have a reasoned and rational dialogue that could result in a fair outcome that honors religious beliefs as well as the clear intentions of our constitution.
read more here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
That sounds good in theory (one marriage for Church, one for state, and never the two shall meet). But what happens when the inevitable meeting does occur? Whose definition/recognition of marriage must give way?
Example – Church sponsored school, which does not recognize SSM, wants to hire a teacher. One candidate is in a hetero marriage, one in a SSM. Can the Church hire the hetero over the SSM? Or if a teacher is hired who is in an SSM, must the Church school extend benefits to the SSM partner that are reserved for married couples only?
As a private, religiously-oriented institution, a church-run school ought to be able to hire whomsoever it darn well pleases. However, to have such freedoms, it ought likewise eschew all tax-derived funding. If the school wants to belly up to Uncle Sugar’s trough, then the school has to follow Uncle Sugar’s rules.