The recent decision by the California Supreme Court to recognize marriage between two persons of the same sex has been much in the news, and readers know we aren’t afraid to tackle controversial topics. This is such a one.
Let’s start with a definition upon which we can all agree: “marriage” is a personal union of individuals. Traditionally, its arrangement and conduct have been based on societal norms, with the usual variation from monogamy (one husband and one wife) to polygamy (one husband with multiple wives). We know of other arrangements of individuals whose friends would also consider them “married,” but what’s new in the last decade is the expansion of the legal concept to include men-only or women-only unions.
At issue really is how the government defines for its purposes that word “marriage.” The court-ordered change in that definition was the cause for the joyous celebration in Sonoma’s July Fourth parade and, we presume, in other communities, as well. The controversy arises because the state is using the same term “marriage” that most people have long recognized as a fundamentally religious term. So many folks worry, understandably, that the government is dictating religious doctrine. We say, charitably, that it isn’t necessarily so.
As a reminder of the underlying principle, here’s what the U.S. Constitution says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
It has not always been compulsory to get a marriage license from the government – with its inherent power, one supposes, of denial. In fact, the state recognizes “common-law” marriages, where no such license has been obtained. However, as the government has accumulated more power to itself, the temptation for social engineering has grown, and government started granting certain favors to certain types of people, principally through its tax regulations. It was in 1923, 10 years after the national government bypassed the states for a new funding source and began assessing personal income taxes, that the national government passed the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act.
So if we recognize that the government’s use of the term and society’s use of the term in fact serve different needs, then a lot of the present controversy is resolved. Couples of any combination can submit payment to the government for a “State Marriage” in order to secure certain benefits from the government, while couples so inclined can have a “Church Marriage” with a ceremony of their choosing, which continues to be predominantly religious. To help recognize that distinction, we’ll coin here the terms “starriage” for state marriage and “charriage” for church marriage.
With that clarification, we have no problem with the state defining starriage any way it chooses, through the appropriate legal process. Certainly, it has seemed unfair that only couples with a charriage should be given certain tax and estate benefits. Perhaps a better option would have been not to give special benefits to anyone, but if expanding the definition of starriage gives a more equitable distribution of government largesse, why not?
Our concern arises when the government starts to meddle in religious affairs. There’s no reason that charriages can’t continue just as they were. If a church chooses to recognize only man-woman charriages, that should be no business of the government, which, we recall, is Constitutionally bound to respect the free exercise of religion.
Which brings us to the government schools. With starriage now available to gay couples, does that mean our public schools will begin to teach, contrary to the religious tenets of most U.S. citizens (about two-thirds of whom identify themselves as Christian or Muslim), that all starriages represent equally acceptable ways of life? “Free exercise” rights should be protected and government schools should be silent on this issue, just as they should be on all areas of religious doctrine.
Separation of church and state? You betcha. In our view, that means keeping charriage and starriage separate, too.
