The Un-holiest Marriage


After the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision last Friday to legalize gay marriage in that state, and after this morning’s veto-breaking vote in the Vermont legislature to make same-sex marriage legal there, voices are sure to be raised, mostly on the religious right, about “defending marriage” and “defending the sanctity of marriage.”

While I’m proud of both these states for the measures they’ve taken to ensure equal protection under the law, it seems to me that the “problem” with gay marriage stems from the un-holiest marriage of all: states have for too long been in bed with the churches in the matter of marriage, and it’s time the states filed for divorce.

For too long the word “marriage” has referred both to what churches do and what states do, and that’s a serious problem because it allows some religious groups to walk all over the rights of people who are not in any way affiliated with their religion in the name of “defending” their own limited definition of marriage and  family.

While a couple can get a marriage license and obtain a civil marriage without going through a church, the rules of churches still apply (or did, and still do in most states) about who gets that license and who gets turned away.

It works well for these churches to have their traditions and beliefs codified into laws because it lends the weight of the state’s apparatus to enforcing their views even outside their congregations, but it’s not working so well for a lot of the rest of us.

Iowa’s Court decision was elegant in that it addressed (without being asked) the religious view of marriage and made clear that the decision will not force churches to do anything differently than they are now.  It simply says that if the state is going to be involved in the marriage business, the state has a constitution to uphold that promises equal protection under the law for all its citizens.

It’s incredibly sad to me that so many states have been quick to amend their constitutions “in defense of marriage,” as if the sanctity or stability of any two people’s marriage will be threatened by someone else having that piece of paper, no matter their gender. The driving forces behind these amendments are religious people and organizations who seek to maintain their long-standing hegemony over marriage, civil or otherwise.

It’s a pretty good business, having a sizable corner on the marriage market–especially if you have politicians in power who codify laws to encourage the teaching of abstinence-until-marriage to kids.  Then, not only do you get to say who can get married, you also have a corner on the permission-to-have-sex market, and a better shot at getting indoctrination access to the progeny those marriages create.

Pretty sweet deal for the churches, but it runs way afoul of the separation of church and state, which is one of the fundamentals of our democracy.  States should not be in the marriage business, but if they are, they should not be in the business of codifying church-based prejudice simply because what the state does and what churches do (marriage, that is) are called the same thing.

I have to wonder, after Iowa’s decision, how we can reconcile our, or any other state’s, “one man-one woman” constitutional amendment with the equal protection guaranteed to all from the time of each Constitution’s ratification. Are we heading down the slippery slope to “all people are created equal, but some are more equal than others?”

Too, lots of folks are going to be hollering about “liberal judges”–silly in Iowa’s case because those justices were appointed by Republicans.  The reason judges are appointed rather than elected, and the reason their terms are not limited is to avoid the tyranny of the majority, and to prevent the sorts of decisions that get made along partisan lines in preparation for an election cycle.

The thing Iowa and Vermont have in common is their propensity, even considering some pretty strong conservative undercurrents, toward doing the right thing when the chips are down.  When your constitution says it’s going to give equal protection, then you honor that contract and you fulfill its promise, even if you know there’ll be backlash, even if your own heart isn’t sure.

I’d be surprised if all those Republican-appointed Iowa justices were as sure of their own feelings as they were of what the Constitution called them to do.

I don’t believe that states are going to get out of the marriage business anytime soon, but I think these decisions are good steps toward differentiating between a civil contract and a religious ceremony, fulfilling the promise of equal protection, and–yeah!–and creating a more perfect union.

Advertisements

11 responses to this post.

  1. […] What she said… Be Social: […]

  2. Posted by Linda on April 7, 2009 at 1:52 pm

    Well done. I wondered if anyone would ever take the time to focus on the separation of church and state argument as a nullifier to all the lifestyle bias positions. I think the equality argument, while very pertinent, sometimes looses people; especially people with opposing views or who don’t need to worry about discrimination because they are the norm.

    Religion should be no where in government.

  3. I was offended that South Dakota required me to pay a fee to obtain its permission to marry my wife. Church-and-state-mingling nonsense! Kudos, Rebecca, on more thoughtful commentary. (It also helps that you’re right!)

  4. Posted by blueheronlocal on April 9, 2009 at 12:22 pm

    Hear, hear! (I think it’s interesting how, if Iowa hadn’t had a gay marriage ban, it might not have been overturned, thus making gay marriage legal.)

    I’m pleased to find this blog by way of my links. And I love the idea of cooking nettles!!

    -goldlentil

  5. Posted by Dustin on April 24, 2009 at 8:16 pm

    I stumbled upon your site tonight. I’ve enjoyed reading some of your gardening posts.
    Your argument conveniently employs the misconception of the separation of church and state. The concept of the separation of church and state came primarily through a statement that pledged that churches would be protected from excessive influence from the government. I highly doubt that many, or any, of our founders intended to eliminate the influence of religion on government. Whether that was a good move on their part or not can be debated, but it certainly seems that most of them valued morals; most esteemed Christian values.
    I do not wish to enter into a debate regarding the possible outcomes of allowing or prohibiting gay marriage. I’ve enjoyed your posts. Thanks!

  6. […] at flying tomato farms with the un-holiest marriage and Quit calling me a “Hobby Farmer…” GirlGriot at If you want kin… with Will This Make My […]

  7. […] at flying tomato farms with the un-holiest marriage and Quit calling me a “Hobby […]

  8. Amen. It’s interesting, too, this whole marriage of church and (fill in the blank). What is most alarming to me from a political/legal perspective are the amount of faith-oriented Universities and Colleges training lawyers. The training is completely focused on fulfilling a “biblical” calling, not a call to laws in modern day, but “God’s” laws… or, more specifically their God’s laws.

    *shivers*

  9. i’m really late to this, and a Canadian just stickin’ my neck out where it perhaps doesn’t belong, but it was my understanding that among the US founding fathers Dustin’s referring to, many were actually vehement and true proponents of the separation of church and state, in a way few politicians could afford to be today.

    Thomas Jefferson is on record as being a radical deist, not even what most Christians today would accept as one of them.

    and that doesn’t mean that they didn’t “value morals.”

  10. […] the un-holiest marriage by Rebecca at Flying Tomato Farms […]

  11. […] the un-holiest marriage by Rebecca at Flying Tomato Farms […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: