Get Rid of State Marriage
Archcrone has a pretty interesting post entitled “What is so Special About Marriage.” In it, the Crone discusses the definition of marriage and ends the post with the question, “Perhaps we should just get rid of the whole ‘marriage’ institution an revert back to civil unions.”
As for the definition of marriage, there is the traditional religious definition and then there is the state definition. Most religions consider marriage to be a covenant between man, woman, and God. It is a Holy union.
How the state defines marriage, is well, up to the state. Whether government bases it’s definition on religion or not is up to the people who vote. Since state and God are not the same, obviously the only parties from the religious definition, that can fit into the state definition, are man and woman. My question is, as religious people, why do we care so much about how the state defines marriage?
I agree with the Crone on this one. The state shouldn’t be defining marriage and it’s definition, whatever it is, carries no weight with me.
One of my good friends is a preacher and we had this exact discussion. He, of course, was against gay marriages being recognized by the State. I told him that I was surprised he was in favor of any type of marriage being recognized by the State, being a minister and all. He actually agreed with me after thinking about it.
Religion really f’d up by letting the State get involved in marriage.
It appears that there are two words being used here: Define and Recoginze. These are different terms.
Should the state ‘recoginze’ civil unions? I say no. Should the state define marriage? Perhaps not, but it would matter not if it did not ‘recognize’ any ‘marriage other than one man and one woman. I am for that.