When It Comes To Marriage, It’s Time To Separate Church and State
This recent article in Time magazine(click here) neatly summarizes my commitment to making all couples eligible for civil unions, and keeping the government out of the business of defining who can and can’t be married before God.
Bart, this article is fantastic! I love it, and if there is such a thing as “separation between church and state”, this provides space for everyone to be [politically] equal, as that is not the case right now.
Comment by Andrew Marin — March 19, 2009 @ 6:48 am
Bart,
Don’t you see though, that under your premise the state still is making a decision about who can and cannot be married?? The state is still making a moral judgment, unfortunately, one that is not in line with God’s morality. It’s not an issue of separation of church and state, but an issue of whose morality will govern the state’s decision. As for me, I desire to stand for righteousness in all areas of life, whether in my personal life, my business environment, and in the realm of the government that represents me in society.
Respectfully,
J. Jeremy Ehst
Comment by J. Jeremy Ehst — March 22, 2009 @ 6:07 am
Just a follow-up question for you related to my previous post - and I don’t mean to say this in a spirit of cynicism or condescension…But should we then allow the government to steal, cheat, and lie? After all, those are very fundamental Christian virtues. Wouldn’t imposing restrictions on lying, cheating, and stealing be an infringement of the church upon the state under your premise?
Again, respectfully submitted,
J. Jeremy Ehst
Comment by J. Jeremy Ehst — March 22, 2009 @ 6:35 am
There are some restrictions the government should be imposing on the people. Government is to be “a minister of God to [us] for good” (Rom. 13:4). I believe we should seek to see righteousness in our government’s laws and policies. Paul calls governments, “a minister of God to you for good”… but we should not stop there as the Church. God desires to see voluntary obedience from a circumcised heart. Romans 13:1-5.
Comment by Jimmy — March 29, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
A thought for Mr. Ehst–it’s not that the government should toss ALL Christian values and start endorsing theft, murder, etc. People who are not Christian can get on board with rules that allow for citizens to be protected from other’s poor choices. It’s just that a lot of people (Christian and otherwise) fail to see how gay marriage is harmful to anyone. I know the conservative arguments–it’s just not all that convincing to a lot of people. And I think anyone who knows a gay or lesbian person can understand how not being allowed to be married is, at the very least, terribly frustrating and devaluing. Gov’t doesn’t need to be a part of that. (In my opinion, of course).
Comment by Lana — March 30, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
My question is…why are we concerned with the American government endorsing Christian values? Why Christian values? What makes them better than any other religion’s values? Because they are YOUR values or what YOU believe to true, that makes them better some how?
Comment by Naomie — May 10, 2009 @ 10:35 am
In response to Mr. Jeremy…the government is last insitution that is setting my moral values. It is not in a role to set or control morality…only legality. What is good for the whole is the only question it is set up to answer and possible defend. If religious liberty is one of the “legalities” that can be maintained by the government, then it should be maintained to the full. We are upset that Christian marriage will become defined by “state” marriage. Will Islamic marriage, Hindu marriage, or Jewish marriage somehow threaten the definition of “Christian” marriage?
Freedom and liberty and love for all before legislating my beliefs upon others.
Comment by Bart Thau — May 18, 2009 @ 9:43 am
Ok, so I’ve joined the conversation a little late here, but there’s a whole range of practical and legal reasons why civil marriage documentation (or civil unions, domestic partnerships, call them what you want) is needed.
Here are a few that come to mind:
1) Immigration for international spouses
2) Health care coverage for spouses
3) Couples filing joint tax returns
4) “Next of kin” status for spouses if they don’t have a living will to determine things like inheritance benefits or emergency medical decisions
5) Social security benefits for spouses (which affects far more women than men since they tend to have less lifetime earnings due to various social factors)
6) Legal ties that provide a process (albeit a flawed one) for divorce, child custody and division of assets. If divorce is easy now, think of how easy it would be if there were no paperwork or family court. Again this is another safety net that protects more women than men. Without laws to regulate marriage or divorce, (who is married vs. who is not) children are at an even greater risk to be abused or neglected as a result of the fluctuating emotions and behaviors of their parents.
If anyone is interested, I’ve explored the implications of “getting government out of the marriage business” at my blog:
http://thecommonloon.blogspot.com/2009/07/more-than-private-ceremony-why.html
Comment by Dan S. — October 9, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
Its really great, this blog has got really very great stuff which helps us to know what is actually going on. This is really a very great blog it has very good postings too. keep up the good work going.
Comment by Abusive Tax Shelter — March 1, 2010 @ 3:24 am
Good postings on very good blog i read this blog with very much interest it has got all the required stuff this is really a nice blog keep the good work going.
Comment by Plc Programming — March 19, 2010 @ 4:06 am
Following my own monitoring, millions of people in the world get the credit loans at well known banks. So, there is great possibilities to get a commercial loan in every country.
Comment by Wyatt25Brenda — June 8, 2010 @ 7:45 pm