Marriage and Separation of Church and State

Eric Miller’s organization, Advance America, sent out an email just a few hours ago with a recap of the 2007 session of Indiana’s General Assembly. The email recounts how the Indiana House of Representatives failed to pass SJR 7, which was an amendment to the Indiana Constitution that would have protected marriage as between one man and one woman, while also preventing courts from creating civil unions between members of the same sex. Advance America intends to lead a similar effort in the 2008 Legislature to approve SRJ 7.

Genesis 2:24 is the Scriptural foundation for SJR 7’s definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Genesis 2:24 reads: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”

Some object to tying our State’s definition of marriage too closely to its biblical moorings, but their objections cannot change reality. The reason why our culture has embraced heterosexual monogamy as the definition of marriage is because of what the Bible says. Yesterday I wrote how no one has the right to corrupt, redefine, or redesign marriage, since marriage is ultimately God’s idea. We are obligated to conform to God’s design, not visa versa.

If our culture sets aside God’s definition of marriage to accommodate radical homosexual behavior, then there really is no intellectually honest reason, from a moral perspective, to advocate any standard at all for marriage. In other words, if marriage can exist between two members of the same sex, then why can’t there be “marriage” between a man and two women? How about three, four, or five? Why not two men and one woman? Why have marriage at all? The possible scenarios really are endless once God’s definition is discarded.

Here’s the thing. The issue of marriage is one of the clearest illustrations of a critical component of arguments related to the separation of Church and State. A study of history would show that arguments over the separation of Church and State center on the question of jurisdiction. Who has jurisdiction over what? Does the Church have jurisdiction? Or does the State have jurisdiction? Or do they share it somehow?

From the beginning of the fight over these sorts of questions there has been a veritable tug of war between the State and the Church. In the beginning, kings and popes fought over who has jurisdiction over the appointment of bishops in the Church? The answer may seem obvious at first brush; nevertheless, a lot of blood was spilled in the battle during the late 11th and early 12th centuries over who would end up with the privilege of investiture.

In the early days of what is now called, “The Investiture Struggle”, the Church prevailed. However, as time moved forward and as kings and secular political rulers became more powerful, victory shifted from one side and then to the other and then back again.

Currently, the Church is in a very weakened position. The issue of marriage illustrates the point perfectly. If marriage is as sacred as we believe it to be, why then does the Church allow the State almost total jurisdiction over it? In order for two people to become married, they must obtain a license (permission) from the State. The State, in turn, authorizes pastors (and a few others) to perform the ceremony. Someone may be thinking, what’s wrong with that? And the answer is, nothing per se, except that the State honestly believes it has the authority and power to alter the definition at will in accord with its political aims and realities. In effect, the State tells the Church, “we don’t care how the Church defines marriage. It’s none of the Church’s business.”

Lest anyone think, I am being too finicky here, you should know that in some countries, the State has cut out the Church from marriage altogether. Cuba is an example. In Cuba, the State is the only entity authorized to marry. No church, no pastor is authorized to marry, period. In other words, for anyone to get married in Cuba, even Christians, he or she must appear before a magistrate of the State for the ceremony. There is no choice whatsoever. The State, in effect, says, “we have total jurisdiction over marriage.”

Since this is getting to be a long post, I will continue it tomorrow or Saturday…