What Conservatives Can Do to Protect their View of Marriage
Conservative
analyst and commentator Charles Krauthammer in a recent piece in the Washington
Post lamented that in striking down DOMA the Supreme Court enumerated equal
protection as one rationale for their decision. He argues (rightfully so) that
the rationale of equal protection will lead eventually to nationalizing gay
marriage.
We
have turned a corner. While conservative states will rev up their stands
against gay marriage as they did when the Supreme Court ruled segregation laws
unconstitutional, their ultimate defeat on the issue of gay marriage is
inevitable.
Just
as there are key transitional stages in biological evolution, so we have now
entered a transitional stage in our spiritual and moral evolution, at least in
our part of the world. Recent polling indicates that in some estimates as much
as 80 percent of the younger generation now supports gay marriage.
What’s
a conservative to do? In an excellent piece in Baptists Today executive editor John Pierce contends that
progressives and conservatives could agree that government should get out of
the marriage business all together, because “holy matrimony belongs to the
church (and other religious communities), not justices of the peace or any
other government official.”
Distinguished
Kentucky
author Wendell Berry argues the same point. In a presentation at Georgetown
College (Kentucky), Berry said that “the sexual practices of consenting adults
ought not to be subjected to the government’s approval or disapproval, and that
domestic partnerships in which people who live together and devote their lives
to one another ought to receive the spousal rights, protections and privileges
the government allows to heterosexual couples.”
In
other words, for the purpose of equal protection under the law (tax benefits,
inheritance rights, etc.) the government should treat all civil unions and
domestic partnerships equally. It should be left solely to religious bodies to
determine who is married according to their rules of faith and practice.
Religious marriages would obviously be recognized by the government as civil
unions, but civil unions would not be limited to marriage. Civil unions
guaranteeing equal protection under the law would include same sex
partnerships.
Would
this not solve the controversy? Marriage is a sacred union most often performed
in religious institutions by a religious leader. God is invoked in the process.
Let religious communities set their own standards for marriage and let
government govern without discrimination.
I
would think that any religious community that believes in the separation of
church and state could champion this modest proposal. If conservatives continue
to fight same-sex marriage on current grounds, they will lose. It is just a
matter of time before a federal mandate will overturn state laws prohibiting
gay marriage. Eventually all 50 states will find themselves on the right side
of history, swept along by the tide of an evolutionary change in spiritual and
moral consciousness, even if they cross over kicking and screaming.
Well said, Pastor Chuck--I think this modest proposal has merit.
ReplyDelete'Doc' Birdwhistell
Lawrenceburg, KY