Christian Clergy Performing Marriages May be Hoisted on Their Own Petard.
Yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States refused to here the appeals of the five states that had previously attempted to prohibit same sex marriage. Although many gay couples and some Christian clergy are rejoicing at what they see as an endorsement of freedom and love, the non-decision-decision is an epic change which I submit will lead to a constitutional and social crisis. Together the 9th and 10th amendments of the US Constitution set aside the powers and jurisdiction not enumerated as belonging to the federal government as belonging to the states. As with Roe v. Wade in the 70's the Supreme Court has in affect created federal law where none previously existed and where it lacked jurisdiction to act. The founders of the country felt the federal government should not be involved in intimate personal decisions, because such decision are individual and community. The problem with the courts getting involved in this is it eliminates people's ability to make moral choices.
If the federal government decides who can get married, then professionals who serve engaged couples can not discriminate in their services. All ready bakeries and photo studios who have moral objections to homosexual marriage have been required by the court to provide support for life styles to which they object. If George and John or Mary and Rose go to the county court house and are issued a legal marriage certificate, then doesn't anyone who provides wedding services have to honor that legal contract? If a baker can be forced to bake cakes for marriages they object to and photographers can be forced to photograph weddings they object to, then are officiants -- judges, notaries or clergy required to perform a state sanctioned marriage? Can a gay couple go to a Rabbi, Imam, Priest or Pastor and force them to perform a wedding contrary to their belief system? Am I as a clergy person officiating a wedding under the authority of the state or the authority of God?
This is why legalizing gay marriage as opposed to creating a separate legal status such as a civil union for homosexual couples will inevitably lead to a cataclysmic constitutional crisis. All of Western Civilization for all of its history has considered marriage to be a spiritual and sexual union in which the state had an interest since marriages usually create families which under-gird society. The Bible's view of marriage is that it is a union between God, and a man and a woman for the purpose of reflecting the Trinitarian union of three Divine Persons to the world and building families and societies under their authority (Genesis 1: 26-28; 2: 18-25; Malachai 2:14-16; Matthew 19: 1-6; Ephesians 5: 31 & 32). While some Christian clergy disregard the obvious teaching of scripture, the words of Scripture and Christ regarding marriage are irrefutably clear. While love is essential to a happy marriage, love is transitory and is not the basis for a Christian union. The essence of marriage is a commitment to reflect the essential unity and oneness of the Trinity and spread His glory and authority in the family and society. Marriage from a Christian point of view is far more than two people lovingly being committed to take care of each other. Since marital unions usually create families and since those families have social obligations and relationships the state has an interest in providing a legal bond behind the marriage. The obligations, duties and responsibilities need the protection of law. History has seen heterosexual marriage as necessary for the continuation of society and has therefore provided legal certification for marriages even when peoples reasons for marriage were wholly secular. Recent courts decision have defined marriage as a civil union, as a contract that gives committed loving people equal rights and responsibilities under the law.
The problem with litigating same sex marriage rights is that in most legal relationships life partners are treated with equal respect any way, where they are not, such as in some health care decisions, state documents can be filled giving same sex partners rights of health care representation. A court decision was unnecessary to create binding legal unions between loving same sex couples. Those rights all ready existed in law and in practice. The agenda behind this movement goes much further. Some of those who seek to gain status for same sex marriage are striving for a complete re-ordering of the social and cultural system. The decision to make same sex unions marriages means the court no longer recognize the biblical definition of marriage. A legal marriage and a Christian wedding are quite different relationships.
According to Malachai 2:14-16 a wedding forms a relationship between God and before witnesses, whereby a man and a woman unite physically and spiritually for the advancement of his kingdom purposes. It is a spiritual covenant that operates within certain moral, spiritual and relational boundaries. A civil marriage is simply a contract between two loving people to insure they have equal rights and protection under the law. Previous to recent court decisions government and churches recognized and supported the role each played in contributing to healthy whole families, allowing same sex marriages in affect denudes the role of the church in marriage. Officiating at a marriage and declaring the union under the authority vested in me by the state is in direct conflict with my symbolic role at a church wedding. A Christian wedding is the solemnization of a relationship between God a man and a woman that brings about "offspring for him;" in other words, whether a particular couple have children, they are advancing the kingdom of God through the family they establish. The courts have ruled that a legal marriage is broader and more inclusive and that people -- bakers, photographer, dress makers -- must provide services regardless of their views of marriage. The legal marriage license does not allow for a distinction between Christian marriage and a civil union.
As an ordained minister I question what my role in weddings should be: Since homosexual marriage is contrary to my understanding of scripture and since a Christian marriage carries with it moral and spiritual commitments far beyond a civil marriage, and an orderly social infrastructure; since that recognition no longer exists I question my role in a wedding. Am I diminishing the importance and solemnity of marriage by signing a legal certificate and pronouncing the ceremony as being done under law? If I restrict my participation in legal marriages to heterosexual marriages due to my belief system, while signing a legal marriage certificate do I risk a discrimination suit from a homosexual or a polygamist? How can I officiate a legal marriage while discriminating against others who are legally qualified? When I officiate at a Christian marriage I lead a worship service solemnizing a spiritual and physical union and symbolizing a biblical view of family to which the authority of the state attests something entirely different? Solemnizing a Christian wedding under state authority is duplicitous.
I am going to find it difficult to perform legally certified marriages under U.S. law. Were someone to approach me now about doing their wedding I would advise them that I can officiate in a worship service that spiritually solemnizes their union, but that I am unable to sign a marriage certificate issued by any state. Since recent court rulings make the states view of marriage dichotomous to the scriptures, when I officiate at a wedding I am declaring before God that the couple before me are living their union in accord with scripture which is entirely different from a ceremony based on powers vested in me by the state. I also prefer to honor a commitment to a Christian world view without putting myself a risk of litigation. So as a matter of practice someone whom I married would need to go to the courthouse and have a magistrate, notary, or judge complete the legal contract with two witnesses present. The couple would be married at that time and able to exercise all rights and responsibilities and have all protections the law afforded unto them. Separately from that if they desired to commit their relationship to Christ and their union to him I would then perform a ceremony to solemnize their civil marriage. The courts have now left clergy in a position of either having to define marriage at every service they perform, offering a disclaimer about their state pronouncement, or simply recognizing that a Christian wedding is something quite different from the civil union the state recognizes. A Christian clergy person who performs a state sanction wedding is hoisted on his own petard.
If the federal government decides who can get married, then professionals who serve engaged couples can not discriminate in their services. All ready bakeries and photo studios who have moral objections to homosexual marriage have been required by the court to provide support for life styles to which they object. If George and John or Mary and Rose go to the county court house and are issued a legal marriage certificate, then doesn't anyone who provides wedding services have to honor that legal contract? If a baker can be forced to bake cakes for marriages they object to and photographers can be forced to photograph weddings they object to, then are officiants -- judges, notaries or clergy required to perform a state sanctioned marriage? Can a gay couple go to a Rabbi, Imam, Priest or Pastor and force them to perform a wedding contrary to their belief system? Am I as a clergy person officiating a wedding under the authority of the state or the authority of God?
This is why legalizing gay marriage as opposed to creating a separate legal status such as a civil union for homosexual couples will inevitably lead to a cataclysmic constitutional crisis. All of Western Civilization for all of its history has considered marriage to be a spiritual and sexual union in which the state had an interest since marriages usually create families which under-gird society. The Bible's view of marriage is that it is a union between God, and a man and a woman for the purpose of reflecting the Trinitarian union of three Divine Persons to the world and building families and societies under their authority (Genesis 1: 26-28; 2: 18-25; Malachai 2:14-16; Matthew 19: 1-6; Ephesians 5: 31 & 32). While some Christian clergy disregard the obvious teaching of scripture, the words of Scripture and Christ regarding marriage are irrefutably clear. While love is essential to a happy marriage, love is transitory and is not the basis for a Christian union. The essence of marriage is a commitment to reflect the essential unity and oneness of the Trinity and spread His glory and authority in the family and society. Marriage from a Christian point of view is far more than two people lovingly being committed to take care of each other. Since marital unions usually create families and since those families have social obligations and relationships the state has an interest in providing a legal bond behind the marriage. The obligations, duties and responsibilities need the protection of law. History has seen heterosexual marriage as necessary for the continuation of society and has therefore provided legal certification for marriages even when peoples reasons for marriage were wholly secular. Recent courts decision have defined marriage as a civil union, as a contract that gives committed loving people equal rights and responsibilities under the law.
The problem with litigating same sex marriage rights is that in most legal relationships life partners are treated with equal respect any way, where they are not, such as in some health care decisions, state documents can be filled giving same sex partners rights of health care representation. A court decision was unnecessary to create binding legal unions between loving same sex couples. Those rights all ready existed in law and in practice. The agenda behind this movement goes much further. Some of those who seek to gain status for same sex marriage are striving for a complete re-ordering of the social and cultural system. The decision to make same sex unions marriages means the court no longer recognize the biblical definition of marriage. A legal marriage and a Christian wedding are quite different relationships.
According to Malachai 2:14-16 a wedding forms a relationship between God and before witnesses, whereby a man and a woman unite physically and spiritually for the advancement of his kingdom purposes. It is a spiritual covenant that operates within certain moral, spiritual and relational boundaries. A civil marriage is simply a contract between two loving people to insure they have equal rights and protection under the law. Previous to recent court decisions government and churches recognized and supported the role each played in contributing to healthy whole families, allowing same sex marriages in affect denudes the role of the church in marriage. Officiating at a marriage and declaring the union under the authority vested in me by the state is in direct conflict with my symbolic role at a church wedding. A Christian wedding is the solemnization of a relationship between God a man and a woman that brings about "offspring for him;" in other words, whether a particular couple have children, they are advancing the kingdom of God through the family they establish. The courts have ruled that a legal marriage is broader and more inclusive and that people -- bakers, photographer, dress makers -- must provide services regardless of their views of marriage. The legal marriage license does not allow for a distinction between Christian marriage and a civil union.
As an ordained minister I question what my role in weddings should be: Since homosexual marriage is contrary to my understanding of scripture and since a Christian marriage carries with it moral and spiritual commitments far beyond a civil marriage, and an orderly social infrastructure; since that recognition no longer exists I question my role in a wedding. Am I diminishing the importance and solemnity of marriage by signing a legal certificate and pronouncing the ceremony as being done under law? If I restrict my participation in legal marriages to heterosexual marriages due to my belief system, while signing a legal marriage certificate do I risk a discrimination suit from a homosexual or a polygamist? How can I officiate a legal marriage while discriminating against others who are legally qualified? When I officiate at a Christian marriage I lead a worship service solemnizing a spiritual and physical union and symbolizing a biblical view of family to which the authority of the state attests something entirely different? Solemnizing a Christian wedding under state authority is duplicitous.
I am going to find it difficult to perform legally certified marriages under U.S. law. Were someone to approach me now about doing their wedding I would advise them that I can officiate in a worship service that spiritually solemnizes their union, but that I am unable to sign a marriage certificate issued by any state. Since recent court rulings make the states view of marriage dichotomous to the scriptures, when I officiate at a wedding I am declaring before God that the couple before me are living their union in accord with scripture which is entirely different from a ceremony based on powers vested in me by the state. I also prefer to honor a commitment to a Christian world view without putting myself a risk of litigation. So as a matter of practice someone whom I married would need to go to the courthouse and have a magistrate, notary, or judge complete the legal contract with two witnesses present. The couple would be married at that time and able to exercise all rights and responsibilities and have all protections the law afforded unto them. Separately from that if they desired to commit their relationship to Christ and their union to him I would then perform a ceremony to solemnize their civil marriage. The courts have now left clergy in a position of either having to define marriage at every service they perform, offering a disclaimer about their state pronouncement, or simply recognizing that a Christian wedding is something quite different from the civil union the state recognizes. A Christian clergy person who performs a state sanction wedding is hoisted on his own petard.
Comments
Post a Comment