Should Government Be Involved In Marriage At All?

Friday, 27-June-2015, saw a victory for the LGBT community and for all of us. However, declaring same-sex marriage legal is an imperfect solution. In the West, marriage has long been associated with religion, being a union sanctified by the religious institution.

Due to this intertwined relationship between marriage and religion, it is odd how marriage also carries with it legal rights sanctioned by the state. The United States is a secular government. We were founded on principles defined in the Bill of Rights, which clearly states government shall make no laws favoring religion. Thomas Jefferson further defined this when he wrote the First Amendment was "...building a wall of separation between Church & State."

As such, the act of conveying the religious institution of marriage with legal standing recognized by our government is contradictory to the foundation of our secular government. This is a key factor in what lead to the ban on same-sex marriage. Had marriage and religion been kept separate, and marriage recognized only for its legal contract, it is unlikely anyone would have cared who married who.

The best long-term solution to marriage equality, whether it be same-sex, interracial, or otherwise, is to remove government from marriage completely by having the state no longer recognize the legality of any marriage. Instead, all couples would join in a legal civil union granting them the legal benefits traditionally associated with marriage. Any of those joined in a civil union may then optionally seek the blessing of a religious body whose clergy may at their own discretion agree to perform a non-legally binding ceremony of marriage. All existing marriages will automatically be granted a retroactive civil union.

Does this sound like a radical move? Sure. But now that we have legalized same-sex marriage, we have the issue of clergy being potentially forced to perform a marriage rite for a union they philosophically disagree with. This is also a potential violation of their First Amendment rights.

Some will argue this approach makes religious marriage irrelevant, and that no one will respect it. I disagree. It will matter to those who believe in the tenets of a particular religion and seek its blessing of their union. If that is not enough to make a religious marriage relevant, then such a marriage was irrelevant from the start.

While I fully believe this is the right solution for our country, I have little hope of it ever happening. The institution of marriage is thousands of years old and the thought of abolishing it in favor of a pure legal contract flies in the face of long-held traditions. But, it is important to understand how the topic of religion and select moral views insinuate themselves into our government, creating the need for the landmark Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

In the meantime, I shall simply content myself to be happy for those seeking a same-sex marriage. While it is an imperfect solution, it is far better than where we were at.