If Marriage Is Only A Religious Institution…
Larry Gause, one of two Republicans running to challenge U.S. Representative Hank Johnson in the 2010 congressional election, has argued that the principle of separation of Church and State requires that the government relinquish control of marriage law to churches, and no longer provide legal recognition of the status of marriage. Gause proposes this radical departure from the status quo in order to prevent marriage equality for same-sex couples. Gause writes,
“Same-sex civil unions should not use the term marriage because I believe that is a religious term referring to the union between a man and a woman as witnessed by God. You can give the civil union another name, just not the name marriage.”
If Gause’s change to marriage law were to be accepted, only religious Americans would be allowed to get married. No atheists could get married. Even people who don’t belong to a church might not be able to get married. Churches would become the only organizations authorized to marry people, and so people wanting to get married would be required to support religious organizations.
Consider the other ramifications of Gause’s plan to shrink marriage down to a merely religious state: There would be no laws providing any recognition of any legal rights for married couples. Those laws are of State, not Church, after all. So, laws providing for shared benefits, joint tax status, and so on, would disappear, if Gause had his way…
…unless what Gause is proposing is that the State continue to provide special legal benefits for married couples, benefits that would only be available to people willing to submit themselves to religious authorities. If that’s the case, what Larry Gause is truly proposing is not a separation of Church and State, but Church control over the State.
Marriage was a term given to a religious rite. The government has taken over marriage and given religious leaders the ability to perform a civil contract much like a judge. Marriage should be performed by religious leaders who may perform the rite according to the dictates of their own consciences. The civil part of the contract should be performed in a government building by a government employee so as not to mix church and state. It is a legally binding contract and does not require a ceremony – only signatures and witnesses.
Let religions carry on the religious rites which really have nothing to do with the civil contract.
Randy, you’re aware that the religious ritual isn’t the part that actually makes people married, right? It’s just extra decoration without legal power. Saying “I do” doesn’t make you married. Signing the marriage contract does. Marriage isn’t really religious. It’s a social contract shared by religious and non-religious people alike.
Am I to assume that Larry knows that is 2010? What a backwoods way to think. Georgians need to get it together and get rid of these folks who think the way to run this country is from the 18th century play book. I saw him in person tonight and I can’t even describe how unimpressed I was. Now that Ihave done some research, I know why.