Church, State, and Marriage

My good friend Tom Weller shared an Eastern Orthodox perspective on gay marriage posted recently on Huffington Post.  The article is half right - correct in its main point, that the State is incapable of sanctifying anything, so asking it to "defend the sanctity of marriage" is pointless.  However, the article is dead wrong on its other point, which is the proper relationship of the Church to the institution of marriage.

Read the article (linked above), then see if you agree with my analysis below the jump.

Dunn claims, on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox faith (and with the full agreement of the Roman Catholic expression of orthodox Christianity), a sacramental status for marriage ("Holy Matrimony").  He is correct in his assertion that the roles of Church and State began to be confused after Constantine.  However, he is incorrect as to which institution is the intruder upon the rightful realm of the other.

From the beginning of human history (and you fundamentalists and evangelicals can feel free to use Genesis as a frame of reference), marriage has been a civil institution.  In ancient times, it was a contractual arrangement (often a strategic alliance) between families, establishing property rights, and enforced by civil authority.  In the Roman Empire, it was regulated by the State.  When Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Empire, and began enforcing doctrine with the sword, he blurred the lines of authority.  Then, when the Empire fell, the Bishop of Rome seized the power of the State, and marriage went from a contract enforced by civil authority to a "sacrament" mediated by the Church.  Now, the Church claimed the authority to control relationships between consenting adults, and contracts between families, and strategic alliances between nation-states.  Instead of civil penalties for breach of contract, behavior was controlled by the threat of excommunication (the social death penalty) and Eternal Conscious Torment (the death penalty is merciful by comparison).

The so-called "sacrament" of Holy Matrimony is a creation of a corrupted human institution claiming the authority of God, based loosely on a statement by Jesus in the context of divorce, and somehow justified by the fact that Jesus attended a wedding, once.  Jesus never told His followers to perform this action, never performed it himself, and never even taught directly on the subject.  When the Church instituted the so-called sacrament, it was exercising the power of the civil government rather than acting in its proper role as the Body of Christ.  It was not destroying the work of the devil, and neither was it reconciling the world to God.  It was using the threat of pain and suffering to control human behavior and enrich its own coffers.  It was not rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God those things that are God's - it was rendering unto Peter the things that are none of anybody's business, using the power of Caesar and the threat of God's wrath.

Modern day calls for the State to protect the "sanctity" of marriage are simply the modern christian industrial complex attempting to regain the power it lost in the 18th century, when civil governments began reclaiming their rightful role in enforcing civil contracts.  They want Caesar to render unto the Church the things that are none of the Church's business.

Jesus talked about marriage once - in the context of responding to a loaded question about divorce.  Rather than take a side in the 1st Century debate between the strict constructionists and living constitutionalists on the Sanhedrin, he appealed to the Creator's original intent with a quote from Genesis and his own interpretive gloss.  Genesis says "a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh."  Jesus interpreted that as "God joins them together", and added that it was not man's place to divide what God had joined.  He was not saying that marriage is not a matter for civil authorities but rather the province of the Church.  He was saying that marriage is between the couple and God.

Civil authorities have a responsibility to administer justice, and enforce contracts (including marriages).  Any theological implications of marriage are of purely private concern between the parties - God does the joining based on the actions and intentions of the couple.  If they want their property rights and contractual obligations enforced, they need a license from the state.  If they would like the recognition and support of their faith community, they need to comply with the community's requirements.  If they want God to consider them one flesh, all they need do is copulate with intent.  This arrangement of roles and responsibilities comports with history, scripture, and common sense.  Expecting the State to enforce religious taboos exhibits a complete lack of faith in God's ability to judge, as well as a misunderstanding of the fundamental nature of marriage and the respective roles of Church and State.

Comments, rants, and intelligent questions are always welcome.