The banns of marriage and the law of the land

As the Supreme Court concluded hearing oral arguments about marriage equality today, I've been asked to offer comments by a number of people.

Allow me to step back a few paces and point out that marriage licenses began at the behest of the Church of England, which was having a whale of a time enforcing monogamy standards in a maritime nation (sailors seemed to have wives in every port).

The Church tried to enforce its moral standards through the “banns of marriage,” an announcement done three Sundays in a row that so-and-so intended to be married; the idea being it would surface a wife. The strategy didn't work, and so the Church asked Parliament to license marriages. The concept was transported to the colonies where it is now a part of our law in the United States. In other words, it is our church that got government into the marriage business in the first place. By the way, Pastor Heather Warren explored this history in great detail at a series of forums in 2011. You can read all of our material HERE.

As a priest in a church, when I preside at a wedding I am also acting as an agent of the state, which is a complete blur of the separation of church and state. It is also raises the question of why one of the sacraments of the Church – Holy Matrimony – is licensed by the state. Baptism and Eucharist are not, but marriage is. Were it up to me, marriage would be a private contract between consenting parties, and the church would be entirely out of the legalities.

I made that argument about a year ago at a panel discussion at the University of Virginia School of Law. One of the panelists pointed out that the difficulty with my argument is that marriage law has provided a common and predictable set of legal guidelines that ordinary people can follow. To make marriage entirely a private contractual arrangement might require people to hire lawyers to get married.

The solution, it seems to me, is to get religion out of the legal marriage business. Those who wish to form a legal union of their relationship, with all the rights and privileges thereto, could go to the courthouse to seal their contract as civil marriage. It wouldn’t matter whether they were same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples. Then if they wished to have their union blessed as marriage, churches and other religious institutions could decide whether they could bless such relationships. Church and state would remain separate, and blessings would remain entirely religious. Each religion could interpret religious law as it sees fit.

And I would not be acting on behalf of the state.

By James Richardson, Fiat Lux

Holy Week: The palms are drying out, the days are wearing on

The palms from last Sunday still adorn our worship space, but they are drying out and will soon disappear. The Cross will soon be veiled in black, but not yet.

St. Paul’s at mid-holy Week is a bustle of activity. Extra hands on Tuesday were cleaning floors. The office staff prepared newcomer packets for Sunday and attended to a thousand other details. I tried to stay out of the way by plugging away on a sermon in my office.

At noon, Father Nik led the Holy Eucharist in the Chapel. He read from a long gospel passage about Jesus teaching in the Temple, and then he bid us to sit in silence for a time to simply be in the presence of the Lord and relax for a few moments.

I welcomed the quiet respite for a time. My eyes focused on the palms behind the chapel altar (in the photograph at right). They look so dry now. The week is wearing on.

When we were through, I went back to my office to work on my sermon. But not getting much creative traction, I looked at my Facebook page. It was ablaze with red-and-pink equality icons.

Many of my friends and relatives had bannered their Facebook pages with the icon because The U.S. Supreme Court was hearing arguments Tuesday and Wednesday about whether gay people should have the same right to marry as straight people.

I’ve long supported marriage rights for all people – gay or straight. Marriage is for those who can make a serious commitment in love for life to their partner. Marriage, as the Book of Common Prayer states, is first and foremost for the “mutual joy” and support of those who make this commitment. Sexual orientation is beside the point, or ought to be.

There is nothing in the Bible that puts limits on God’s call to love-based marriage, but there is a great deal of bias in our culture that is against it. Our culture is shifting, and for the better. We’ll see if the Supreme Court agrees. I changed my profile picture to the red-and-pink equality icon; it seemed like the holy thing to do this Holy Week.

The week is wearing on. And all things will be made new (and sermons will be written).

By James Richardson, Fiat Lux