In the discussion surrounding the topic of gay marriage, the separation of church and state is generally viewed as one of the main defences of the pro side of the argument. I, however, tend to think that it is in truth one of the main arguments against it in the legal sphere. The issue is that the concept of marriage currently belongs on some level to both the church and the state, and thus enforcing the separation of church and state requires assigning sole ownership, in other words, sole ability to define/redefine, to one or the other. If we concede that the separation of church and state defends the pro-gay-marriage side, we are effectively conceding that marriage is first and foremost a state matter. Discerning which way the ownership should be assigned requires looking at how the current foot-in-both-worlds state of affairs developed.
Marriage has existed for who knows exactly how long, fundamentally as a religious union, passing down its associated customs and ideas through religion, not government. The government, in turn, used it as a convenient hook on which to hang certain economic and legal institutions. Our government created a specific legal institution and used the same name for it as the religious institution, this I believe was a violation of the separation of church and state… not a serious one in the short term, but it created an avenue for eventual shifts that allowed the state to influence things that should not be in its realm of influence. Now, of course, those shifts are coming to a head, as people look to the state to redefine what marriage means to the culture, when that should not be in its purview in the first place, as our culture is intended to be free.
If we are to get anywhere at resolving this debate, we must begin by reversing the original mistake, untangling the government from any defining authority on the concept of marriage in the culture. I propose we rename the legal institution currently known as “marriage” to some other name, after which extending it to include gay couples will likely receive much less opposition than before. The issue of the definition of “marriage” can then be played out on a cultural stage, rather than a legal one.
concept.mull_over until concept.understand? 