What does government have to do with marriage?

I was brought up to believe that we had a constitutional separation between church and state — intentionally designed by the founding fathers so they could not tell us what our churches, synagogues, and mosques could and could not do. If that is the case, why are legislators across the country, and most recently in New Jersey, agonizing over bills to define marriage?

Wouldn’t it be better if government’s only role were to recognize the legal relationship between two consenting adults — something that occurs when you get your marriage license? Let’s call that license something other than a “marriage” license and leave the government’s role there.

If a couple wants to declare their lifelong commitment in a religious setting, and a church, mosque or synagogue will perform the service — whether heterosexual or same-sex — so be it.

Critics will claim I do not have an appropriate view of the institution of marriage. Quite the contrary — I see marriage as a sacred commitment that I have happily upheld in the 35 years I have been married to my husband. Similarly, as an elder in my church, I have a deeply held view of houses of worship: I believe this country was founded with the intention of providing, and should continue to protect, our freedom to practice the religion of our choice without the intrusion of the state.

Nowhere is this liberty more important than in the fundamental structure of life and family — the lifelong commitments that undergird our society.

Labels: beyond marriage, culture, New Jersey

VOTE

<< Home