Civil union is a legal contract between two adults forming a partnership of responsibility for each other’s lives and the sharing of each other’s property.
Recognizing the unique quality of this arrangement, authorities extend certain rights to a partner of such a union that are not otherwise granted to individuals. States should get out of the wedding business. They should eliminate the words “wedding” and “marriage” from their statutes and write “civil union” in their stead. The church should be denied any role in this. Only in English speaking countries are clergy permitted to make civil unions. Among the several states where I have performed weddings, the process of registering the legal document varies. I am, by oath, a “marriage officer” of one state; in another I paid $10 to the secretary of state to be licensed. In several states there are no prior requirements; I file the executed papers with the town clerk, or the register of deeds, sometimes showing I am an ordained minister. This should stop and I, not otherwise a government official, should be deprived of this role. In most nations, a couple appears at the registry office; both parties state their intentions to unite and their freedom to do so, and take a civil oath. Whatever wedding or marriage ceremony the couple desires comes later and is of no matter to the state. When one is born, one’s parents receive a birth certificate. Baptism may occur three days or a few weeks or 12 years later and is of no matter to the state. “Marriage” and “wedding” are words akin to “baptism.” They suggest pledges, intentions, and responsibilities different from — and more extensive than — what is declared in certificates of civil unions and births. Besides varying cultural implications, there are other considerations: adultery is not a crime but it is a sin, for instance. At the Reformation in the 16th century, Reformed churches in parts of Switzerland and in the Netherlands and Scotland took on the whole marriage business, divorce as well as weddings. After a little time civil authorities thought better of this and appropriated divorce, supervising the separation of property; in most cases, marriage, too. But in Scotland, marriage stayed with the church and this practice spread through the English-speaking world where it remains a curiosity. States will perform “civil ceremonies” upon request. Clergy are allowed, but not required, to do this work. My Session of elders and I may refuse a couple’s petition to be united in our church. We may have personal reasons for this; often we have formal reasons for doing so, saying “no” to requests for a secular ceremony “in your pretty church.” This is our right. Civil unions and divorces are determinations about property and rights. I should have nothing to do with this. Like baptisms, weddings and marriages are my business and should remain so. They will be the more so if we separate church and state, keeping me from doing civil unions and the government, which does not record baptisms, from registering marriages. Thomas Wilson is interim pastor to the yoked parishes of Powelton (Wachapreague) and Belle Haven Churches on Virginia’s Eastern Shore.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
I appreciated very much Thomas Wilson's article … which suggested that it is high time that clergy in the United States cease and desist from having any role in civil marriage contracts.
As a Presbyterian pastor for 34 years, I have always felt a bit uncomfortable signing the marriage license as an agent of the civil authority when my role as a pastor is clearly to witness to the exchange of covenant vows and convey God's blessing and the blessing of the church.
Mr. Wilson cites that in all other countries in the world (except for the United States and Great Britain), a couple must go first to the civil authority for a marriage license to be lawfully married, and then if they wish to exchange covenant vows in a religious ceremony, this is presided over by a member of the clergy. Therefore, members of the clergy have no part in the civil contract of marriage.
This removes the "conflict of interest" where many of us who are clergy feel used by the civil authority in a way that has nothing to do with our calling as ministers. Therefore I strongly affirm Mr. Wilson's admonition for the civil authority to "get out of the church wedding business" (using clergy as their agents), and properly manage civil marriage contracts without any involvement of ministers or other religious officials representing the church.
At the same time, this would free clergy to carry out their proper role with couples who wish to exchange covenant vows in a religious ceremony (that) celebrates the blessing of marriage under God's blessing.
This change is long overdue in the United States, and is not (and should not be) a point of contention in the PC(USA). (Note: This has nothing to do with the debate over traditional and non-traditional marriage as Stephen Brown suggests in the June 2009 edition of "The Layman.")
Dick Lindsey, pastor
Southminster Church
Richmond, Va.