People, groups, states and nations are of course free to use words in fresh ways if they wish. That has always been the case; words are flexible and fluid. But for the vast majority of human history across cultures and geography, and for all the great religious traditions, 'marriage' and its equivalent words in different languages has referred to the (intentionally lifelong) union of a man and a woman. To argue for a change in that is not simply to argue for something that the Christian tradition has never before sanctioned (as though it was simply a 'liberalization' of a small point of arcane religious teaching). It is to change the meaning of the word. If a state wants to do that, fine, but it ought simultaneously to allow -- as a matter of logic, not of ethics -- that people who want to refer to the thing which 'marriage' always used to refer to may need to find another word with which to do it.
Of course, I also believe that there is something about the male-plus-female-for-life business which reflects part of the deep structure of the created order, in which the creator makes and keeps promises to the creation and to his human creatures. And I do believe that states, governments, etc., have a responsibility to order their bit of the world in accordance with the creator's will for creation. (No, I don't mean 'theocracy' as normally conceived... but this would get us into political theology.)
The state is involved in marriage because it is a basic building block of society and it is for the health of the whole community that it is clear who is bonded to whom. (Anyone who's lived or worked in an institution where that isn't quite clear will know the tensions and problems that are thereby set up.) And of course the church should be involved -- I can't speak for other 'religious institutions' but I presume most of them would agree -- because the church is passionately interested in the reflection of the creator's good design and intent in every aspect of life, not least this one which, in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim traditions at least (can't speak so securely for the others), is not merely an odd, perhaps arbitrary rule, but a deep reflection of deep creational and redemptional structure... which brings us back where we started.
Please e-mail On Faith if you'd like to receive an email notification when On Faith sends out a new question.
Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
