Jeff Proctor

Imagine a world in which marriage between any two people is illegal. It may sound impossible, but considering the mounting body of evidence that marriage (in its earthly sense) is critically flawed, we must not assume that this imagined scenario is outside the realm of possibility. What then, would Christians do if their government would not unite any two people in marriage. I imagine that they might protest, lobby, and attempt to vote upon changes to recognize their relationships. If unsuccessful, it seems clear that they would continue their practice of religious marriages (that is, being united before God), without government consent. Would this unofficial (as far as the state is concerned) marriage bring with it the Biblical rights and responsibilities that we have today? Of course it would. Sexual activity would be permissible and Ephesians 5 would certainly be taught. In reality, this is the marital bond that Christians already base their lives upon. The government’s sanction of marriage has no bearing over how the Christian relationship is structured. For evidence of this, look no further than the Bible’s complete lack of a prescription for a government stamp of approval for marriage.

After considering the above scenario, return with me to the present day. Marriage between an adult man and woman is allowed. States differ on how they handle juvenile marriages, with most requiring some parental consent. However, some groups in our country, particularly homosexuals, are barred from obtaining a government sanctioned marriage. There are multiple reasons why this is troublesome in a “free” society, and these reasons are addressed below.

First, if the Christian marriage is sanctioned by God, not government, then why should Christians even care about gay marriage? If you believe that God will only sanction a marriage between a man and a woman, a marriage certificate from the State of Massachusetts (issued to two men) should mean nothing to you. In fact, even a straight marriage that leaves God out of the picture is equally as meaningless. Because we know that the Biblical precedent for marriage is between an man and a woman, other attempt to form a union should not be of concern to us. We know what marriage is and we know Who is in charge of it (hint: not Uncle Sam).

Next, government is not an appropriate place for marriages of any kind. Marriage, in terms of the government, is much like almost everything else that the government is involved in. Once they have their hands on it, they want control of it. We must understand that, although gay marriage is the issue of the day, it could easily become the case that certain types of straight marriages are under attack. The only way to make certain that government will not overstep its bounds into personal relationships is to remove them from all forms of those relationships.

Finally, the proposal. How would the legal tolerance approach the issue of marriage and the government benefits associated with it? The solution is quite simple on one hand, but hard to swallow on the other. Marriage benefits were designed because of the human mathematics behind cohabitation. People living together in long-term arrangements use money differently than those that move around. Folks in these relationships would be unwarrantedly strained if treated like individuals in the eyes of the government. This applies equally to a man and woman without children as it does to two women living together (regardless of their sexual orientation or activity). The solution, therefore, is to extend benefits to any adults who wish to be considered a “unit”. I prefer to call these groups “households.” Under my proposal, “householding” is the process by which any group of people go about accessing the benefits currently extended to married people. (Remember: we don’t want government treating male/female marriages in a special way. We don’t want them involved at all. Also, the “true” legal tolerance solution would be to repeal the taxes that married couples receive benefits on in the first place. Assuming that this won’t happen anytime soon, householding provide a suitable intermediate solution.)

In conclusion, true marriage is sanctioned by God, not man or his government. There is no need for a Definition of Marriage Act. That is already been taken care of by God. However, like many other things in our world, people have the freedom to assign terminology somewhat freely. For example, if a Satanist decides to call himself a Christian, does that make him a Christian? Why then, are we so concerned about who is allowed by the government to call themselves “married”? If we are strong in our faith that only God unites us, why do we make ourselves look so weak by thinking that our earthly government must somehow support what God has deemed to be true?