Roger Olson, a theologian at Baylor’s Truett Seminary, has an op-ed in the Waco Tribune-Herald on gay marriage that makes several of the same points I’ve been pushing here at thebigdaddyweave.com over the last couple of years. Here’s Olson:
As a Christian theologian I stand opposed to gay marriage.
However, as a traditional Baptist who believes strongly in separation of church and state, I stand opposed to allowing the government to define and regulate marriage. I regard marriage as a divine institution and therefore spiritual — as the traditional wedding ceremony declares and the Bible affirms.
Under that framework, Christian marriage does not happen when a license is purchased from the government. The marriage license only creates a civil union. By itself, it does not make a man and woman “one flesh” as Jesus taught.
So, let’s separate government-created civil unions and divinely created marriages from each other. Let’s view them as separate institutions—one for purely secular and civil purposes and the other for spiritual and religious purposes.
Let the government create a civil union between any two consenting adults. Why? So that they can own property jointly, have automatic legal right to visit each other in the hospital and make crucial life and death decisions for each other.
But let’s not call that “marriage.”
In my plan only religious (and perhaps quasi-religious) bodies would enact marriages and decide which ones they recognize. If a gay couple gets married in one church, that doesn’t mean the church down the street has to accept that as valid marriage any more than one church has to accept another’s ordination to ministry or baptism.
The government would have to license a civil union between any two consenting adults.
As a Baptist separationist, I too believe that government should get out of the marriage business so to speak. However, it’s worth noting that the plan which Olson attributes to himself (”MY PLAN”) is nothing new and has been around for a number of years. Although, it does seem that more and more folks are buying into the notion that “civil marriage” should be distinctly separated from “religious marriage” with a new name for “civil marriage.”
Here is Olson’s conclusion:
My plan is already the status quo in many countries. Why would anyone object to it in the United States? Only if they have not yet fully grasped the meaning of separation of church and state.
A side benefit of my plan is that two persons of the same gender could enjoy the benefits of civil union — just like any two adults. And it’s useless for gay rights advocates to push further for marriage because they can already be “married” in many churches.
A civil union would give gays everything they are asking for. And they can call it whatever they want to. My disagreeing can’t hurt them — unless they want to join my church.
But, of course, they can join many other churches. Let them go to one of those.
How Welcoming…
Related posts:
- Gay Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts Here are a few more interesting findings from the Faith...
- ABP Op-Ed: On Marriage and Separation of Ch-St Jonathan Lindsey, a retired Baylor University administrator, has an interested...
- Baptist Theologian Blasts John Piper & Calvinism In an op-ed published in the Baylor Lariat, Roger Olson,...
- James Dunn as Neglected Theologian Michael Westmoreland-White of Levellers is hosting a blog series on...
- Every Christian A Lobbyist: A Brief Response To A Texas Baptist Theologian Jim Denison, theologian-in-residence for the Baptist General Convention of Texas,...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
I respectfully disagree with both Olsen and Weaver, although I myself am a Baptist separationist. I stand with Roger Williams’s idea of the two tables of the law. Marriage, having to do with the relationship between people rather than with a person and God, falls within the rightful purview of the civil magistrate.
Granted, my religious convictions influence what I believe about marriage. But my religious convictions also influence what I believe about murder, health care, tax policy, and perjury. I, too, regard marriage as a divine institution. Yet I also regard work as a divine institution. I regard the care of the planet as a divine institution.
Strip away the governmental role in any and all for which I have religious convictions and which I regard as a divine institution, and you’ll have little, if anything, left for the government to govern. Not a tenable solution, nor do I believe it to be a biblical one.
As an alternative (as I stated above), I commend to everyone’s consideration that vanguard thoughts of Roger Williams. The civil magistrate has no business attempting to regulate any person’s relationship with the Almighty. But matters of more mundane human intercourse (including even THAT kind of intercourse), are indeed legitimate objects of governmental attention and regulation.
It will be a political decision which of those aspects to regulate and how to do so. At this juncture my objective is not so much to address the intricate nuances of those questions. Rather, I wish to assert that it is indeed the government’s legitimate business to define marriage, and that my Baptist separationist ideas contradict that fact not at all.
I agree with Olsen (except that my church welcomes and affirms GLBT folk and has performed weddings for same-sex couples), but he should recognize what this would mean: An end to tax breaks for married couples. There are currently some 1,000 federal and state rights that heterosexual married couples have that singles and same-sex couples don’t have.
So, if we go this route, rather than legalizing same-sex civil marriage, we equalize marrieds and singles–and that may be a long overdue justice, too.
That’s not correct.
Olson’s route is to - in the eyes of the government - call a “civil union” what is now referred to as “marriage.”
As Olson writes:
“A couple in civil union would enjoy all the current civil benefits, privileges and responsibilities of marriage. But it wouldn’t be called “marriage” by government”
So, presumably every “married” couple would enter into a civil union for legal purposes. Those with a religious identity would have the option of finding a church to perform the ceremony.
Although, according to Olson, it seems that gays and lesbians are not welcome the church where he holds membership. As he wrote, “Let THEM go to one of those…”
Given that there is at least some diversity on this issue among some of his fellow church members (as there is in most historically moderate Baptist congregations) and no formal church-wide statement that I know of on the subject, I do find it odd (inappropriate?) that Olson would make such a statement in Waco’s only daily newspaper.
The problem with that, BDW, is that civil marriages are called “marriages” and it is very unlikely that this will change. Same-sex civil unions have never had the full equal protections of marriage, which is why Vermont, which already had civil unions, felt compelled to legalize same-sex civil marriages.
Separate is not equal.
Olsen’s proposal (which is, as you say, not new) would put us in a European system. There, people who want to get married go to a judge. If they want a church ceremony BLESSING the marriage, they have one after the civil ceremony. In the U.S. we didn’t do it this way because there were more churches than judges on the frontier.
Theoretically, I, as a GLBT ally, have no objections to reserving the word “marriage” for religious ceremonies. But you’ll never get the thousands of people who only have civil marriages to cease calling them marriages and start calling them “unions” and if same-sex couples aren’t afforded the opportunity to call their unions “marriages,” too, then we are right back where we started.
My church already performs such ceremonies: We call them weddings. Some churches reserve the term “holy unions” for same-sex couples because they don’t have the legal rights as marriage. One hetero couple in our church refused to get a state marriage license and had ONLY a church ceremony–refusing the legal rights of civil marriage until gay couples could have them, too.
I think I’ll stick with advocating marriage equality–and let churches (synagogues, mosques, etc.) recognize or fail to recognize whatever unions they want. That’s their right. But the state has no right to treat some couples differently than others.
Maybe it is unlikely that laws will be changed and the courts will adopt what has been dubbed a solution to the gay marriage controversy by a number of legal scholars from the left, right and center. A version of Olson’s proposal is being pushed by a liberal-conservative legal duo out in California which includes Douglas Kmeic. Unlikely? Maybe. But then again, I’m not sure many folks thought that the Supreme Court in Iowa would legalize gay marriage as they have done.
Separate is not equal. But if a system were in place where marriage was solely regulated by religious authorities and a “civil union” of sorts was under the purview of the government then nobody could make the “separate…equal” accusation.
At that point, folks - gay couples and straight couples - can call their civil union license from the state whatever they so desire. It is what it is though regardless of what an individual calls it.
As many have noted, these type proposals are not anti-marriage equality. Jonathan Turley, a leading legal scholar, has long been a proponent of marriage equality. He merely sees this proposal as a fair solution to the marriage wars. Read Turley here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-04-02-faith-edit_x.htm
I respect Turley’s work (although I wish MSNBC wouldn’t use him as their ONLY go-to Constitutional expert), but it still seems more practical to just legalize same-sex civil marriage and let the churches recognize or not as they see fit.
Olson, the open-theist in a supposed traditional Baptist seminary, has you going needlessly.
There are overwhelming practical, purely social reasons for keeping legal unions heterosexual. You don’t even have to, and shouldn’t, mix church’s/synagogue/mosque’s and state’s different rationales for desiring the same outcome–maintaining the marital status quo that has served both well for centuries.
Olsen says, “I stand opposed to allowing the government to define and regulate marriage.”
But state government laws do regulate adoption. Religious conservatives support adoptive children being raised in heterosexual households. Government recognition of same sex marriage or civil unions, it would seem to me, adds weight to restrictive adoption laws being seen by courts as unlawfully discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Olsen writes: “Let the government create a civil union between any two consenting adults. Why? So that they can own property jointly, have automatic legal right to visit each other in the hospital and make crucial life and death decisions for each other.”
But these are all things that should also be available to single adults with another person of their choosing (without a civil union).